Log in

View Full Version : “OWS” at a Turning Point – For a Strategy of Mass Action by the Working Class! (LRP)



RedTrackWorker
18th November 2011, 21:46
http://lrp-cofi.org/statements/owsturningpoint_111711.html

Bulletin of the League for the Revolutionary Party
The LRP distributed this bulletin at the rally at Foley Square in New York on November 17, 2011.

Occupy Wall Street at a Turning Point
For a Strategy of Mass Action
by the Working Class and Poor!

The Mayor and the cops attack on the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) encampment at Zuccotti Park in Manhattan, and the crackdown on similar occupations in cities across the country, mark a turning point in the struggle.

The capitalist media have done their best to discourage working-class support for the occupations by focusing coverage on stories of drum circles, drug use and violence. But working peoples hatred of Wall Street and the rest of the profiteers who rule this country has proven far stronger than any distrust of the protesters. Polls of public opinion confirm that the occupations enjoy popular support.

The OWS protests have tapped into the widespread sense of injustice at the multi-billion dollar bailouts of banks and corporations and the ongoing efforts to make working-class and poor people foot the bill with layoffs and budget cuts. Moreover, they have encouraged workers to think that perhaps its time to take action and turn around the ever-worsening war on their jobs and living standards.

After the Big Protest - What?
By taking the initiative to protest at Wall Street and by courageously standing up to violent police attacks, the OWS protests have changed political consciousness in this country. The idea of mass action against economic injustice has proved itself popular after decades of retreats and defeats for workers.

These achievements should not leave us satisfied, however, if the protests dont realize their greatest potential. With winter approaching and police attacks escalating, the potential to spark struggles by working-class and poor people is in danger of being extinguished.

It feels great to be a part of a big protest, united with thousands in a common cause. But protests must be used to advance the organization of workers and poor people to struggle for their demands. Otherwise, even big protests like todays can hide the reality that a precious opportunity to start building a working-class movement of mass action risks being lost.

We in the League for the Revolutionary Party have warned from the outset of the struggle that the OWS protests could not simply grow based on their model of tent-cities composed of mostly better-off, young white people. The Wall Street protests need to be transcended by a movement of mass struggles by and for the prime victims of the economic crisis working-class and poor people, and especially Blacks, Latinos and immigrants. That means marches, strikes and workplace occupations demanding an end to cutbacks, layoffs and foreclosures, to start with, and calling for a major program of public works to provide jobs for all.

Can OWS Spark a Bigger Working-Class Movement?
So far, however, the OWS protests have not realized their potential to spark a working-class fightback. The major reason is that the leaders of the unions, practically the only force that workers can turn to for organization against the capitalist attacks, have refused to mobilize their members.

The OWS protests exposed the fact that the unions had not organized a single action against Wall Street since the economic crisis broke over two years ago. To cover up this embarrassing fact, union leaders have made important gestures of solidarity with the occupations, but they have done little to actually organize their members onto the streets. They have donated food to occupiers, but at the same time they have continued to agree to layoffs and cutbacks that take food off their members tables. They have donated meeting rooms to Wall Street protest organizers, but they havent organized meetings of their own members to discuss how to build a fightback.

Right now in New York the potential for a working-class fightback led by the unions is particularly good. The contract for the citys subway and bus workers expires soon and their leaders in TWU Local 100 are already in negotiations with the bosses. Transit workers have already shown their ability to bring the city to a crawl by striking and could show the way forward for all the citys working-class and poor people. The citys janitors and building workers, drawn primarily from among New Yorks most exploited and oppressed immigrant workers are organized in SEIU Union Local 32 B-J; they also have a contract expiring and are negotiating with the commercial real estate bosses in the same building as the transit negotiations. But transit and janitorial workers can testify that their unions have not so much as circulated a leaflet encouraging worker participation in todays protest, let alone sent their officials, delegates and shop stewards to bring workers out to protest.

The attitude of the OWS leaders who control the movements website and newspaper has also played a part. For example, the occupations Demands Working Group proposed to call on the government to create jobs for the unemployed through a big public works program. Such demands could have encouraged workers to join the struggle with the knowledge that it is a fight for some of their most essential needs. But that proposal was opposed by the occupations secretive, unaccountable leaders, who declared that demands are unnecessary. One reason given was that we are our demands expressing their satisfaction with the movement remaining an act of moral protest by mostly better-off young white people.

To realize the potential for a working-class fightback against the capitalist attacks, the most militant workers and young people will have to pressure the union leaders to act, all the while preparing an alternative political leadership that wont be a conservative brake on the movement in the future.

Oakland: A Lost Opportunity?
The treacherous role of union leaders and their allies in the Democratic Party is best shown by recent events in Oakland, California. The country was shocked by images of the police attack on Oakland occupiers on the night of October 25. Under the orders of Mayor Jean Quan, riot police attacked peaceful protesters with stun grenades, tear gas and other projectiles, almost killing one Iraq war veteran and injuring many others.

The next day, the Oakland occupations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of a general strike to shut the city down. But sometimes the most radical-sounding proposal is not the most threatening to the ruling class. What at first appeared to be an inspiring call for working-class struggle now looks more like a lost opportunity.

For workers to support a call for a general strike, they must know that to win their demands, such drastic action is necessary. But most of Oaklands workers had yet to be mobilized in even a protest, so there was no reason to think that they were ready to violate anti-strike laws, risking fines and firing, to make a general strike happen. Furthermore, the Occupy Oakland General Assembly failed to raise the basic demand for the resignation of the mayor and police chief who directed the cop attack.

When the day of action came, while top union bodies had endorsed the strike call in words, and while some workers courageously refused to go to work, no union actually went on strike and none were expected to do so. What did happen was a massive, inspiring protest of tens of thousands that marched on the citys docks and succeeded in shutting down work there for a shift. But the next day the mayor and police chief were still in office, plotting with their counterparts in other cities to sweep the occupations away. And since then they have succeeded.

Oaklands protesters have done the working class a positive service by putting the idea of a general strike in the minds of broad numbers of activists and workers it is a tactic that we in the LRP have always made a point of promoting. But suppose the demand had been made for the unions and all community organizations to mobilize for a massive march to surround City Hall demanding the ouster of the mayor and police chief and an end to all anti-working class budget cuts. Then, either real victories could have been won or the basis for an escalating campaign of mass action, up to a general strike, could have been laid.

If a massive protest in Oakland forced the mayor and police chief to resign, all the countrys mayors would have feared moving on protests in their cities. Proof that mass protests can win demands would have encouraged struggles across the country.

Most importantly, had a massive protest forced the resignation of Oaklands mayor, a history-making break from electoralism would have been achieved. Struggles against anti-working-class attacks by city and state governments are constantly misdirected into electoral campaigns that end the empowering experience of mass action and most often lead to defeat.

Just consider the recent campaign against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walkers anti-union laws. There, union protests and occupations empowered workers to start making realistic calls for a general strike. But the union leaders effectively ended that struggle in favor of a pro-Democratic Party campaign to recall Republican legislators, which failed miserably.

Oakland could have given militant workers and youth everywhere proof that they need not wait for elections to oust anti-working class politicians. Instead, Oaklands day of protest served to let off steam rather than pave the way for a growing struggle. The mayor and police chief, their positions unthreatened, quickly regained the upper hand, sweeping the occupation from Oscar Grant Park and paving the way for police attacks on occupations across the country.

We Are the 99% The Problem with Populism
The anti-Wall Street protests may exhaust themselves before achieving their potential of sparking a working-class fightback. This highlights the limitations of the political perspective that has dominated the movement so far. Consider the slogan We are the 99% which was popularized by Occupy Wall Street and has since been appropriated by sellout leaders of all stripes, from union bureaucrats to Democratic Party politicians. The slogan seems to unite the greatest possible number of people against the super-wealthy minority who sit atop this capitalist society. But the slogan ignores the fundamental structures of power and oppression that divide society and keep the mass of people poor and exploited. Indeed it hides the role of the very forces most responsible for preventing a working-class fightback in the first place.

The fundamental division in capitalist society is between the tiny minority who own and control the economy and direct it for their profit, and the vast majority who must work for them to survive. That is the division between the capitalists and the working class.

But between the capitalists and the working class there is a large middle class of small business people, skilled professionals and other privileged types. As capitalist profiteering drives the working class deeper into poverty and intolerable living conditions, the need for a massive fight to win drastic changes makes itself ever more acutely felt by workers and poor people, and especially by Blacks, Latinos and immigrants are disproportionately in the working class. The middle class, on the other hand, has a stake in the system and can hope that with only a few minor changes at the top, like Obamas proposal to slightly raise taxes on the 1% to maintain some jobs and services, they can get back to living the American Dream.

The problem is that for as long as a mass working-class fightback is delayed, capitalism will continue to drive workers deeper into poverty, and will continue to push more and more middle-class people out of their privileged positions and down into the working class and beyond. Whats needed is not just a struggle to lend working-class numbers and power to Occupy Wall Streets goals. A struggle to defend the working class from the demands of capitalist austerity and profiteering is needed in order to defend the living standards of all. That means not just working-class action but working-class leadership of the struggle.

As long as the populist idea of 99% of the population united against a greedy 1% dominates the movement, the specific interests of the working class, poor and oppressed people will be neglected and betrayed. We have seen this in the OWS leaderships opposition to demands like Jobs for All! And we have seen it in the far worse betrayals by the leaders of the unions. Since the economic crisis broke out, the union bureaucrats have been more concerned with keeping their positions of power and privilege as deal-makers with the capitalists and politicians than with organizing struggles to defend the members jobs and living standards.

Indeed, the union bureaucrats treacherous role is a sharp example of how the middle class serves as the capitalist ruling classs force for maintaining social stability, so that exploitation of the masses of workers can continue. Day-to-day, they are even more important than the capitalists last line of defense, the courts and cops, who are deadly enemies of the workers and oppressed people and who are also included as supposed allies in the populist illusion of the 99%.

For Workers Revolution!
A huge working-class led mass movement would help convince many that the way to ensure a decent life with jobs, health care, and all the other necessities for all people is to take the power to run society out of the hands of the capitalist bosses and their politicians. And working-class and poor people are finally starting to fight back. The revolutionary uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, where workers strikes played decisive roles in toppling dictators there, as well as the mass militant workers protests in Greece, are significant signs that in response to the bosses attacks there will be a surge in uprisings around the world.

The most politically conscious workers and youth will come to see, by way of struggles today as well as the study of Marxism and the history of past struggles, that the working class can stop the capitalist economy and the capitalists profiteering. It is workers who make society run. More will begin to see the need to overthrow capitalist rule and seize power ourselves. But workers need a new political leadership a revolutionary working-class party that fights for building the best possible defense today while aiming to convince our fellow workers of the need to overthrow the capitalists. That means replacing their rule with a working-class state power dedicated to building a society of abundance, freedom and justice for all.

The League for the Revolutionary Party is a working-class revolutionary socialist organization that includes transit workers, CUNY workers and students and others. We fight for united struggle against the capitalist attacks while working to convince fellow workers and youth of revolutionary goals. We defend and develop Marxist theory as a guide to action: a scientific analysis of this society and its crisis shows that socialist revolution is the only solution to our problems. We believe that to get to that revolution and to lead our struggles today, we need to build a revolutionary party based on the working class. We hope that revolutionary-minded workers and youth will join us in this and look forward to discussing these ideas as we fight for a better life for all.

Billions for Bankers Layoffs and Cutbacks for Workers and Youth? HELL NO!

For Workers Mass Action against the Capitalist Attacks!

Stop All the Anti-Working-Class Budget Cuts!

Hands off Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid!

For a Massive Public Works Program Jobs for All!

Stop Racist and Anti-Immigrant Attacks! Stop Police Brutality!

Democrats and Republicans: Two Parties of War, Racism and Anti-Worker Attacks!

Socialist Revolution is the Only Solution!

Build the Revolutionary Party of the Working Class!

thefinalmarch
18th November 2011, 22:30
Build the Revolutionary Party of the Working Class!
eugh...

Nothing Human Is Alien
18th November 2011, 23:46
Also the shit about the "mostly privileged white kids" is horseshit. It's great to see the left sects repeat the same garbage as the rightists.

Keep in mind that I don't share the left's creepy obsession with "people of color" (I really hate that idiotic sociology term -- what's the difference between saying "people of color" and "colored people"?). This is especially common with the New Leftovers in the U.S.. It's almost like backward racism -- trying to collect dark skinned people like baseball cards or something. More points for the sect that recruits the most blacks! :rolleyes: The logical conclusion of liberal white guilt I guess.

I also think is a symptom of the left in the U.S. being a dinosaur from a bygone era. Even a lot people in my parent's generation are shocked by things like "interracial dating." Most of them grew up in "all white" or "all black" etc. neighborhoods. Segregation still existed in their lifetimes.

For people my age it's not even something most people mention. My friends have always been of different shades, from different countries, etc. Everyone dates everyone. Race, country, who gives a shit. No one brings it up. I would estimate that a majority of the groups of friends, coworkers, students, couples, etc., I see on a daily basis in the city are "interracial."

Even in Pennsylvania with all its reactionary garbage, where I know there are people my age who have a lot of the old racist baggage of past generations, a majority of the people I know have dated "outside of their race" and have friends of different colors.

Fuck, I was in the Ozark mountains in Arkansas and I met a bunch of "interracial" friends and couples. Little white kids listen to Lil Wayne in the back of their mom's minivan folks -- it's almost 2012.

Of course racism exists. And it has to be examined, analyzed, and addressed. But the obsession with race, and especially with racial quotas doesn't with normal people. Ironically it's the far right and ultra-nationalists that talk about it most, with their left wing counterparts following suit.

Never heard about it when with friends in the Bronx, in Harlem, in Queens. Ever. In 10 years. You know when I hear it? When I see some neo-Nazi shit, read some crap from a left sect, or talk to some sociology student from a liberal arts college.

It seems to me the same reason the left obsesses over this is the same reason it's dominated by old activists and college kids.

On Tuesday, I was chilling with a group of people at Zuccotti. I met some at Duarte Square during the action there and others joined our discussion / informal group when we returned. We were talking about the media's bullshit coverage of the movement. A Filipino guy who was with us, who has been at Occupy since the beginning, was looking around and he said "Look, you can see that this shit about this being all white kids is ridiculous, not even half of the people here are white." It was the first mention of the question -- and everyone in our group agreed.

And of course the weird race stuff ignores the question of class. There are a lot of middle class "people of color." A LOT. Especially in places like NYC, DC, etc. I've talked to a lot of black, asian, latin, etc., people at occupy who were from rich areas, had middle class parents, had graduate degrees, were "independent professionals," etc. Also met a lot of dirt poor white kids. It ignores facts like "In Queens, the black population earns more than whites on average." (source (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/nyregion/01census.html)) It ignores the existence of "people of color" in management, in the police, in government, in the millionaire and billionaire bourgeoisie -- of Obama and the illusions a lot of black folks have in him, even now. A lot of the misleaders -- people like Charles Barron and Jesse James, along with union bureaucrats like Roger Toussaint -- are "people of color," and seems to be the main rationale for supporting them. "Black faces in high places" .... and the left refuses to confront this garbage.

Race is a social construct, not a biological reality. It's used to divide. Racism itself came in with a boom with capitalism, which was able to utilize it perfectly.

"If you know the history of the whole concept of whiteness—if you know the history of the whole concept of the white race, where it came from and for what reason—you know that it was a trick, and it’s worked brilliantly. You see, prior to the mid to late 1600s, in the colonies of what would become the United States, there was no such thing as the white race. Those of us of European descent did not refer to ourselves by that term really ever before then." - Tim Wise, The Pathology of Privilege

"Historically, 19th century Europeans classified peoples in their colonies into a hierarchy of categories which placed northern Europeans at the top of a pseudo-evolutionary scale. They saw the dark, primitive peoples of the colonies as suitable for enlightenment by the civilized nations of Europe which often translated into economic and social exploitation and sometimes genocidal policies." - "Race" as a Social Construct
(http://www.gossamer-wings.com/soc/Notes/race/tsld002.htm)
"The European colonists who founded the United States ... accepted the idea of racial hierarchy that was prevalent in Europe at the time. It was just too convenient: The socially constructed concept of race was a powerful tool that aided them in the conquest of the continent... Because they believed that races were genetically different (although they didn't describe it in those terms), many saw the exploitation of the Indians and Africans as no different from the use of farm animals. For such thinkers, the fact that the Bible had no explicit proscription against slavery justified the importation of millions of slaves from the western shores of Africa to meet the growing needs of agricultural production in the colonies." - The Problem, Simply Stated. The Race Myth: Why We Pretend Race Exists in America (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.enotalone.com/article/5043.html), by Joseph L. Graves Jr., Ph.D.

The construct continues on today as an element of this society. It won't be eliminated by "anti-racist action," "diversity," "reverse racism," or any other activist method which actually works to strengthen the concept of racial division, to the detriment of the international working class.

When you show up to a mass action, with people locked arm-in-arm defending themselves from police, and complain that it's a bunch of "privileged white kids" you just expose yourselves as the outdated, isolated sect that you are.

PS. I saw the LRP table yesterday, and 4 supporters/members/whatever hoisting LRP signs. Looked like you were all a bunch of "white" folks to me.

black magick hustla
19th November 2011, 05:52
coo

thank you man. i remember i sat in a classroom about race theory or some shit and there where all this white kids and the professor was this militant black nationalist and it was always about guiltripping the fuck out of them. so once i dont remember what he told me and i was like dude i am not white you cant pull that bullshit card on me, and the few black people just started laughing. nobody takes that shit seriously anbd the academics that abuse it are well aware that a lot of it is opportunistic. as i said before, race is real and it does affect the everyday life of a lot of people, but there is a difference between ghetto riots and black worker wildcat strikes in auto industries, than the boring identity shit that comes out of sociology and english departments.

HEAD ICE
19th November 2011, 06:10
nhia with the home run

RedTrackWorker
19th November 2011, 06:30
First, I would say the most important point of the statement is on the need to transcend what OWS to build a broader working-class movement. Is that not relevant and important to discuss, along with clarity about the danger of populism and what happened in Oakland?

On other points:
1. On Toussaint, his support was not mainly based on the fact that he was Black--in fact, he beat the first Black president of the union (Willie James). I think it was also the first election that the winner had not been "ordained" by the incumbent.

As for what the left does with that in general, it's certainly clear that groups like the PSL will use Charles Barron to build support and not warn of his politics, but that's really a whole topic on its own that deserves more careful detail and discussion.

2. On the more general stuff about race, I am not even sure what NHIA's conclusion is. I think I agree with black magic hustla's critique of identity politics. I would find it hard to understand how someone could seriously accuse the LRP's approach to fighting racism as representing that of identity politics but if people want to follow that thread, I'd like to hear what they have to say about Marxism, Interracialism, and the Black Struggle (http://lrp-cofi.org/pamphlets/interrac_i.html) rather than one line from one leaflet if people want a real discussion.

On that, this NHIA quote makes me think that perhaps the point in the LRP statement was not clear: "When you show up to a mass action, with people locked arm-in-arm defending themselves from police, and complain that it's a bunch of "privileged white kids" you just expose yourselves as the outdated, isolated sect that you are."

Perhaps the more extended comment in the initial statement (http://lrp-cofi.org/statements/ows_100511.html) is clearer:

For example, the protesters initially refused to raise specific demands on the government and against Wall Street, preferring to take a stand as leftish moral witnesses to the country’s financial corruption. This attitude was largely symptomatic of the fact that those first protesters tended to be better off than most working-class people. They also were overwhelmingly white, even though the most devastating effects of the economic crisis are disproportionately hitting Blacks, Latinos and immigrants.

I think that the refusal of the initial OWS protesters to raise demands points to a certain social position, and a social position that reflects the fact they did not represent the working class or its most oppressed layers. It is not a matter of "complaining" that the protesters are privileged or were originally mostly white, but noting that the way the movement is going reflects the social position of them. For instance, the first draft of the OWS declaration had a line like "formerly divided by race" which was critiqued and changed based on the charge that it erased the history and reality of ongoing racial oppression. Do you think the racial demographics of the protesters had nothing to do with that draft? Or do you think more generally that it doesn't matter that the majority of OWS participants do not reflect the interracial working class of this country or that that has nothing to do with the fact they have failed to break through to a broader struggle so far?

Being a sect as we are does point to a certain objective isolation. Perhaps the quote in question reflects that in some way but I'm not convinced. I think it was an attempt to convey the idea that the movement must "[reflect] the interests of the most oppressed and exploited layers of the class, since they best represent the reality of the depths of exploitation inflicted on the entire proletariat, sooner or later, under this system" (from the Interracialism pamphlet) and that the fact that the whole approach of the initial OWS protesters and most of the current "occupiers" is not even attempting to go in that direction and that their social position is a reason for that.

Nothing Human Is Alien
19th November 2011, 13:07
Actually the patronizing nonsense about "better off white people" appears in the text twice.

When the shit goes down none of you are anywhere to be found. Then you show up with the reformists, liberals and union bureaucrats and hand out a leaflet like this -- talking about "privileged white people" while people have been battling police all week -- in an attempt to vacuum a few individuals out of the movement and into your dead end little grouplet.

Sorry comrade, we've been insulted enough by the right and the rich, the capitalists and their hangers-on, the parasites who are "privileged." We don't need your sanctimonious hog shit, and we don't want it. Your politics belong in the bone yard.

S.Artesian
19th November 2011, 16:22
First off, I think the LRP's statement is fundamentally, and fundamentally designed to be, self-serving-- produced by themselves to confirm and protect themselves and their analysis from the threat that any real movement of real human beings in real society is to ideology. They offer not so much an analysis as a trip-tik-- touching the stations of the "cross" on their way around the same circle again and again, the way to nowhere.

So we get this:


Billions for Bankers – Layoffs and Cutbacks for Workers and Youth? HELL NO!

For Workers’ Mass Action against the Capitalist Attacks!

Stop All the Anti-Working-Class Budget Cuts!

Hands off Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid!

For a Massive Public Works Program – Jobs for All!

Stop Racist and Anti-Immigrant Attacks! Stop Police Brutality!

Democrats and Republicans: Two Parties of War, Racism and Anti-Worker Attacks!

Socialist Revolution is the Only Solution!

Build the Revolutionary Party of the Working Class!



No shit? Really, you're [LRP] for all those things? How stirring. And so what?

It's like a treasure hunt where you have to collect all the prized objects

Or an incantation where you have to say the ritual words before you get the wafer and the wine.

The ideological point of the leaflet seems once again to point out how the devious, diabolical union bureaucrats have once again scotched the workers' movement in utero.

No shit? Really? I'm shocked and appalled. Of course the labor bureaucrats do that, because that's what labor bureaucrats do. Doesn't stop LRP of course from endorsing "demand" -- "for a massive public works program"-- as if public works can be detached, separated from the value production, the effective ownership of such works by the bourgeoisie. So you want a massive public works program? A big fat wonderful domestic peace corps?

We're not going to go anywhere talking about "public works"-- "going" and "anywhere" meaning in opposition to capitalism, and towards workers "class for itself" ownership, expropriation of the "works."

And it doesn't stop LRP from making such appeals, and advocating such efforts in the NYC Labor Council.

I think NHIA really nailed it in other posts when he talked about Nov 17 being a funeral march for OWS. In essence the day to "respond" mobilize etc. was Nov 15 when the police cleared the park-- that was the day for a [pre-organized] response of something other than the march and rally type, and for that to happen you have to work outside the union structures.

In essence, the police made it safe on Nov 15 for the labor councils etc to call for their demonstrations of Nov 17-- demonstrations going nowhere and doing nothing.

Now that's 1.

As for 2-- the issue of race, while I agree with NHIA's response to all this crap about "privileged" white people, I'd point out that type of "privilege" argument is not confined to the LRP or the self-proclaimed "Marxist parties," or sects... but also appears in the writings of some "left-coms" "lib-coms" etc.


And 3-- re RTW's argument that the refusal of the OWS to raise demands speaks to a certain material class basis.... yeah, well, sure it does. Everything does. Nothing like belaboring the obvious to prove your fidelity to historical materialism. But so what? And labor unions, the labor bureaucrats who are only too happy to make demands? What's their material basis?

The origins of the OWS participants are what they are. The origins of the social, economic conflict precipitating OWS are something else. So this is an initial expression. The fact that LRP can with a straight-face actually say "We...have warned....." is the index to the removal of the LRP from the actual engagement, comprehension of that conflict and how the conflict develops. The LRP uses the language of the observer, the established, distanced outsider, with no connection to the actual course a struggle takes in its development.

Suggestion-- when coming across any statement by any group that says "We warned" or its equivalent-- stop reading. Move on to more worthwhile efforts.

agnixie
22nd November 2011, 16:10
So I just reread the piece; I know I've been acting as or perceived as the voice of the bureaucracy for some time: what I'm going to say is my thoughts. It's generally close to what the affinity groups may have in mind but there is no GA behind me, only a pissed off radical who has to tone everything she's been writing down for public consumption for the past few months to avoid people screeching to a halt at the thought of communist agitation before they've had the time to see what the ideology entails.

I'll go bit by bit

These achievements should not leave us satisfied, however, if the protests don’t realize their greatest potential. With winter approaching and police attacks escalating, the potential to spark struggles by working-class and poor people is in danger of being extinguished.

The potential to spark struggles has not in fact been extinguished despite increasing police violence and I doubt the weather will change much apart from the ability to sleep out (hopefully we have a stronger showing with tents by now).


We in the League for the Revolutionary Party have warned from the outset of the struggle that the OWS protests could not simply grow based on their model of tent-cities composed of mostly better-off, young white people.
Their appreciation of the composition, both wealth and race based, of the tent cities seems both off and rather annoying.


That means marches, strikes and workplace occupations demanding an end to cutbacks, layoffs and foreclosures, to start with, and calling for a major program of public works to provide jobs for all.
Already on the program, in action. Workplace occupations were put on the table in september by a few more radical groups already.


When the day of action came, while top union bodies had endorsed the strike call in words, and while some workers courageously refused to go to work, no union actually went on strike and none were expected to do so. What did happen was a massive, inspiring protest of tens of thousands that marched on the city’s docks and succeeded in shutting down work there for a shift. But the next day the mayor and police chief were still in office, plotting with their counterparts in other cities to sweep the occupations away. And since then they have succeeded.

If it had actually been in a position to threaten Jean Quan's staying in office, there would have been the national guard and they would have been shooting live ammo at the crowd. I'm for an escalation of actions and demands, but if we act in such a way that one protest escalates extremely fast while the others are still doing radicalization and rabble rousing in their area, the localized uprising will be stamped out.

Oakland was not a lost opportunity; it did what it said it was doing and left the door open for escalation: real strikes, closing more ports, etc. It brought the idea that a general strike was something you could seriously talk about even in America.

"Skilled professionals and other privileged types" - I may be an anarchist but damnit, that's weak class analysis. It's not about wealth it's about who controls the means of production. I agree with some of the ideas, or at least I think I do, because that section's class analysis is too damn sloppy. If you're a small business owner, you're a capitalist. As Utah Phillips would say "Class is defined by your relationship to the means of production. If you don't own your workplace, if you don't own the tools you work with, if all you're doing is selling your labor and energy in the marketplace for a boss and a paycheck, you're in the working class whether you're a college professor or a ditchdigger, and you better be proud of it." From that point the radicalization starts, there will be no radicalization if the population can simply kneejerkedly dismiss us as "insane communists" before hearing what the hell we're on about. Agreed about union bosses, we do have a number who are working hard to turn us to the democrats. They're scum and that's all I'll say about them here.

For the last point: A mass revolution that depends on only the most politically conscious will fail to become a mass. That's basically my opinion: the most politically conscious can act, but need to radicalize a mass of people before they can claim to act as the class as a whole. It's not a matter of ethics or representation: it's a matter of survival. People talk about Posse Comitatus as if it was worth the paper it's written on, but there are already papers within the military highlighting the loopholes congress have enacted to it. Worker's Revolution will go nowhere if the comrades are dead before it has the chance to begin. People are moving towards it: people are less and less afraid to call for workers uprisings, for "no war but the class war", for annihilating capitalism. But it needs to be in a mass and that means not taking for granted that everyone will immediately jump at the first mention of Marx or Goldman.

workersadvocate
22nd November 2011, 22:15
How can we get mass action by the working class of the sort needed to advance #Occupy beyond its current limitations, if we rely on the currently existing leaderships to call for it and do this work (against their own petty interests)?

If we want to get masses of working people involved, taking control of Occupy-style protest movements, and turning them into our movements of class struggle, then we have to go to those whom the existing leadership don't really want mobilized independently! Go to where the Democrats and union bosses fear to tread, or rarely tread.

Is there any independent and proletarian media strategy? If not, how else will we develop and advance the narrative from our revolutionary class outlook and sum up the lessons of this struggle for our class?

RedTrackWorker
23rd November 2011, 10:23
The potential to spark struggles has not in fact been extinguished despite increasing police violence and I doubt the weather will change much apart from the ability to sleep out (hopefully we have a stronger showing with tents by now).

It's not whether the potential to spark any kind of struggle will be extinguished but "spark struggles by working-class and poor people"--i.e. the truly massive struggles we need. Immediately, one's mind turns to the 32BJ contract set to expire Jan. 1st--they are some of the most oppressed and exploited workers in organized labor, in a rather vulnerable position, and while OWS has inspired many of them and will be a benefit going into that struggle, it hasn't "sparked" something there (or in transit, or with the unemployed or undocumented here, etc.).


Oakland was not a lost opportunity; it did what it said it was doing and left the door open for escalation: real strikes, closing more ports, etc. It brought the idea that a general strike was something you could seriously talk about even in America.

I agree with the point that "It brought the idea that a general strike was something you could seriously talk about even in America" in general.

On the lost opportunity, while you say it "left the door open for escalation," if that's true--why aren't they taking advantage of that? Another vet was viciously assaulted on the day of action, all the fundamental injustices are still there, yet there has been no escalation, no broadening of the struggle to greater numbers of workers, poor and oppressed people, etc.

I disagree on the point about demanding resignation leading directly to "live fire." There were demos to oust Giuliani and besides that that the ruling class would cut the Oakland mayor loose before using live fire on demos here with all the response that would entail. On Giuliani, see for instance "Thus the Haitian Coalition for Justice has called this march today under the leading slogan: Mass Mobilization to Oust Giuliani. This is a tremendous opportunity." (see http://lrp-cofi.org/archive/Giuliani2.html)

I think also that IVAW may've called for the Oakland mayor to resign.


"Skilled professionals and other privileged types" - I may be an anarchist but damnit, that's weak class analysis. It's not about wealth it's about who controls the means of production. I agree with some of the ideas, or at least I think I do, because that section's class analysis is too damn sloppy.

I didn't quote the whole thing but I didn't understand your point here. I agree it's not about wealth but production--but that's precisely the problem with the 99% angle. Every single supervisor to the head my company (the NYCTA) is part of the "99%"--but every workers knows that if they stand up for their interests at work, the supervisor is right there to oppose them.

Maybe I just misunderstood what you're getting at with this point.


For the last point: A mass revolution that depends on only the most politically conscious will fail to become a mass.

I agree with this. I just think the most politically conscious have to organize themselves--and that self-organization of revolutionary workers around a common understanding of how to change society is the international party we need.

agnixie
23rd November 2011, 14:03
It's not whether the potential to spark any kind of struggle will be extinguished but "spark struggles by working-class and poor people"--i.e. the truly massive struggles we need. Immediately, one's mind turns to the 32BJ contract set to expire Jan. 1st--they are some of the most oppressed and exploited workers in organized labor, in a rather vulnerable position, and while OWS has inspired many of them and will be a benefit going into that struggle, it hasn't "sparked" something there (or in transit, or with the unemployed or undocumented here, etc.).

I agree with the point that "It brought the idea that a general strike was something you could seriously talk about even in America" in general.

On the lost opportunity, while you say it "left the door open for escalation," if that's true--why aren't they taking advantage of that? Another vet was viciously assaulted on the day of action, all the fundamental injustices are still there, yet there has been no escalation, no broadening of the struggle to greater numbers of workers, poor and oppressed people, etc.

December 12 will be interesting to see if it actually works. Also some of the actions started were basically around the principle of going directly to a number of injustices, although mostly concentrated on things like foreclosures. Prison solidarity should seriously be pushed in. I have no idea what Labor Outreach is working on for 32BJ or if they're working on it at all yet.



I disagree on the point about demanding resignation leading directly to "live fire." There were demos to oust Giuliani and besides that that the ruling class would cut the Oakland mayor loose before using live fire on demos here with all the response that would entail. On Giuliani, see for instance "Thus the Haitian Coalition for Justice has called this march today under the leading slogan: Mass Mobilization to Oust Giuliani. This is a tremendous opportunity." (see http://lrp-cofi.org/archive/Giuliani2.html)

I think also that IVAW may've called for the Oakland mayor to resign.

Point taken, that one was overdramatic.



I didn't quote the whole thing but I didn't understand your point here. I agree it's not about wealth but production--but that's precisely the problem with the 99% angle. Every single supervisor to the head my company (the NYCTA) is part of the "99%"--but every workers knows that if they stand up for their interests at work, the supervisor is right there to oppose them.

Maybe I just misunderstood what you're getting at with this point.
I meant that while the piece mentioned petty bourgeois small producers, it sounded like it also included better off workers which can be argued to some extent but ultimately even a better off worker is at the mercy of employers unless "better off" means they've got enough to retire young out of it. Also I admit that the 99% thing makes a lot of people wonder sometimes even among those who use it. It's a very populist way to get the foot in the door on class consciousness, that much is true and I'm pretty sure everyone in the team I've worked with is fully aware of that.




I agree with this. I just think the most politically conscious have to organize themselves--and that self-organization of revolutionary workers around a common understanding of how to change society is the international party we need.

Sort of agreed (I just don't agree with calling it party, but that's the anarcho syndicalism speaking ;) )

Kadir Ateş
23rd November 2011, 14:36
A few points which are being raised not only in this thread, but others as well:

First, I'm not a fan of the thoroughly post-modern category of "intellectual labor" because I feel in a very crude sense that it is a way for graduate students/professors to feel as if they're part of the proletariat when they're not. Maybe if they derived their income for selling their labor-power in exchange for a wage, perhaps, but there's still the issue of how then we can understand surplus labor in that configuration, etc. I raise this point because much of the protesters from the start were and many still are "white middle class" who are only beginning to realize that their standard of living is now rapidly declining. So it makes sense that they continually hang on to the concept of a "golden age" and point to their Ivy League degrees as if they possessed a magic key to summon any job, any amount of wealth which now lays in a rusty pile of others. So yes, the law of value touches all. And to the working class who have had it bad for a lot longer, did not see and still do not see themselves reflect in this group, regardless of its racial composition, etc.

Race does matter, it mattered when in several of the GAs I attended at Zucotti Park, when the few persons of color there felt as if their concerns over race were be sidelined and "Divisive". It matters now, when there is a big debate over the (formerly) indoor occupation site at 90 5th Ave. where black and latino students were fighting to have their voice heard over a loud minority of white insurrectionist anarchists and assorted ultra-left types. This may be typical of the middle class, where racism exists not entirely out in the open, but boils to the surface whenever social movements like OWS explode.

Furthermore, I agree that racism is often fetish for sociologists and academic types to use in order to flog any movement which seeks to violate and defy bourgeois analysis, but then there are times when it isn't just "constructed" or intellectually fabricated. So while I would prefer that we move on from the prescriptions and diagnoses of 1938, I think it is worth trying to penetrate the question of racism in a slightly deeper fashion than basing it on the assumption that it will "all get better" when capitalist social relations collapses at last. Racism and sexism is part of the struggle and we must understand how it operates in bourgeois society, but then we can't make the claim that it will be negated once we "negate the negation". We can make revolution, but still have to address these issues. Martin Glaberman in an interview from 2000 puts it best:


It’s essentially to reject the idea that nothing can happen until white workers are no longer racist. I don’t know what anybody thinks the Russian workers in 1917 were. They were sexist. They were nationalist. A lot of them were under the thumb of the church. But they made a goddamn revolution that began to change them. Whether there’s a social explosion or not doesn’t depend on any formal attitudes or supporting this particular organisation or that particular organisation. It may not happen. In which case we all go down the tubes; I can’t help that.

Leftsolidarity
23rd November 2011, 15:06
What garbage. I'm so sick of the rhetoric that has no application to the real world.

I agree with trying to get more people of color in the movement because I feel it's vital to any working class movement but I'm not going to try to, as NHIA said, "collect them like baseball cards". That's straight racist tokenism. "HEY! HEY! LOOK! WE GOT SOME BLACK GUYS FOR A PHOTO OP!!!"

And cut it out with your "liberal priviledged kids" crap. The VAST majority of the people I know who are actively or passively involved in the Occupy movement or its affliated movements (i.e. Occupy The Hood, etc.) do not fall into that catagory at all and is nothing but trying to guilt trip our own movement and try to make white youth feel unwelcome. We don't need that shit.

Be thankful for the white youth that join and, yes, try to connect more with oppressed communities.

Get down off your soapbox because everyone sees through the bullshit.

RedTrackWorker
24th November 2011, 05:33
December 12 will be interesting to see if it actually works.

That is the main potential I see from Occupy right now but it's so hard to tell via twitter and internet info how real it is. Is there a thread on it yet? Either way, if you have any info, I'd be interested.


I meant that while the piece mentioned petty bourgeois small producers, it sounded like it also included better off workers which can be argued to some extent but ultimately even a better off worker is at the mercy of employers unless "better off" means they've got enough to retire young out of it. Also I admit that the 99% thing makes a lot of people wonder sometimes even among those who use it. It's a very populist way to get the foot in the door on class consciousness, that much is true and I'm pretty sure everyone in the team I've worked with is fully aware of that.

On the "privileged" worker argument, I think we'd have to get more specific to see if we have any significant differences there.

On the idea that it's a foot in the door to class consciousness...I think that populism has often been the pitfall of this country's movements and that any concession to it is dangerous. That being said, it's a question of context--is their movement in a class conscious direction and how do we accelerate that? I don't think the 99% slogan is the way to help that development along.


Sort of agreed (I just don't agree with calling it party, but that's the anarcho syndicalism speaking ;) )

we can agree to disagree on that part for now :)

RedTrackWorker
24th November 2011, 05:48
Thanks for the post Kadir. I think that Leftsolidarity's post doesn't add anything to the discussion other than more superheated rhetoric and so will ignore it.

The question of "intellectual labor" is tricky in some ways. I think I agree with where you're coming from on it Kadir, in that I definitely get tired of the "modern" version of this idea of "head and hand labor" and prefer Trotsky on being clear that "intellectuals" will not be won over to the socialist movement by and large. I think there's a lot to say about how and why that is and what it means about the process of production but that'd probably be better in another thread.

I definitely agree with the quote

many still are "white middle class" who are only beginning to realize that their standard of living is now rapidly declining. So it makes sense that they continually hang on to the concept of a "golden age" and point to their Ivy League degrees
which seems to be obvious I think to any objective observer that the core of the initial "occupy" movement was people who thought this country would offer them something if they applied themselves to get a degree. It was not representative of the majority of workers and poor, especially Blacks and Latinos, who did not think this society would offer them something in that way. And so I definitely agree with this quote too:

And to the working class who have had it bad for a lot longer, did not see and still do not see themselves reflect in this group, regardless of its racial composition, etc.

I'm glad you also shared some of your experiences with race at some of the OWS stuff. I think your point that "This may be typical of the middle class, where racism exists not entirely out in the open, but boils to the surface whenever social movements like OWS explode" is on to something.

Leftsolidarity
24th November 2011, 19:21
I think that Leftsolidarity's post doesn't add anything to the discussion other than more superheated rhetoric and so will ignore it.




Yes, I'm the one using rhetoric :rolleyes:

Zeus the Moose
26th November 2011, 23:44
What garbage. I'm so sick of the rhetoric that has no application to the real world.

I agree with trying to get more people of color in the movement because I feel it's vital to any working class movement but I'm not going to try to, as NHIA said, "collect them like baseball cards". That's straight racist tokenism. "HEY! HEY! LOOK! WE GOT SOME BLACK GUYS FOR A PHOTO OP!!!"

And cut it out with your "liberal priviledged kids" crap. The VAST majority of the people I know who are actively or passively involved in the Occupy movement or its affliated movements (i.e. Occupy The Hood, etc.) do not fall into that catagory at all and is nothing but trying to guilt trip our own movement and try to make white youth feel unwelcome. We don't need that shit.

Be thankful for the white youth that join and, yes, try to connect more with oppressed communities.

Get down off your soapbox because everyone sees through the bullshit.

On thinking about this, I am curious about the main Occupy Wall Street's relationship with Occupy The Hood. My understanding is that the latter came out of an initiative of the former, to try to bring more people of colour into the Occupy movement. I think it might be a legitimate question to ask why such a particular outreach to communities of colour was necessary. To me, that suggests that there wasn't much participation from those communities in the beginning, so there was an effort to try to change that. Based on my own (rather limited) experience with OWS on the ground, the faces I saw in the crowd and at the general assembly I went to were mostly white, though there was a decent amount of people of colour in the leadership. That seems like a good thing to me. So while the LRP statement might be overstating the point, I think there's some grain of truth there that needs to be unravelled.

Leftsolidarity
27th November 2011, 03:15
On thinking about this, I am curious about the main Occupy Wall Street's relationship with Occupy The Hood. My understanding is that the latter came out of an initiative of the former, to try to bring more people of colour into the Occupy movement. I think it might be a legitimate question to ask why such a particular outreach to communities of colour was necessary. To me, that suggests that there wasn't much participation from those communities in the beginning, so there was an effort to try to change that. Based on my own (rather limited) experience with OWS on the ground, the faces I saw in the crowd and at the general assembly I went to were mostly white, though there was a decent amount of people of colour in the leadership. That seems like a good thing to me. So while the LRP statement might be overstating the point, I think there's some grain of truth there that needs to be unravelled.

Occupy The Hood (in Milwaukee idk if there are others) was done through grassroots in those communities. I actually know some of the people who started it up and they are great comrades. But anywho, it was started because (and I'm not any offical messanger or anything) some people in those communities felt that Occupy Wall Street didn't accurately represent them or their immediate problems they face. Milwaukee is the most segerated city in the USA and the majority of the population are people of color so they wanted a movement that represented their interests.