Occupy and the Tasks of Socialists [Archive]

Jimmie Higgins

26th December 2011, 14:51

I think some of the analysis in this spot-on.

Although I agree that the "we can't have anarchists in leadership" tone is wrong and divisive. "Anarchist" and "anarchist tactic" are almost useless labels in this developing movement because what does someone mean by "anarchist" - life-stylist, black-block adventurism, or what? Personally, I don't want lifestylists or liberals leading the movement, but I think that anarchists with good class politics as well as socialists do have important contributions in both political ideas and practical organizing and tactics which can help the movement reach new heights. In this movement in particular, it's important not to rest on old assumptions about people's politics because a left is possibly being rebuilt and things will shift and shuffle significantly in the process.

I also disagree that the question of the police or the Democrats (both subjects argued well by social anarchists not just socialists in the movement) is as settled as the author argues. Yes in deeds people are acting beyond some of their liberal ideas just by simply not backing down to police repression... but it doesn't mean that that won't change and political misconceptions won't cause problems later - especially when the movement is not running on forward momentum. Even in Oakland where Olsen was shot in the face and the police used shock and awe tactics, the next big GA of thousands of people began with a series of speakers asking the movement to be non-violent (the movement hadn't been violent, it had been ATTACKED!) and to appeal personally to police officers. The more liberal of the two encampments in Oakland got raided and a participant told the local news: "I don't understand, we made a point of being really nice to the police the whole time unlike the other camp". Many people in Oakland were AGAINST contingency plans for a raid (before the first one) because they said that Mayor Quan supported the movement and it would just create fear to have a defense plan.

What I do agree with though is that political theory and action shouldn't be seen as separate things. A debate about the role of the police shouldn't be so radicals can show how smart their ideas are but should be built to be clarifying and linked to concrete issues with building the movement.

The Douche

26th December 2011, 15:01

What are "lifestyle" anarchists, and what sets them apart from "good" anarchists? Also, what are "black bloc adeventurist" anarchists, and what sets them apart from "good anarchists"?

La Comédie Noire

26th December 2011, 15:23

StockholmSyndrome

26th December 2011, 15:32

mythical "working class"

Too much Camatte for this one.

The Douche

26th December 2011, 15:43

Too much Camatte for this one.

Hahaha.

I suppose I should clarify, I think the poster in question is referring to the industrial working class or the "proletariat", which I don't think is much of a revolutionary subject in the US anymore, with most workers being precarious, temporary, or black market/under the table.

workersadvocate

26th December 2011, 17:00

I think Socialists (Anarchist and Communist) should try to push things as far left as possible, even if some of the things we say sound impossible and Utopian.

Also I think it would be a great error to try only to appeal to the working class or speak only in the language of the working class. While the working class will be the main social force in a revolution in the first world, it is important to remember it will be the class that abolishes all class distinctions. Revolutions in the industrialized nations, if they are at all possible, will look nothing like 1917.

If you want my honest opinion I think Leninist parties and even some anarchist groups will be swept away in the course of the 21st century, as they become historical artifacts.

None of this is satisfying or definite, it sounds like a horoscope in its vagueness, but that's what happens when leftists try to pontificate on the future.
You seem to doubt revolution in the industrialized nations is possible, the say with certainty that the working class--which some petty bourgeois leftists claim no longer exists in an important sense and is utterly incapable of its ow self-emancipation without middle class saviors--will abolish all class distinctions. Which is it?

When I hear leftists try to minimize the role and revolutionary potential of the working class, either the bottom line is defeatism/reformism or cross-class collaboration/reformism. They mean we either have to follow the big bourgeois or the petty bourgeois, and just settle for what crumbs we might get from that.

workersadvocate

26th December 2011, 22:33

The working class exists and is relevant, industrial and service, permanent and precarious.
What seems to be at issue is the long traditional view by better paid, more stable segments of the working class that they are part of the "American middle class". Okay, fact is, that how they've been treated and trained to view themselves in this system. Education is a double edged sword under capitalism because it trains in the ruling ideas and its vampire values, much more regularly and thoroughly they teach math and science.

At one and the same time, we must combat false consciousness among workers, while separating our class-for- itself from the classes with actual irreconcilable opposite interests.

La Comédie Noire

26th December 2011, 23:10

You seem to doubt revolution in the industrialized nations is possible, the say with certainty that the working class--which some petty bourgeois leftists claim no longer exists in an important sense and is utterly incapable of its ow self-emancipation without middle class saviors--will abolish all class distinctions. Which is it? Most likely the ladder, the working class will abolish all class distinctions in the first world. Middle class saviors not needed.

When I hear leftists try to minimize the role and revolutionary potential of the working class, either the bottom line is defeatism/reformism or cross-class collaboration/reformism. They mean we either have to follow the big bourgeois or the petty bourgeois, and just settle for what crumbs we might get from that. I'd say neither, either the working class will deal the final blow to capitalism or we will end up in barbarism. I don't think there are anymore crumbs to be had frankly. The thing about capitalism is it destroys the middle road, which is where the platforms of reformism are built.

But my more important point was the language and actions of the future revolution probably won't be a repeat of 1917. The working class won't take power after some glorious insurrection, it will dissolve class distinctions and liberate the whole of humanity.

To use a Leninist phrase, the 20th century did not pass in vain.

The Douche

26th December 2011, 23:17

The working class won't take power after some glorious insurrection, it will dissolve class distinctions and liberate the whole of humanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communization

Jimmie Higgins

27th December 2011, 09:19

What are "lifestyle" anarchists, and what sets them apart from "good" anarchists? Also, what are "black bloc adeventurist" anarchists, and what sets them apart from "good anarchists"?

Although I agree that the "we can't have anarchists in leadership" tone is wrong and divisive. "Anarchist" and "anarchist tactic" are almost useless labels in this developing movement because what does someone mean by "anarchist" - life-stylist, black-block adventurism, or what? Personally, I don't want lifestylists or liberals leading the movement, but I think that anarchists with good class politics as well as socialists do have important contributions in both political ideas and practical organizing and tactics which can help the movement reach new heights.

As you can see above I never said "good anarchists". You're twisting my comment or trying to pick some kind of fight since I'm certain you know what these terms tend to mean among people on the left. I said anarchists with "good class politics", not "good anarchists/bad anarchists". My point was also that how people in the movement describe themselves is in flux right now - and so someone participating in a black block and someone who has tended to have a moralistic "lifestyle" view of politics may not mean the same thing it meant 5 or more years ago when movements were smaller and more timid.

But if you really want clarification of my views of these groups and why I don't think adventurism or lifestylism will help the movement:

Lifestyle anarchists are basically liberals wearing some anarchist apparel in my opinion. They are self-described anarchists but I don't think their politics has much to do with the working class-based anarchist tradition (if they are part of a larger anarchist tradition, that's a different debate). They tend to be the ones in the movement pushing the "prefigurative" moralistic, and utopian views of the movement. These politics will not help the movement to win in my opinion and these kinds of politics were not in favor of things like the port shut-down, they offered "buy nothing day" actions and so on. So I think it would be good for radical anarchists and socialists to participate in the movement and make their case and try and win the movement away from these ideas and towards militant and class-based politics.

"black block adventurists" are they people who don't actually try and organize with other people in the movement while also using the movement in order to have confrontations with the police - not all people in the block have these ideas but it's a current. In general I think the black block tactics are ill-suited for a period of increased militancy. So rather than covert and anonymous actions, I think the movement can grow in size and conscious militancy if people organize openly whenever possible and try and convince others in the movement to take part in concerted militant actions.

These two tendencies are shades of self-described anarchism, but I think they are left-overs from a time of retreat and that (I hope) the more class oriented pre-WWII traditions of anarchism are on the rise due to more class militancy and the economic crisis. That kind of anarchism is "good" in my view because it will help the movement grow and win whereas the other tendencies I described will keep the movement insular and cliquish and splintered between groups who favor certain moral principles (lifestylists) and tactical ones (black block).

The Douche

27th December 2011, 17:27

As you can see above I never said "good anarchists". You're twisting my comment or trying to pick some kind of fight since I'm certain you know what these terms tend to mean among people on the left. I said anarchists with "good class politics", not "good anarchists/bad anarchists". My point was also that how people in the movement describe themselves is in flux right now - and so someone participating in a black block and someone who has tended to have a moralistic "lifestyle" view of politics may not mean the same thing it meant 5 or more years ago when movements were smaller and more timid.

I didn't mean to twist your words, I was trying to use a shorthand for what you were seemingly suggesting, that there are "bad anarchists" (lifestylists and adventurists) and "good anarchists" (with good class politics and organizing in the pre-ww2 tradition).

Lifestyle anarchists are basically liberals wearing some anarchist apparel in my opinion. They are self-described anarchists but I don't think their politics has much to do with the working class-based anarchist tradition (if they are part of a larger anarchist tradition, that's a different debate). They tend to be the ones in the movement pushing the "prefigurative" moralistic, and utopian views of the movement. These politics will not help the movement to win in my opinion and these kinds of politics were not in favor of things like the port shut-down, they offered "buy nothing day" actions and so on. So I think it would be good for radical anarchists and socialists to participate in the movement and make their case and try and win the movement away from these ideas and towards militant and class-based politics

Maybe this is a regional thing, but I feel like these people are long gone, I stopped seeing these types around 2005. And most of the people that the left usually calls "lifestyle anarchists" (i.e. are punks/travelers, vegans/freegans, ride bikes etc) were usually marching in blocs in my experience and doing generally insurrecto shit.

"black block adventurists" are they people who don't actually try and organize with other people in the movement while also using the movement in order to have confrontations with the police - not all people in the block have these ideas but it's a current. In general I think the black block tactics are ill-suited for a period of increased militancy. So rather than covert and anonymous actions, I think the movement can grow in size and conscious militancy if people organize openly whenever possible and try and convince others in the movement to take part in concerted militant actions.

In my experience, everyone marches in the bloc, thats what I've often encountered on the east coast, everybody from weird hippy types, to IWW members, to RCP supporters have marched next to me in black blocs, and they all sought confrontation with the police/symbols of capital. But I think you would probably call be a "black bloc adventurist". I've probably never encountered anybody who thinks we should "confront the police" but not organize our actions. How can you even confront the cops if you haven't organized/coordinated?

What do you mean by "pre-WW2 anarchism"? Syndicalism/platformism?

ellipsis

28th December 2011, 02:47

What the real question is would be how much MORE support Occupy can muster up as it begins a new phase of occupying foreclosures.

If that is the case, then it should be clear that Anarchists would excel in building the movement. Anarchists have lots of experience.

For example, when OccupySanFrancisco needed help occupying buildings, finding housing for former campers, etc. did they go to the PSL, ISO or RCP? No, they went to the people who have experience in these sort of action, the anarchist-by-membership group, Homes not Jails.

Jimmie Higgins

28th December 2011, 03:29

For example, when OccupySanFrancisco needed help occupying buildings, finding housing for former campers, etc. did they go to the PSL, ISO or RCP? No, they went to the people who have experience in these sort of action, the anarchist-by-membership group, Homes not Jails.
I'm not really sure what the poster you were responding to was trying to say, but yes, there are some specialized skills that are needed and valued that most anarchist and socialist activists don't have, but people also went to ACORN (ACCE) members for this kind of support too, so I think the main importance of anarchist and socialist participation is not some specialized activist skills, but the politics and experience we can bring.

After-all, building occupations mean a lot of different things to a lot of differnet people from people who just want underground squats to people who want to use building occupations and foreclosure defense as very public and political next step for the movement as a whole. Skills can be learned, but if we are just specialists in getting into and locating buildings, then we are just radical social workers, not helping workers pick up these skills and that confidence to take action themselves. Nothing against Food not Jails, but in this movement I don't think we should be counting on them having to form chapters, train people, etc in order to see a mass movement against foreclosures - we should be trying to figure out very public strategies for these actions that can be instantly transplanted all over the country so that you don't have to be in a big city with established radical circles or NGO group to fight foreclosures or secure an indoor occupation site (not that NGOs would even actually have anything to do with the second kind of thing).

Prometeo liberado

28th December 2011, 03:36

These people are probably the least interested in destroying capitalism in any meaningful and effective way, with the possible exception of some students, but those students are generally isolated from this mythical "working class" that you want to see get involved in the occupation. I'm thinking that either you never were a student or in your activism you have rarely gotten to know the people standing to the left and right of you. A great majority of students have to enter the ranks of the working students, and their numbers are increasing as tuition keeps going up. The "mythical working class" is by no means a myth. They are your neighbors, people on the bus sitting next to you. Unless you won the lottery as an infant this, at the very least should be self evident.

Jimmie Higgins

28th December 2011, 04:06

I didn't mean to twist your words, I was trying to use a shorthand for what you were seemingly suggesting, that there are "bad anarchists" (lifestylists and adventurists) and "good anarchists" (with good class politics and organizing in the pre-ww2 tradition).Ok no problem, sorry if I sounded harsh. Yeah, that wasn't what I was saying, but in my view there are anarchist and socialist politics that are more useful or less useful. And again I think one of the mistakes of this article are to assume (radical) people aren't also changing with the movement and yesterday's sectarian could be tomorrow's ally or today's ally might not be tomorrow.

Maybe this is a regional thing, but I feel like these people are long gone, I stopped seeing these types around 2005. And most of the people that the left usually calls "lifestyle anarchists" (i.e. are punks/travelers, vegans/freegans, ride bikes etc) were usually marching in blocs in my experience and doing generally insurrecto shit.Then that's fantastic. In the bay area, however, there is a lot of blurring between radical and liberal people who call themselves anarchist and generally the anarchist book fair has one booth with class politics for ever 5 booths that are really just hippies selling shirts and don't know shit about libertarian socialism and syndicalism. In the camp most freegans and bike-cult people are not blocked and are very much liberal in outlook though I'm sure there are a lot of people like that who are radical and do block up or are becoming more radical and can be won away from some of their liberal ideas in favor of anarchist or Marxist ones.

In my experience, everyone marches in the bloc, thats what I've often encountered on the east coast, everybody from weird hippy types, to IWW members, to RCP supporters have marched next to me in black blocs, and they all sought confrontation with the police/symbols of capital. But I think you would probably call be a "black bloc adventurist". I've probably never encountered anybody who thinks we should "confront the police" but not organize our actions. How can you even confront the cops if you haven't organized/coordinated?RCP isn't the best example, because my critique of insurrectionism generally is that it's sort of like anarchism making some of the same mistakes that the Maoists did in the 1970s. Out here there have been radical blocks in which the inssurectionist oriented folks break off. They no doubt organize with eachother, but I'm not talking about organizing within a small group of people I mean organizing with the broader movement which most of the insurrectionists here seem to refuse to do for various reasons. A lot of the anarchist involved in the camp here have been vocally upset with the insurrectionist current for protest-hopping the occupation, not having solidarity, not building the movement and then running away when the movement is attacked by police. But maybe I'm wrong, but then again this section of the movement is never around in the camp for these discussion to present their perspective! Or, if they are, they just write me off because of my affiliation and don't care to try and convince me or make an argument.

What do you mean by "pre-WW2 anarchism"? Syndicalism/platformism?Among other traditions, but I'm speaking about broad trends and post-war anarchism suffered from the same shitty conditions as post-war non-stalinist marxism. For marxism it made groups turn inward and become dogmatic or become reformist and for anarchism there were similar issues where some parts of the movement downplayed class (like some marxists at this time as well). The Marxist tradition has to come out from it's dogmatism and sectarianism now that there's a chance to rebuild the left and the anarchist tradition needs to abandon it's own elitist elements and moralism in my view. Anachists and anti-Stalinist marxists are in the best position for this right now which to me indicates that if we are on the verge of an uprising like the 1930s or 1960s/70s, then this new new new left will have a chance to be built on a much better basis - rather than the Stalinism of the 1930s or the Maoism of the 1970s.

It's not a value judgement about these induviduals or the sacrifices they've made, just the task at hand for the radical movement as I see it: reconnect in a material way to working class resistance. We don't need to specifically confront the police, they're doing fine on their own, we should be helping the movement figure out strategies for how to successfully defend itself and go on the offensive. Radicals seeking to confront cops out of principle or standing on the sidelines saying "all power to the soviets" are not on the right track in this political moment in my view because they are missing an opportunity to help nurture mass radical working class actions and a greater degree of class-sonsiousness and identification with radical ideas. That's the part of the article in the OP I agree with - some of the specifics I don't.

Binh

28th December 2011, 06:06

yeah socialists better hurry and get in the way of those nasty anarchists and take leadership

If it weren't for anarchists, there would be no Occupy. They have played and will continue to play a positive role. I have learned a lot from them and will continue to do so I'm sure.

I too am skeptical of the existing socialist organizations for many of the same reasons you are. If you want to work with me in the spirit of the conclusion, PM me as well. I am doing outreach to various anarchists and anarchist trends as well; the point of this piece was to sound a wake-up call for the reds.

ellipsis

28th December 2011, 08:01

we should be trying to figure out very public strategies for these actions that can be instantly transplanted all over the country so that you don't have to be in a big city with established radical circles

Housing markets, police, etc. are area specific conditions that matter A LOT in this type of work. There is no model or strategy that I know of which works everywhere.

workersadvocate

28th December 2011, 14:51

I'm very interested in this point Jimmie made about expanding Occupy effectively to the working class beyond the larger urban areas with their (mostly middle class) radical left scenes and much more significant business union bureaucracies.
The truth is that outside such places, it feels like being isolated behind enemy lines, and reactionaries have all the advantages, and the middle class left couldn't give a fuck. Left out here usually means Democrat, and many here believe that Obama is a "socialist"! There must be hundreds of rightwing churches for even puny do-nothing corrupt business union (and those unions barely exist outside the public sector and a few remaining large industrial facilities and the good ol boys skilled trades guilds like in construction). Outside the large cities, the proletariat, and especially the most oppressed segments of the working class, are seemingly "invisible" unless the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeiosie are dragging some of us into the public eye for their own purposes.
We're a long way from Oakland and OWS.

This leaves me with the view that we need our our class rising in an American Petrograd before workers outside such large cities will feel themselves bold enough to organize and defy the ruling elites, and certainly before international and multiracial class solidarity will seriously be on the table out here. Am I wrong? I'd love to be, but I doubt MLK would survive a week outside the biggest cites in the midwest USA, even in 2012. This seems to be where the Old South moved to, then combined with the worst characteristics of the Native-genociding westward pioneer Jesusland fuckers and middle class "white flight" escapists, finally preying on the backwardness and desparation of those many atomized working people who migrate here looking for work.

The Douche

28th December 2011, 17:32

Hopefully this is somewhat coherent, I am pretty brutally hungover.

They no doubt organize with eachother, but I'm not talking about organizing within a small group of people I mean organizing with the broader movement which most of the insurrectionists here seem to refuse to do for various reasons.

What kind of examples can you give me of insurrectos refusing to "organize" with the "broader movement", and what do you mean by those terms? Obviously the insurrectos are not going to have any interest in working with the liberals, they don't trust them (for good reason) and see them as class enemies (which they are). And as far as "organizing" within "the movement", I think we have a massive disconnect here. I know that that is kind of what the left does. They get involved in movements, recruit, and attempt to lead. But that is kind of what insurrectos hate about the left...

A lot of the anarchist involved in the camp here have been vocally upset with the insurrectionist current for protest-hopping the occupation, not having solidarity, not building the movement and then running away when the movement is attacked by police.

Dude, I know for a fact that some of the people who helped to start OO are insurrecto or ex insurrecto/french communist/communization people. And I know that there have been insurrecto types living at the occupation, at least during some points. I know it because I know people out there. The only kind of anarchists who have been attacking the insurrectos from what I've seen (on twitter and @news and in conversations with people there) have been the anarcho-liberal types.

And as for running away when the movement is attacked by the police:

http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/embedded/1000x595/4881c8140451c4a687179f127f8fa2b38e11a9a9.jpg

lolwut

Regarding the rest of the post, pre-war anarchism, leftism/leftist anarchism, syndicalism, etc... I don't really know what to say other than "nuh uh"...

That shit is dead and gone I think. And for good reason, you can see the abandonment of leftism as a retreat and a withdrawl from "class politics" (of course you would see it this way, you are a leftist), but I think its for the best. The left is beat dude, and I don't think we can discuss this topic before we discuss just what the left is/does and why certain people don't agree with it.

I feel like your answer to the problem is what I think the problem itself is...

workersadvocate

28th December 2011, 19:36

The middle class left is beat dead. Good riddance. It's the working people's turn now. The middle class can get behind us, suffer in front of us, or stay outta the way..their day is over right, amd they've been part of the problem.

ellipsis

28th December 2011, 20:43

Housing markets, police, etc. are area specific conditions that matter A LOT in this type of work. There is no model or strategy that I know of which works everywhere.

That said, i thought of at least one constant; evictions, etc. are the jurisdiction of the county Sheriff. Knowing this is helpful as one can attempt to predict future behavior of an agency, based on it's past behavior (preferred tactics and methodology) and known weaponry.

Jimmie Higgins

29th December 2011, 12:49

Hopefully this is somewhat coherent, I am pretty brutally hungover.Ha, no problem.

What kind of examples can you give me of insurrectos refusing to "organize" with the "broader movement", and what do you mean by those terms? Obviously the insurrectos are not going to have any interest in working with the liberals, they don't trust them (for good reason) and see them as class enemies (which they are). And as far as "organizing" within "the movement", I think we have a massive disconnect here. I know that that is kind of what the left does. They get involved in movements, recruit, and attempt to lead. But that is kind of what insurrectos hate about the left...Organize with the GAs. There may be people who are part of the informal leadership of OO who have insurrectionist views, but then I'm obviously not directing my comments towards them. But mostly these people I know act more as a liaison between the activism/organizing oriented folks and the people who just do actions and don't do any organizing. Maybe there's other things going on behind the scenes but from talking with people in OO and going to GAs you wouldn't know this and behind the scenes clique-organizing is pretty problematic and counter-productive anyway.

Dude, I know for a fact that some of the people who helped to start OO are insurrecto or ex insurrecto/french communist/communization people. And I know that there have been insurrecto types living at the occupation, at least during some points. I know it because I know people out there. The only kind of anarchists who have been attacking the insurrectos from what I've seen (on twitter and @news and in conversations with people there) have been the anarcho-liberal types.You seem to think I'm talking about induviduals, not sets of politics. If someone calls themselves an insurrectionist or has usually been a Adbuster-reading CrimethInc lifestylist but is actually organizing with other people and trying to build the movement, then fantastic. I hop to see more of that and I think more people will be breaking away from liberalism on the one hand and some of the sectarianism/clique-ism on the other due to a rise in struggle and having to figure out concrete political and tactical issues.

And as for running away when the movement is attacked by the police:

http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/embedded/1000x595/4881c8140451c4a687179f127f8fa2b38e11a9a9.jpg

lolwut
People justified running away to my face - "live to fight another day, what's the point of being arrested". That's not movement building that's just playing games and using a movement as cover for individualist adventures. People in Oakland have been complaining that these forces that want to "confront the police" are never around when the police confront the camp. If that picture is from the building occupation - that's the action people are citing. They set up "barricades" too far away with a few dozen people against tons of police and then when the police moved in people left the barricades. If you're going to hang a sign from a building you're occupying, it will take more than a few scattered people setting up barricades in an uncoordinated way. With 10,000 people shutting down the port, it wouldn't have been that difficult to organize 1,000+ people to hold the spot.

I've heard this complaint about running away from many people including people in one of the secret committees doing this kind of work. Maybe they're wrong, I can't say personally because I wasn't there, I was at the port action at that time.

Regarding the rest of the post, pre-war anarchism, leftism/leftist anarchism, syndicalism, etc... I don't really know what to say other than "nuh uh"...Don't take my word for it, read "Black Flame" if you want, I think that kind of discussion (by anarchists) is very important right now and a major step forward.

The Douche

29th December 2011, 14:19

Organize with the GAs. There may be people who are part of the informal leadership of OO who have insurrectionist views, but then I'm obviously not directing my comments towards them. But mostly these people I know act more as a liaison between the activism/organizing oriented folks and the people who just do actions and don't do any organizing. Maybe there's other things going on behind the scenes but from talking with people in OO and going to GAs you wouldn't know this and behind the scenes clique-organizing is pretty problematic and counter-productive anyway.

I think a lot of this has grown from the fact that the GA is more or less compromised with the now mass ammounts of liberals involved in the occupation. My understanding is that after the first eviction the dynamic of the occupation changed a whole lot and much more white middle class populated.

The fact that the GA is constantly facing proposals which are terrible and liberal is why people don't want to work with it anymore. And honestly, the GA is not sacred. Its like I've said before in discussions regarding GAs, if, for instance, a GA decided to endorse non-violence and reject any sort of confrontation/property destruction I would not listen to the GA, nor would I be obligated to. At the point the GA does something like that it becomes a state-form, and fuck it, it needs to be destroyed just like any other state does.

You seem to think I'm talking about induviduals, not sets of politics. If someone calls themselves an insurrectionist or has usually been a Adbuster-reading CrimethInc lifestylist but is actually organizing with other people and trying to build the movement, then fantastic. I hop to see more of that and I think more people will be breaking away from liberalism on the one hand and some of the sectarianism/clique-ism on the other due to a rise in struggle and having to figure out concrete political and tactical issues.

This seems like you operate off of some preconcieved stereotype of what an insurrecto is, and that they only do x y and z.

People justified running away to my face - "live to fight another day, what's the point of being arrested".

So you don't want them to build barricades/confront the police, you want them to sit around and get arrested? And when they refuse to be arrested they are "running away"? This speaks to your privilege as well as to a flawed set of tactics, and a fetish for non-violence. I don't like being arrested, it costs money, and it limits the kind of actions you can do moving forward (the commison of the same misdemeanor twice within 30 days constitutes a felony if the state wants to proceed with it). Not everybody feels comfortable being arrested, lots of people have been brutalized by the police, or just don't want to be in police custody because they fear what might happen to them, why should they sit down and allow themselves to be taken away? And just what is the fucking point of being arrested anyways?

Don't take my word for it, read "Black Flame" if you want, I think that kind of discussion (by anarchists) is very important right now and a major step forward

The reality is, in my experience, that leftist anarchism is far less popular now, than it was 6 or 7 years ago. I used to work with NEFAC and was a wobbly, now the NEFAC chapter I worked with doesn't exist anymore. Those ideas are on the decline because they are no longer relavent to the world we live in. And I think thats good.

Jimmie Higgins

29th December 2011, 15:19

I think a lot of this has grown from the fact that the GA is more or less compromised with the now mass ammounts of liberals involved in the occupation. My understanding is that after the first eviction the dynamic of the occupation changed a whole lot and much more white middle class populated.Yes most workers in the US are liberals, not radicals - what's significant about OWS (especially in NYC which is much more dominated by overly liberal ideas than Oakland where the informal unelected leadership is mostly anarchist - which is important and part of how this encampment was able to advance) is that people who have up until now been more or less liberal in outlook are breaking tons of laws in mass protests like shutting down the port and marching wherever they want to go and are openly questioning not only the two parties but the system itself! In other words it's radicalization on a scale we have not seen in the last 30 years of ruling class attack on the population. So on the one hand, of course it's going to be a little uneven, but on the other that's why it's important for the already radicalized workers to try and win the trust of people in radical alternatives like anarchism and marxism.

Organizing separately and anonymously like a bunch of Greek Stalinists doesn't help convince people of our politics, it isolates us and allows the liberal establishment to demonize anarchists (and thereby all radicals) as people with a separate agenda.

The fact that the GA is constantly facing proposals which are terrible and liberal is why people don't want to work with it anymore. And honestly, the GA is not sacred. Its like I've said before in discussions regarding GAs, if, for instance, a GA decided to endorse non-violence and reject any sort of confrontation/property destruction I would not listen to the GA, nor would I be obligated to. At the point the GA does something like that it becomes a state-form, and fuck it, it needs to be destroyed just like any other state does.First of all, in Oakland, 2 proposals for Non-violence were defeated in both majority and consensus, a proposal for changing the name to "de-colonize" lost, and votes for a "buy local day" lost, a proposal to "apologize" for the "violence" against whole food signs also lost. Meanwhile a 2 votes to shut down the Port of Oakland and a vote for a General Strike won overwhelmingly. This all happened AFTER the first raid and without the help or votes of insurrectionists. So I'm really not buying this argument - it seems like just belligerent refusal to work with anything or anyone they can't control or that doesn't already agree with them.

This seems like you operate off of some preconcieved stereotype of what an insurrecto is, and that they only do x y and z.No, as I've argued several times, people who call themselves insurrectionist could be moving in a more radical and cooperative direction or they could be doing their own thing. When I say I don't think insurrectionist politics are helping build the movement or more effectively struggle, I'm not talking about the individuals I'm talking about the tactics of anonymity and individualism and not working to build the movement and so on.

So you don't want them to build barricades/confront the police, you want them to sit around and get arrested?No, I the movement to grow and become more militant and to me that means occupying and holding buildings - creating barricades that can actually force the police to back down or at least slow them enough to bring in reinforcements.

And when they refuse to be arrested they are "running away"? If you have effective and coordinated barricades you minimize being arrested, when you organize with the larger movement and build trust you can force the police to drop charges or release people.

If you jump in

This speaks to your privilege as well as to a flawed set of tactics, and a fetish for non-violence. I'll ignore this so I won't end up getting banned or something.

I don't like being arrested, it costs money, and it limits the kind of actions you can do moving forward (the commison of the same misdemeanor twice within 30 days constitutes a felony if the state wants to proceed with it). Yeah I don't want to be arrested either and that's why I want to try and help build strong and militant movements that can push back against the police and courts and tactics that move things forward rather than just repeat.

Not everybody feels comfortable being arrested, lots of people have been brutalized by the police, or just don't want to be in police custody because they fear what might happen to them, why should they sit down and allow themselves to be taken away? And just what is the fucking point of being arrested anyways?When the camp was raided the second time, I left - I ran away. I did this because there was no plan for resistance or barricades or even 1000 people locking arms. The inter-faith people got arrested for the principle, the rest of us regrouped at the intersection and waited for more people to show up. I don't agree with those interfaith tactics and I agree - what's the point. But if we had 1000s of people there for defense like in Portland, then hell yeah I would have wanted to risk it because we might have been able to win and push them back which would actually show people all over how you can stand up to the cops. If we lost and got arrested, then we would not be a group of a dozen sitting in prison and we could have used the momentum of standing up to the police to try and organize protests at the jail and court appearances.

The reality is, in my experience, that leftist anarchism is far less popular now, than it was 6 or 7 years ago. I used to work with NEFAC and was a wobbly, now the NEFAC chapter I worked with doesn't exist anymore. Those ideas are on the decline because they are no longer relavent to the world we live in. And I think thats good.How are marxist and anarchist organizations not relevant to the world we live in - the world we're in now looks a hell of a lot more like the early 20th century now as far as struggle goes than it looks like the cold-war or late 20th century.

Os Cangaceiros

29th December 2011, 15:49

I think one example of insurrectionaries refusing to organize in broad coalitions was the anti-cuts issue in New York around 2008, which led to the brief occupation of Hunter College and (I believe) the popularization of this phrase in the American insurrecto lexicon: Occupy everything, demand nothing. I think it was a good thing that they didn't throw their lot in with left-wing/reformist groups, although I don't think their tactics are that effective either.

The Douche

29th December 2011, 16:04

Organizing separately and anonymously like a bunch of Greek Stalinists doesn't help convince people of our politics, it isolates us and allows the liberal establishment to demonize anarchists (and thereby all radicals) as people with a separate agenda.

Except that thousands marched in the anti-capitalist bloc, which was clearly the work of insurrectos organizing and coordinating with larger sections of the movement, and when shit got weird on that march there were plenty of non-anarchy types cheering to see property destruction.

First of all, in Oakland, 2 proposals for Non-violence were defeated in both majority and consensus, a proposal for changing the name to "de-colonize" lost, and votes for a "buy local day" lost, a proposal to "apologize" for the "violence" against whole food signs also lost. Meanwhile a 2 votes to shut down the Port of Oakland and a vote for a General Strike won overwhelmingly. This all happened AFTER the first raid and without the help or votes of insurrectionists. So I'm really not buying this argument - it seems like just belligerent refusal to work with anything or anyone they can't control or that doesn't already agree with them.

I know what has happened dude. I just spent an entire week with an Oakland insurrecto. And if you think those things happened without the help/participation of insurrectos, you're absolutely nuts.

The most common approach to the GA I've encountered is "we're here to participate, if you try to limit our autonomy we will ignore you and do our own thing". All reasonable and anarchist in my mind.

No, as I've argued several times, people who call themselves insurrectionist could be moving in a more radical and cooperative direction or they could be doing their own thing. When I say I don't think insurrectionist politics are helping build the movement or more effectively struggle, I'm not talking about the individuals I'm talking about the tactics of anonymity and individualism and not working to build the movement and so on.

But dude, the kind of movement you want is wholly different from the kind of movement I want! You and I don't really have the same goals in mind. (at least, not short and mid range goals)

Regarding barricades, occupying buildings etc. Your critique is that it wasn't succesful? Cause originally you said they "ran away", loosing the battle isn't just the same as "running away". If there was more participation in that action then maybe it could've been more successful?

And as for the idea of having a "movement" in court instead of individuals, you're still approaching the situation from the position of a white activist, not a person of color or a person who possibly has a criminal past.

How are marxist and anarchist organizations not relevant to the world we live in - the world we're in now looks a hell of a lot more like the early 20th century now as far as struggle goes than it looks like the cold-war or late 20th century.

Well let me know when you find McDonalds employees who care about having a union.

I'll ignore this so I won't end up getting banned or something.

Off topic:

What is this supposed to mean? That I would ban you for disagreeing with me? I'm pretty sure there is a rule against taking administrative action against a poster you're engaged in debate with, and if there isn't a written rule for it, then it is a personal rule of mine, because the powers I have as an admin shouldn't be used to silence debate, I can still be proven wrong, and can still learn things from people.

Are you suggesting something else here?

Our politics are very different, very different, and trots really bum me out, but you are probably my favorite trot poster on here, because I like your posting style, and you present your positions in an intelligent and thought out manner. Even if you never convince me of your position you still have always made me consider what you're saying and figure out how to try and present my points effectively.

ellipsis

29th December 2011, 16:24

First of all, in Oakland, 2 proposals for Non-violence were defeated in both majority and consensus, a proposal for changing the name to "de-colonize" lost, and votes for a "buy local day" lost, a proposal to "apologize" for the "violence" against whole food signs also lost. Meanwhile a 2 votes to shut down the Port of Oakland and a vote for a General Strike won overwhelmingly. This all happened AFTER the first raid and without the help or votes of insurrectionists. So I'm really not buying this argument - it seems like just belligerent refusal to work with anything or anyone they can't control or that doesn't already agree with them.

I'll second cmoney here. Anarchists/insurrectionists are the only people who have given OO real teeth. To say they weren't around to vote for the portshutdown and general strike is ridiculous.

How do you build barricades that slow 200 riots cops down? Literally what material, how to you get it there, how do you get it assembled?

Also, Jimmie, I know that you know that you can't be banned by cmoney for disagreeing with him, you've been around a while. I don't know why you would bring that up.

A Marxist Historian

29th December 2011, 16:41

http://links.org.au/node/2657

P.M. me if you are interested in collaborating along the lines of the conclusion. :)

Pham Binh's article has received a lot of praise in this thread, and criticism mostly from anarchists who disapprove of socialism. But I see it as *seriously* problematic.

Why? Well, the obvious reasons are that it is (a) pro trying to win over the cops and (b) far from sufficiently opposed to allowing the Democrats to coopt the movement. And anyone who thinks that this ain't a danger is failing to smell the coffee, with Des Moines Occupy trying to "occupy the caucus" to help out the Democrats.

All the tactical stuff is sensible sounding, but only in the context of accepting a basically false political framework. The trouble with OWS is the basic concept of a movement of "the 99%." Yes, the cops are part of the 99%. That's one of the many reasons why a movement of "the 99%" is wrong.

OWS is a movement against Wall Street, a very very good thing. But how do you oppose Wall Street? By:

1) abolishing capitalism and establishing socialism, or;

2) abolishing capitalism and replacing it with an anarchist utopia; or

3) not abolishing capitalism, but curbing it or reforming it on populist or left liberal Democratic Party lines.

Which is, unfortunately, the basic framework for OWS as it is now.

Pham Binh is absolutely right that socialists in OWS have spent too much time squabbling about organizational and tactical questions with others, and ghettoizing themselves into little red pockets. But his solution of being the "best builders" of OWS is just as bad.

OWS sooner or later is going to split along the above three lines. Or better yet two, initially at least a socialist-anarchist alliance vs. the liberals would be a good thing, and principled, as revolutionary socialists after all want to abolish the capitalist state, and most anarchists are socialist more or less in their *economic* program. Until it does, the role of socialists should not be just to be the best builders, but to argue for socialism.

OWS is very similar to the great Populist movements of the late 19th Century. They were the start of socialism and radicalism as modern mass movements, by getting people politicized and mobilized out there vs. Wall Street in the 1890s.

But the way this happened was *not* thru radicals being the best builders of the Populist movement. It was through cutting criticism of its political limitations, the result of which being that when Populism collapsed, the best Populists repudiated Populism and became Socialists. Like Eugene Debs for example.

As Pham Binh himself points out, OWS is not a movement of the working class. Primarily, it is a movement of students and the homeless, which is generally friendly to the working class. There is nothing wrong with that, but that means that it needs to be fundamentally transformed. So for socialists just to be its "best builders" means they are building something other than a movement of the working class.

-M.H.-

Jimmie Higgins

29th December 2011, 17:32

I'll second cmoney here. Anarchists/insurrectionists are the only people who have given OO real teeth. To say they weren't around to vote for the portshutdown and general strike is ridiculous.Anarchist politics yes, Insurrectionist POLITICS, no. Have induvidual people who identify themselves as Insurrectionists been a help to the movement, YES. But it not because they were wearing masks and playing at impotent random skirmishes with the pigs.

What has given this movement TEETH is mass militant action by thousands of Oaklanders not backing down to direct repression of the cops or the less direct repression of liberal politics and all the establishment concern trolls who try and say, "I support the aims of this movement but don't be violent, don't be radical, don't be in the camp, don't blame Quan, don't shut down the port bla bla bla". I want to build and nurture that whereas I suspect that the insurrectionists want to use this as cover for doing the same old tactics over and over again. If it were these run and hid tactics that are what have made things sucessful, then why don't we see Occupy Oakland type results everywhere where these tactics are tried? These tactics are sometimes very necissary, but not ALWAYS the right tactic in a given time, that's my main problem with them.

What has put Oakland on the map and scared the shit out of the city to the point that they are trying to make illegal to even protest at the port was that IWW, anarchists, ISO, rank and file labor movement people, and many induviduals including people who have come out of a liberal framework previously, a lifestylist view, hippy view, etc organized the shit out of these actions, going to boring meetings, making arguments, finding allies, putting up posters, handing out fliers at BART stations and so on.

As far as the port vote - comeny said that they felt it was stupid to participate in GAs after the first camp raid. Maybe there were people there, but

How do you build barricades that slow 200 riots cops down? Literally what material, how to you get it there, how do you get it assembled? 1000 or so people - hell, 200 people would make them have to regroup and bring in reinforcements. What other people have told me was that a few scattered people manned the barricades and when the cops massed they lit the barricades on fire knowing that the dozen people there couldn't hold them. It was poorly organized, organized through clandestine cliques, that's the issue I have. I want to see this kind of thing succeed and there's too much heat and attention to try and organize clandestine things in the occupy movement so if a very visible building occupation is going to happen, then there needs to be a mass protest of more than just a couple hundred people and with many people prepared and willing to try and secure the building and hold lines against the police if needed. I think that could have happened on Nov 2nd if it had been organized differently.

Also, Jimmie, I know that you know that you can't be banned by cmoney for disagreeing with him, you've been around a while. I don't know why you would bring that up.No, not for disagreeing. I originally wrote a really angry and personal response to that because I felt that it was a attack and get pissed when people call me "privileged". Also I'm not in favor of principled non-violence in the least and I don't condemn "violence" against property in protests. I just think that street-fights on principle or smashing windows on principle is as wrongheaded tactically as nonviolence on principle.

Jimmie Higgins

29th December 2011, 18:24

Except that thousands marched in the anti-capitalist bloc, which was clearly the work of insurrectos organizing and coordinating with larger sections of the movement, and when shit got weird on that march there were plenty of non-anarchy types cheering to see property destruction.Yeah that shows the potential right now to build really big militant actions.

I know what has happened dude. I just spent an entire week with an Oakland insurrecto. And if you think those things happened without the help/participation of insurrectos, you're absolutely nuts.Again, not because of the usual insurrectionist politics, but because people went beyond those tactics.

In fact with Oakland, there's hasn't been much adventurism in the occupy movement other than the whole foods thing. Most of the other "violence" from our side was actually people defending themselves against the police.

But dude, the kind of movement you want is wholly different from the kind of movement I want! You and I don't really have the same goals in mind. (at least, not short and mid range goals)
I want a mass movement of hundreds of thousands of working class radicals with millions of supporters that can shut down their workplaces and cities, make the bosses bend, and potentially take over and run things themselves. What kind of movement do you want?

In the short term I want to win people to seeing things like the port actions and general strikes as much more viable ways to fight the system than cynicism and voting for Democrats or hoping some political savior will help them. In the short term I want the occupy movement to be like the sit-in movement where people learn they can take things into their own hands and if they work together and organize they can actually begin to win - and I want other people to see these things like in the 1960s sit-ins or the 1930s sit-down waves and think, if they can do it in Oakland, we can do it here too.

And as for the idea of having a "movement" in court instead of individuals, you're still approaching the situation from the position of a white activist, not a person of color or a person who possibly has a criminal past.The panthers were white activists? Because they did that. Free Huey!

I'm not arguing for martyring yourself, I'm trying to argue how we can win militant and illegal actions - through mass action. In the past this wasn't possible because liberal politics were a barrier and people weren't willing to break the law and face possible police repression. I know, we tried to get an anti-war march to take the bridge before the Iraq war and people were like "Oh my word, how brutish!". Black block politics developed in that atmosphere in the late 90s as a sort of self-appointed tactical vanguard against the ineffectual "moral witness" type protests.

Now people are willing to take militant action and so these tactics are weak in comparison. On the one hand you have people breaking windows at Whole Foods and on the other you have people shutting down the port of Oakland - which do you think gives people more confidence in our ability to change things, which looks like impotent rage?

And for my own impotent rage and what I originally wrote (more or less) to that comment I said I would ignore: I have a record and my best friend just got out of 5 years in Soledad, so shut the fuck up and bring your cashmoney ass out to East Oakland if you want to tell me I'm so privileged to have kids shot at my BART station by police, work a graveyard shift, and live paycheck to paycheck.

I didn't want to get an infraction for being too heated about it, I wasn't accusing you of banning me for arguing - if I thought that it'd be too late for that anyhow:lol:

ellipsis

30th December 2011, 01:30

Jimmie- Inspired by your comments, I hope to write a "how Homes not Jails occupies buildings for public demos" article in the near future, so that others may read, adapt for local conditions and apply.

StalinFanboy

30th December 2011, 08:43

Organize with the GAs. There may be people who are part of the informal leadership of OO who have insurrectionist views, but then I'm obviously not directing my comments towards them. But mostly these people I know act more as a liaison between the activism/organizing oriented folks and the people who just do actions and don't do any organizing. Maybe there's other things going on behind the scenes but from talking with people in OO and going to GAs you wouldn't know this and behind the scenes clique-organizing is pretty problematic and counter-productive anyway. You have a very idealist conception of what the GA is. You say that insurrectionists should organize with it, go through its mediating process, and hope that people will listen. Not only is this a complete ignorance as to what insurrectionist politics actually are, but its a complete fantasy as to how the GA is treated and how it functions.

Insurrectionist politics, at its core, says "we have each other, here and now. we dont really need to wait for the always elusive Other to start doing the things we feel need to be done." The black bloc is hardly insurrectionist in the way that it functions today. behind the superficial anonymity is a bunch of people screaming "LOOK AT US! HERE WE ARE!" it is dialogue with the state (and society) but a little harder.

And the GA isn't a fucking state dude. I'm not trying to be rude because I like you as a poster for the most part even if I think I am against your politics. But shit, this fetishization from the Left of the GA is so frustrating. Not only have people leading the GA continuously said that people should be doing their own autonomous actions outside of it (a very noble move in my opinion seeing as how they themselves are trying to delegitimize its power), but the point of it isnt to be some apparatus that EVERTHING has to pass through before it can be done. people already voted to endorse, show solidarity with, and support building occupations. when an occupation was actually attempted people started whining about how THEY werent told about it first. this sort of behavior is so counter-revolutionary that i cant believe i have to say it over and over. the point of communism isnt to elevate everyone to the position of manager, but to completely destroy management as such. instead of falling into this populist, biopolitical trap, communists should be attacking it and arguing against it at every turn.

People justified running away to my face - "live to fight another day, what's the point of being arrested". That's not movement building that's just playing games and using a movement as cover for individualist adventures. People in Oakland have been complaining that these forces that want to "confront the police" are never around when the police confront the camp. If that picture is from the building occupation - that's the action people are citing. They set up "barricades" too far away with a few dozen people against tons of police and then when the police moved in people left the barricades. If you're going to hang a sign from a building you're occupying, it will take more than a few scattered people setting up barricades in an uncoordinated way. With 10,000 people shutting down the port, it wouldn't have been that difficult to organize 1,000+ people to hold the spot. support of building occupations had already been voted upon. the point of this occupation was to push the movement in a more radical direction, not so a bunch of people could get their kicks (although i bet a lot of those people get their kicks by trying to push these movements in the right direction). people ran when they realized that the people they thought were going to support them didnt. the only mistake these would be occupiers made was thinking that the occupy movement was more radical than it really is.

I've heard this complaint about running away from many people including people in one of the secret committees doing this kind of work. Maybe they're wrong, I can't say personally because I wasn't there, I was at the port action at that time. They're wrong.

Don't take my word for it, read "Black Flame" if you want, I think that kind of discussion (by anarchists) is very important right now and a major step forward.
The affirmation of the working class ( ie "working class power" or transitional periods or blah blah blah) are not possible in this stage of late capitalism. the revolution can only be the immediate self-abolition of the proletariat, not its affirmation. syndicalism, unionism, leninism and its offshoots, and leftism in general are all dead. materially. not because i am an insurrecto and dislike them.

workersadvocate

30th December 2011, 16:57

What! To hell with individualism and its excuse, anarchism.
Working class power isn't possible at this stage? Now the true colors of this middle class ideology comes out.
_

StalinFanboy

30th December 2011, 20:58

What! To hell with individualism and its excuse, anarchism.
Working class power isn't possible at this stage? Now the true colors of this middle class ideology comes out.
_
ut oh... the "m" word!

Ele'ill

30th December 2011, 21:37

I'm a fan of multiple actions taking place within a larger action.

Binh

31st December 2011, 00:30

The Douche

31st December 2011, 15:15

What! To hell with individualism and its excuse, anarchism.
Working class power isn't possible at this stage? Now the true colors of this middle class ideology comes out.
_

Hahaha, what?

workersadvocate

31st December 2011, 17:20

I was referring to the 'insurrecto' poster Species Being's position on the working class as found a few posts above.

Jimmie Higgins

31st December 2011, 18:55

I'm a fan of multiple actions taking place within a larger action.There are times when multiple actions are very useful there are others when it divides our efforts and makes us weaker. People shouldn't make principles out of tactics if they are going to have a chance of winning. The cops aren't a hierarchical and coordinated machine because of ideological reasons, they are because it is an effective way to organize. Our task is how can we also be coordinated and as effective but in a cooperative and democratic way (which is both ideological and practical).

The OPD is very good at gathering up small groups of people because that's actually their strategy when they want to stop a large march. They have helicopters and spotters on rooftops and infiltrators. They split the big group apart, then keep doing this and re-routing an unpermited march until our forces are smaller and then they take us on in groups of 30 or less so they can round people up.

I think the port action shows you can do amazing militant actions that the police won't even pretend that they can touch when you do a mass militant action. I think that's a fantastic tactic for a time when people are becoming more radical. Thousands of people learned that THEY can shut down a port. But again there are times when that tactic wouldn't be the best option too.

Jimmie Higgins

31st December 2011, 19:31

You have a very idealist conception of what the GA is. You say that insurrectionists should organize with it, go through its mediating process, and hope that people will listen. Not only is this a complete ignorance as to what insurrectionist politics actually are, but its a complete fantasy as to how the GA is treated and how it functions.

Ok, then explain how you see it.

Insurrectionist politics, at its core, says "we have each other, here and now. we dont really need to wait for the always elusive Other to start doing the things we feel need to be done." The black bloc is hardly insurrectionist in the way that it functions today. behind the superficial anonymity is a bunch of people screaming "LOOK AT US! HERE WE ARE!" it is dialogue with the state (and society) but a little harder. Elusive other? Well if you want to shut down a port or do something militant, it takes more than a few people.

So then according to the definition you gave of insurrectionist, in theory, acts of individual terrorism is in keeping with it. The enlightened few acting on behalf of their own interests and the interests of the sleeping masses, eh?

And the GA isn't a fucking state dude.Never said it was, don't even know what you mean here. The GA is a chance to organize with other people who may not agree with you politically but through which we can organize in a more organic and democratic way than in movements run undemocratically by NGOs or Union bureaucracies and so on. I don't think "pre-figurative" politics are the way to go, but I think the significant thing about the GAs is that people are organizing together and independently. I have some issues with the process and there is potential that NGOs or groups connected to the Deomcrats might co-opt or wreak occupation movements, but generally I think the genie is out of the bottle and people have already learned the value of independent organizing.

I'm not trying to be rude because I like you as a poster for the most part even if I think I am against your politics. But shit, this fetishization from the Left of the GA is so frustrating. Not only have people leading the GA continuously said that people should be doing their own autonomous actions outside of it (a very noble move in my opinion seeing as how they themselves are trying to delegitimize its power), but the point of it isnt to be some apparatus that EVERTHING has to pass through before it can be done. Well yeah if 30 people are going to have a march they don't need to and often just don't organize it through the GA. I don't mean that they should have to get actions rubber-stamped through the GA but that they should participate in this process and things that they do that do involve the rest of the camp and movement (like defense of the camp) should be done in a democratic way. Also other things that insurrectionist want to do could be done better if done openly and with more general support.

people already voted to endorse, show solidarity with, and support building occupations. when an occupation was actually attempted people started whining about how THEY werent told about it first. this sort of behavior is so counter-revolutionary that i cant believe i have to say it over and over. the point of communism isnt to elevate everyone to the position of manager, but to completely destroy management as such. instead of falling into this populist, biopolitical trap, communists should be attacking it and arguing against it at every turn. Workers are already removed from leadership over things in their daily lives, the point should be working class power and self-leadership over society. To pretend that there is no leadership is just to open the door to a clique or some other undemocratic force to take that role... In the occupy movement so far that has been anarchists (which I'm generally fine about since I agree with the politics - if not always the language - they are putting forward 99% of the time) and liberals but it could just as easily become NGOs and Democratic party Liberals.

support of building occupations had already been voted upon. the point of this occupation was to push the movement in a more radical direction, not so a bunch of people could get their kicks (although i bet a lot of those people get their kicks by trying to push these movements in the right direction). people ran when they realized that the people they thought were going to support them didnt. the only mistake these would be occupiers made was thinking that the occupy movement was more radical than it really is.

They're wrong.
Same old elitism - "I don't want to make an argument, because the movement isn't radical enough. I didn't make the argument and I organized clandestinely, people didn't know what was going on and got confused and left and that just shows how non-radical they are. I'm the only true radical!"

The affirmation of the working class ( ie "working class power" or transitional periods or blah blah blah) are not possible in this stage of late capitalism. Why is worker's power impossible. How has capitalism fundamentally changed to make that elemental conflict void?

the revolution can only be the immediate self-abolition of the proletariat, not its affirmation. syndicalism, unionism, leninism and its offshoots, and leftism in general are all dead. materially. not because i am an insurrecto and dislike them.But because you make statements that you don't back up?

Tactics are not politics and really I think what you are arguing for is individualism, not tactics to win self-emancipation and socialism. Maybe I'm wrong but you didn't bother to actually present your alternative; just denounce the GAs and say it doesn't work "just because".

I think if we look at Egypt and see that both the street-fights in the square were very important but also working class self-activity. If people hadn't fought back when the thugs and police attacked Tharhir, then the movement would have been demoralized and confuses and potentially would have gone into retreat followed by a wave of Mubarak oppression all over the country. But the occupation of the square and fighting back against the thugs, alone, also wouldn't have toppled the regime. Canal workers striking, the protest movement begging to spread to industrial areas among workers was actually the thing that made the regime decide to throw Mubarak under the bus. As soon as the military government came in, their first announcements were "go back to work".

So I think materially we are in a time of rising CLASS struggle, so to dismiss class as important because you have an ideology and tactics that were developed at a time of low class struggle under the assumption that workers were bought off or too controlled by their union leadership to struggle, is a mistake. It's a dinosaur actually of the last generation and as anachronistic and wrong-headed as socialists who go to protests, don't organize, hold a banner that says "all power to the Soviets" and see 1917 as a play by play formula to emulate. Sure conditions of struggle change, but capitalism is still a battle between workers and capital.

The Douche

1st January 2012, 07:34

I was referring to the 'insurrecto' poster Species Being's position on the working class as found a few posts above.

Well present your issue. And we can talk about it. Also, I don't appreciate your denigration ('insurrecto'), I happen to be an insurrecto also, and I know the poster Species Being very well, and I don't take kindly to snarky remarks directed towards my friends/comrades.

Jimmie, thanks for your posts, I'll engage with them tomorrow when I'm not drunk anymore.:thumbup1:

workersadvocate

1st January 2012, 18:49

Well present your issue. And we can talk about it. Also, I don't appreciate your denigration ('insurrecto'), I happen to be an insurrecto also, and I know the poster Species Being very well, and I don't take kindly to snarky remarks directed towards my friends/comrades.

Jimmie, thanks for your posts, I'll engage with them tomorrow when I'm not drunk anymore.:thumbup1:

Individualism is a disease, and there seems to be a pandemic of it among "leftists" who sound like they either just returned from a Ron Paul rally or just read Ayn Rand.
For them, "I, me, mine" is the lord, not even the working class can tell them what to do.
What class benefits from this heavily promoted individualism, even when manifested as "anarchist" , "libertarian" or "insurrecto"?

What are the lessons from the #Occupy movement and where do we go from here?

The Douche

1st January 2012, 19:49

Individualism is a disease, and there seems to be a pandemic of it among "leftists" who sound like they either just returned from a Ron Paul rally or just read Ayn Rand.
For them, "I, me, mine" is the lord, not even the working class can tell them what to do.
What class benefits from this heavily promoted individualism, even when manifested as "anarchist" , "libertarian" or "insurrecto"?

What are the lessons from the #Occupy movement and where do we go from here?

What do you mean? "Not even the working class can tell them what to do", no, nobody can "tell me what to do", in some contexts. I am an individual and I will not surrender my personal autonomy to any organization. Anarchism is, and always has meant personal freedom. I still don't see what your problem is?

ellipsis

1st January 2012, 20:21

What are the lessons from the #Occupy movement and where do we go from here?

You make it sound like its over... We are still learning the lessons of the occupy movement because it is still happening, right now.

The Douche

1st January 2012, 20:23

You make it sound like its over... We are still learning the lessons of the occupy movement because it is still happening, right now.

For real. I hear Zucotti got reoccupied last night?

ellipsis

1st January 2012, 22:06

An attempt was made, NYE was a good time to do it, police are tied up elsewhere all night.

workersadvocate

1st January 2012, 22:38

You make it sound like its over... We are still learning the lessons of the occupy movement because it is still happening, right now.

Unfortunately I'm dependant upon what I can read from others about it right now. And there isn't much discussion going on about today and tomorrow with the Occupy movement. Gives the impression that most of the movement folded and the leftist activist just ambled off to their next 'activist' project without building anything within the woeking class as usual. The take home lesson some leftists seem to be drawing is demoralization and rejection of the working class in favor of individualism and perhaps New Left substitute vanguard gunk, maybe even support for Ron Paul.
I can't see this myself, and maybe that's not how it has gone down everywhere, but the silence about Occupy today and tomorrow and how we can extend and expand this throughout the working class, compared to what has been said of it so far, speaks volumes.

I'd assume that a large portion of Revleft's members residing in the USA live in or near major cities where significant Occupy physical occupations took place and a significant number of working people participated and supported it. Why is it so quiet here about Occupy, except for a handful of regular posters in a handful of places? Why does it seem those few who still do talk about Occupy only talk about past events and tactics, rather than what to do now? How is the future of Occupy not the hottest topic on this forum?

ellipsis

2nd January 2012, 01:46

In the Bay Area, things are still happening regularly, noise demo at oakland jail last night for example. I am currently working with OccupySF on shutdown wall st. west. 1/20. I can't speak to anything happening outside of the bay area.

Another important consideration is that it is winter in all of the U.S. right now. It is dark, cold and rainy/snowy almost everywhere.

the "today and tomorrow" part is being talked about IRL, most people seem to think building occupations are the next step, ive had this discussion on Revleft. If the forums seem quiet, that doesn't mean the real world is quiet, i wouldn't take revleft to be an indicator for health of the U.S. left.

ellipsis

2nd January 2012, 02:02

Jimmie Higgins

2nd January 2012, 08:24

I am reading through Bihn's account of the oakland general strike and cringing at it's inaccuracy. He shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the mechanics and function of public building occupations.
He also applauds the self-appointed "peace-police" for violently attacking people engaged in property destruction (all of whom were not black-bloc, many people were not), attacking fellow protesters to defend corporate property from harm. Do you really support vigilantism within the movement? yikes...Yeah. While I think within radical circles we should have debates about these things, I think across the board we should just be sure condemn things like that unapologetically. While I don't think organizing around specific tactics of small groups unilaterally confronting police - often it does just happen organically. Actual riots are organic and if sparked by anyone, it's usually the actions of the police towards a protest or march.

The first mini-riot (started by cops) during the Oscar Grant movement when the city was refusing to do anything about the cop who shot Oscar Grant is a good example of this. It wasn't self-conscious activists confronting police (though there were many self-conscious radicals involved no doubt), it was people who were pissed off at the police responding when the cops heavy-handedly tried to stop a march. It was very effective in showing the city that they could not ignore the popular anger and, as a result the city brought Mehserle back to the state and charged him (a very rare occurrence, charging a cop). It's a mistake think that we can recreate more or less organic and spontaneous events with the same results, but in getting an arrogant city government to listen, it can be pretty effective.

So even if some individual acts of window-breaking might not be effective or helpful, "peace police" only play into the city's hands either by showing the "chaos of the movement" or by creating myths of "radicals hijacking the movement" which are then used to split the movement into weaker parts.

StalinFanboy

3rd January 2012, 17:24

sorry it took me a bit to get back to this. been busy with moving and changing jobs and shit.

Ok, then explain how you see it.

to be honest, i don think there should be a GA. they only work if people remain atomized individuals willing to just have their opinion thrown into a hat counted (and feel like they should have a say on actions they may or may not participate in). it also creates a power structure that causes many problems. I think one of the worst was the whole "decolonize oakland" shit. that there is a even a body that mangerial type leftists see as something they can try to take and use to force their politics on everybody should be a huge wake up call. that the GA is what you and others say it is (namely, a directly democratic body), is a lolable joke. it has turned some, if not most, of the anarchists and anti-state commies that have spent so much of the last few months organizing so much shit into the worst of bureaucrats.

if power was truly decentralized and dispersed, and autonomous actions were simply more than quietly "encouraged" then the occupation would be so much more powerful. instead of a GA there should be 2 or 3 hour forum where people can get up and say "hey im gonna be doing this action or project, if anyone is interested in participating, we will be meeting on the north side of the plaza at this time blah blah blah." if we take the decolonize stuff as an example, if there wasnt a body that these people saw as managing the whole movement within oakland, and autonomous actions and occupations were the name of the game, then they may have been more likely to set up their own occupation nearby or in another part of the city. not only would this make the name "occupy oakland" a little less spectacular and a little more true, but if there are multiple occupations throughout the city with a constant circulation of body and networks of communication, then the police would have a harder time smashing everything like they have (assuming of course people would be willing to defend an occupation and, if they get evicted, quickly assemble at another one).

Elusive other? Well if you want to shut down a port or do something militant, it takes more than a few people. Clearly. Jesus that wasn't even my point. The Left continuously says "No we cant do that yet, it will alienate people," or that we dont have enough people, when often times we do. The size of the action being done obviously rests upon the amount of people involved.

And was the port of oakland entirely shutdown anyway? And if it was (or wasn't) what was the way it was shut down? Was it the self-activity of the port workers themselves? Or was it activists jamming each terminal and waiting for a union hack to say the working conditions were "unsafe"? Was the shutdown tactically combative? Or was it simply a numbers game?
Yeah, I think its awesome we live in a time where there are enough people down to march on the ports up and down the west coast. But these questions need to be asked and the grandiosity of "OMFG WE SHUT DOWN THE PORTS" needs to be reckoned with.

So then according to the definition you gave of insurrectionist, in theory, acts of individual terrorism is in keeping with it. The enlightened few acting on behalf of their own interests and the interests of the sleeping masses, eh?Really? You want to talk about representational politics and people acting in "the interests of the sleeping masses" (I dont even know where you got that from because it wasn't what i said)? Because that is exactly what the occupation movement has been doing.

I mean everything from the rhetoric of the 99% to the name ("Occupy Oakland" or whatever else city) reaks of an "enlightened few acting on behalf of... the interests of the sleeping masses..." so dont act like youre not doing the same thing you accuse insurrectos of. and dont put words in my mouth.

Never said it was, don't even know what you mean here. The GA is a chance to organize with other people who may not agree with you politically but through which we can organize in a more organic and democratic way than in movements run undemocratically by NGOs or Union bureaucracies and so on. I don't think "pre-figurative" politics are the way to go, but I think the significant thing about the GAs is that people are organizing together and independently. I have some issues with the process and there is potential that NGOs or groups connected to the Deomcrats might co-opt or wreak occupation movements, but generally I think the genie is out of the bottle and people have already learned the value of independent organizing.see above.

Well yeah if 30 people are going to have a march they don't need to and often just don't organize it through the GA. I don't mean that they should have to get actions rubber-stamped through the GA but that they should participate in this process and things that they do that do involve the rest of the camp and movement (like defense of the camp) should be done in a democratic way. Also other things that insurrectionist want to do could be done better if done openly and with more general support.see above, the GA form is not the only way to get support, and with some actions (like the attempted building occupation) it doesnt make sense to go through this ridiculous decision making process that effectively allows the police to know our every move and be very prepared. of course that would be a problem if people were willing to fight the police and kick them out, but that wont end until this rhetoric of non-violence is thoroughly squashed.

Workers are already removed from leadership over things in their daily lives, the point should be working class power and self-leadership over society. To pretend that there is no leadership is just to open the door to a clique or some other undemocratic force to take that role... In the occupy movement so far that has been anarchists (which I'm generally fine about since I agree with the politics - if not always the language - they are putting forward 99% of the time) and liberals but it could just as easily become NGOs and Democratic party Liberals.rofl, dont pretend that those in power of the occupation movement are the working class and not the same old activist clique of specialized wingnuts.

and the point should be a world without classes, not one created in the image of and managed by what we are today (namely, our relation to capital).

Same old elitism - "I don't want to make an argument, because the movement isn't radical enough. I didn't make the argument and I organized clandestinely, people didn't know what was going on and got confused and left and that just shows how non-radical they are. I'm the only true radical!"That is not what I said at all. Don't be an asshole. The people who planned that occupation thought that the movement was radical enough for them to plan something like this in the way they did and people would show up and defend it. I'm not making this a moral judgement or saying only certain people are the trew radikulz.

Why is worker's power impossible. How has capitalism fundamentally changed to make that elemental conflict void?Class struggle and workers power (ie a transitional period) are not synonymous. Working class power is the self-organization of the working class as a class. The reorganization of the world in an image of itself, ie an image of the working class (As TC puts it "it [autonomy, or the capacity of the working class to affirm itself as the dominant class] was a question of the formalization of what we are in the present society as basis for the new society, which is to be constructed as the liberation of what we are.). The liberation of labor via "workers power" is the liberation of value.

the restructuring of capital and the labor force post-fordism, the increased casualization of labor (especially in the West), and the general working class "flight from the factory" (Itally 77 I think might be a pretty good example of some of this) all materially point to a stage of struggle within capitalism that is not the liberation of the labor and the working class, meaning not the liberation of the working class as the working class. even in the East we can see in recent struggles the way that workers have burned down factories as being inconsistent with the idea of the affirmation of the working class as the dominant class.

Tactics are not politics and really I think what you are arguing for is individualism, not tactics to win self-emancipation and socialism. Maybe I'm wrong but you didn't bother to actually present your alternative; just denounce the GAs and say it doesn't work "just because". First of all, you have a ridiculous understanding of individualism if you think that I am an individualist. I spend most of my time working on critiques of individualism, and i think it is a total farce. But you're right, I am not arguing for socialism or winning "self-emancipation." I am arguing for the idea that the revolution must be communist in nature, meaning the immediate self-abolition of the proletariat as a class, and therefore the abolition of capitalist social relations.

I think if we look at Egypt and see that both the street-fights in the square were very important but also working class self-activity. If people hadn't fought back when the thugs and police attacked Tharhir, then the movement would have been demoralized and confuses and potentially would have gone into retreat followed by a wave of Mubarak oppression all over the country. But the occupation of the square and fighting back against the thugs, alone, also wouldn't have toppled the regime. Canal workers striking, the protest movement begging to spread to industrial areas among workers was actually the thing that made the regime decide to throw Mubarak under the bus. As soon as the military government came in, their first announcements were "go back to work".

So I think materially we are in a time of rising CLASS struggle, so to dismiss class as important because you have an ideology and tactics that were developed at a time of low class struggle under the assumption that workers were bought off or too controlled by their union leadership to struggle, is a mistake. It's a dinosaur actually of the last generation and as anachronistic and wrong-headed as socialists who go to protests, don't organize, hold a banner that says "all power to the Soviets" and see 1917 as a play by play formula to emulate. Sure conditions of struggle change, but capitalism is still a battle between workers and capital.See above. I do not dismiss class struggle. what i dismiss is the ideology of the affirmation of the working class during the revolution. that is the dinosaur of previous generations, not whatever you think my ideology is.

Kadir Ateş

3rd January 2012, 17:47

What a horrendous article. Especially this bit:

Given Occupy’s fluidity, the socialist left should be careful about ruling any course of action out. An attempt to “Occupy the Democratic Party” is not necessarily a road for activists out of militant struggle and into the voting both. For example, Occupy activists might decide to copy the example of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party which held an integrated primary and then tried to claim the official segregated delegation’s seat at the party’s 1964 convention. This was an effort to bring the fight for civil rights into the Democratic Party, not an attempt to trap the civil rights fight in a dead end. We may see Occupy efforts to hold “99% primaries” that ban contributions by corporations and lobbyists and select delegates to the 2012 convention that challenge the legitimacy of the party’s official delegates. Such an action would probably be a road out of the Democratic Party since it would prove to thousands of people in practice that the party is owned lock, stock and barrel by the 1%.

I see that the ISO and its ilk still suffer from that failed idea known as entryism.

Also, forget the anarchists, they're just as bad with their "propaganda of the deed" bullshit that attempts in a more indirect to radicalize the masses. I see anarchists and Trots as different sides of the same coin.

The working class, when it decides to changes things on its own accord, will surpass even the most "radical" actions of the OWS movement.

bcbm

3rd January 2012, 20:02

Yeah. While I think within radical circles we should have debates about these things, I think across the board we should just be sure condemn things like that unapologetically. While I don't think organizing around specific tactics of small groups unilaterally confronting police - often it does just happen organically. Actual riots are organic and if sparked by anyone, it's usually the actions of the police towards a protest or march.

i think its important to keep these debates internal to the movement too, the people tripping over themselves to talk shit to the media should be instantly ostracized

Lucretia

3rd January 2012, 20:40

What a horrendous article. Especially this bit:

I see that the ISO and its ilk still suffer from that failed idea known as entryism.

Also, forget the anarchists, they're just as bad with their "propaganda of the deed" bullshit that attempts in a more indirect to radicalize the masses. I see anarchists and Trots as different sides of the same coin.

The working class, when it decides to changes things on its own accord, will surpass even the most "radical" actions of the OWS movement.

The article you're quoting from was not published by the ISO.

La Comédie Noire

3rd January 2012, 20:46

I also think there will be a lot of bruised egos as the sparse sub culture we find ourselves in becomes loaded with new people and new opinions. You'll find a lot of veteran activists saying "I've been doing this for 10 years and blah blah blah" I see a lot of pedantic theory mongering in the new generation's future.

Sometimes you just have to let people learn on their own, I've talked to many people who are just becoming politically active and it's really hard not to be an ass.

Binh

4th January 2012, 02:30

The Douche

4th January 2012, 02:56

If I lack understanding, enlighten me.

So what do you do if a bunch of people try to hijack your peaceful march that you painstakingly organized by engaging in property destruction?

1. You can't highjack a march which has endorsed autonomous actions and diversity of tactics with property destruction.

2. The anti-capitalist march was not promoted as a "peaceful march".

ellipsis

4th January 2012, 03:02

If I lack understanding, enlighten me.

No amount of barricading would have kept the police out and would only buy hours, if any time at all. Building occupations are not done with the intention of holding the building, this is almost impossible. Anybody who keeps up on or participates in building occupations in the bay area knows the police show up and when they are dealing with hundreds of protesters in the streets, they show up in force.

Building occupations are done as propaganda of the deed not as real attempts to secure long-term free rent for the movement.

So what do you do if a bunch of people try to hijack your peaceful march that you painstakingly organized by engaging in property destruction?The Anti-capitalist march was lead by 100 people masked and in black. The flier said "wear black". What peaceful march was highjacked? If participants didn't understand what they were getting into following 100+ hooded, masked people in all black, they only have their own ignorance and naivety to blame.

Violently attacking fellow protesters to promote "peaceful" tactics is clearly as self-contradictory idea. I would let people use whatever tactics they feel necessary, its not my, or anybody's role to "police the movement."

To quote myself:

The occupy movement is by design a leaderless, non-hierarchically organized movement. The "'peace' police" act in extremely authoritarian and often violent ways. These people have not been delegated the role of march marshal by any group or assembly; they are enforcing non-existent rules, effectively imposing their ideas on tactics and strategy on other protesters, simply because they feel as though they are right.

The "'peace' police" often claim to be enforcing a consensus decision on group adherence to non-violent tactics. Assuming this is true and that somehow people are bound by the consensus process of a GA they may not have attended, this does not mean that people can appoint themselves to be enforcers of that decision. Largely absent from the discussion and completely ignored in consensus at these assemblies are two important things: A) an agreed upon definition of violence and non violence and B)what are acceptable tactics under these agreed upon definitions.

Jimmie Higgins

4th January 2012, 08:58

I see that the ISO and its ilk still suffer from that failed idea known as entryism.Actually we are against entryism. We're open about our aims and politics when working in movements - you know that whole having a paper thing that people also endlessly criticize us for when they're not also contradictorily accusing us of "hiding our politics". We see Entryism as a counter-productive tactic in movements because we want to see a movement grow and develop it's own momentum and for participants to learn to be their own leaders. We think radical politics are key to helping achieve this and so that why we both try and help build the movements we are participating in while also trying to promote our view on issues facing the movement. So for occupy, for example, our political ideas about police or the role of Democratic politicians (shared by many other radicals too) are important for building a movement that won't be repressed or co-opted.

Also, forget the anarchists, they're just as bad with their "propaganda of the deed" bullshit that attempts in a more indirect to radicalize the masses.Some anarchists have those politics just as some Trotskyists have tactics I disagree with, but neither "propaganda of the deed" or "entryism" are really a major issue right now.

I see anarchists and Trots as different sides of the same coin.I'll take that as a complement as right now I think these two sets of politics are on the rise in a period of increasing working class militancy and I think that's a healthy development for prospects for a healthy radical movement in the future.

The working class, when it decides to changes things on its own accord, will surpass even the most "radical" actions of the OWS movement.No doubt a mass working class movement will surpass the OWS movement greatly. But OWS is the beginning of a chance to rebuild a new left that is open to radical politics, is more class-conscious, and is independent of the Democrats and establishment liberalism. Criticizing OWS for not being radical enough is like criticizing the bottom stair for being too short to reach the 2nd floor of a house. OWS is one step towards a mass and militant working class movement.

And I think the idea that workers who radicalize before an uprising are somehow magically de-classed if they become anarchists or marxists is pretty strange: they are simply the people who have already "decided [that the working class should] change things on their own".

Jimmie Higgins

4th January 2012, 09:49

sorry it took me a bit to get back to this. been busy with moving and changing jobs and shit.No sweat and no need to apologize.

to be honest, i don think there should be a GA. they only work if people remain atomized individuals willing to just have their opinion thrown into a hat counted (and feel like they should have a say on actions they may or may not participate in). it also creates a power structure that causes many problems. I think one of the worst was the whole "decolonize oakland" shit. that there is a even a body that mangerial type leftists see as something they can try to take and use to force their politics on everybody should be a huge wake up call. that the GA is what you and others say it is (namely, a directly democratic body), is a lolable joke. it has turned some, if not most, of the anarchists and anti-state commies that have spent so much of the last few months organizing so much shit into the worst of bureaucrats.
There are problems with the GA structure - the first being the length of time (which I think is coming from good intentions and a desire not to shut people out) and frequency of meeting which means to feel really connected and involved you either need to be a part-time student who doesn't have to work or be unemployed. There are other things I'd change if it was up to me, but the fact that people are open and these things can be debated and discussed and tested in practice is fantastic IMO. By coming together and working together not only are we able to do things in larger numbers, but there is more of a chance for people to learn poltical lessons. One of the problems with "autonomism" or affinity groups or sectarian socialist cliques is that if people are organized around a certain tactic then it takes longer for lessons to be learned and generalized and for people to learn from mistakes. OWS has helped radicals and the radicalizing learn first hand lessons that would take people years of reading history or theory or participating in one-off actions among people they already agree with.

if power was truly decentralized and dispersed, and autonomous actions were simply more than quietly "encouraged" then the occupation would be so much more powerful. instead of a GA there should be 2 or 3 hour forum where people can get up and say "hey im gonna be doing this action or project, if anyone is interested in participating, we will be meeting on the north side of the plaza at this time blah blah blah." In Oakland and in many occupies this is what basically happens. No one HAS to have something passed through the GA in my experience, often people want to in order to get more support though. And frankly I can go on IndyBay so the idea of sitting in the cold for 3 hours to get the same info seems like hell on earth to me. Personally the only reason I go out there is to network and discuss and try and promote the proposals that I think will help build the movement. The GAs have created a great and open political space in a country where you aren't supposed to discuss these things and there is little public space in general. In all other revolutionary periods, these common spaces for organizing and political debate have been essential - there were the red clubs before and during the Paris Commune, there were public squares, newspapers, halls, etc that played a big part in previous uprisings.

if we take the decolonize stuff as an example, if there wasnt a body that these people saw as managing the whole movement within oakland, and autonomous actions and occupations were the name of the game, then they may have been more likely to set up their own occupation nearby or in another part of the city. not only would this make the name "occupy oakland" a little less spectacular and a little more true, but if there are multiple occupations throughout the city with a constant circulation of body and networks of communication, then the police would have a harder time smashing everything like they have (assuming of course people would be willing to defend an occupation and, if they get evicted, quickly assemble at another one).Well that's what we've had de-facto-ly (if that's a word). There were two encampments in Oakland and a couple in Berkeley and a couple in SF. The police had no problem removing them and, in fact, waited for times when numbers were lower to raid. So until we get to the point where we can occupy the corners and have 100s of encampments, I think this idea is a recipe for failure. Our strength, as both the defense of the camp in NYC and shutting down the port in Oakland show, has been in our numbers. The police are experts at dealing with small groups of people or peaceful protests and usually their tactic at dealing with large protests is to break it up into small parts, cut off a march make people split into different directions and repeat until they can isolate and round people up. So that's one reason I kind of find the idea of spreading out our protests as ineffective, it's like we do half the cops job for them.

And was the port of Oakland entirely shutdown anyway? And if it was (or wasn't) what was the way it was shut down? Was it the self-activity of the port workers themselves? Or was it activists jamming each terminal and waiting for a union hack to say the working conditions were "unsafe"? Was the shutdown tactically combative? Or was it simply a numbers game?
Yeah, I think its awesome we live in a time where there are enough people down to march on the ports up and down the west coast. But these questions need to be asked and the grandiosity of "OMFG WE SHUT DOWN THE PORTS" needs to be reckoned with.This was a community action, not a direct work action although individual workers were highly involved and contrary to the propaganda of the media, Occupy Oakland did a lot of groundwork in working with port workers and doing outreach to drivers.

The action is significant because rank and file workers had to fight their union leaders (go around them actually) and I think it sets a precedent and demonstrates a militant alternative to "moral witness" protests or union leaders who say we have to be "realistic" and our strength is in their negotiation abilities, not the power to shut-down production. The action also shows that members of the 99%, when working together, do have the potential to hurt the 1%.

So yeah, on a historical scale, the action itself was modest. But for our era it's quite a significant step forward for class struggle and rebuilding class militancy.

I mean everything from the rhetoric of the 99% to the name ("Occupy Oakland" or whatever else city) reaks of an "enlightened few acting on behalf of... the interests of the sleeping masses..." so dont act like youre not doing the same thing you accuse insurrectos of. Oakalnd is the location and 99% is not the movement it's just the people who have suffered in the recession vs. the 1% who've gained. Tea-Partiers and other are "99%" but support the "1%" so I don't think there's anything inherently elitist although there certainty are many people in the movement who have some elitist ideas about "waking people up" - they tend to be liberals though in my experience who think that people are "duped" by FOX news or whatnot.

see above, the GA form is not the only way to get support, and with some actions (like the attempted building occupation) it doesnt make sense to go through this ridiculous decision making process that effectively allows the police to know our every move and be very prepared. of course that would be a problem if people were willing to fight the police and kick them out, but that wont end until this rhetoric of non-violence is thoroughly squashed.Well full disclosure of everything would obviously not work for all actions. But currently in Oakland there has been a GA vote on occupying a building and a plan which includes keeping the location secret. That's the best strategy for finding a balance between security issues and having an open movement IMO. Go Oakland.

rofl, dont pretend that those in power of the occupation movement are the working class and not the same old activist clique of specialized wingnuts.Sorry, I combined two different things there unclearly. I was speaking more generally about the working class and how the goal of radicals should be to help workers to become leaders. Revolution from above will just continue the passivity that capitalism has beaten into the working class in general so I think in order for the working class to achieve self-emancipation, workers will have to be consciously leading and millions will have to learn how to run strike committees and then workplace councils in order for workers to take hold of society themselves.

The second point was that as far as this movement though the working class activists who make up the informal leadership just act as if they aren't making these decisions and I think that's problematic because then other forces such as NGOs can just step in and claim to represent the movement and they have done that.

That is not what I said at all. Don't be an asshole. Oh but I can't help it. Hmm, is it being an asshole or is it just untouchable style! :D

First of all, you have a ridiculous understanding of individualism if you think that I am an individualist. I spend most of my time working on critiques of individualism, and i think it is a total farce. But you're right, I am not arguing for socialism or winning "self-emancipation." I am arguing for the idea that the revolution must be communist in nature, meaning the immediate self-abolition of the proletariat as a class, and therefore the abolition of capitalist social relations.Ok, how is that achieved and how do your tactics or politics aid that? I'm being sincere and trying to understand the poltics and reasoning behind these tactics - and I'm trying not to be crude or tar everyone with one brush, but it's a little frustrating because there's a lack accountability with some of these actions and so people don't really defend or justify specific tactics (which is understandable because it's not like it's always coordinated).

I skeptical of the idea that class can just be nullified because I think if the working class doesn't exert its own power over society as a means to then achieving the elimination of classes, then a revolution is only paving the way for some other class to assert it's dominance such as petty-bourgeois bureaucrats or whatnot.

Kadir Ateş

4th January 2012, 16:05

I know.

ellipsis

5th January 2012, 02:02

offtopic derailment split to here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/vangardism-within-occupyi-t166492/index.html?t=166492

Binh

5th January 2012, 04:00

No amount of barricading would have kept the police out and would only buy hours, if any time at all. Building occupations are not done with the intention of holding the building, this is almost impossible. Anybody who keeps up on or participates in building occupations in the bay area knows the police show up and when they are dealing with hundreds of protesters in the streets, they show up in force.

I said in the article that different tactics would have probably allowed them to hold TAS into the day, so you agree with me.

The Anti-capitalist march was lead by 100 people masked and in black. The flier said "wear black". What peaceful march was highjacked? If participants didn't understand what they were getting into following 100+ hooded, masked people in all black, they only have their own ignorance and naivety to blame.

So wearing black is the same thing as handing people a flyer? I think not.

I would let people use whatever tactics they feel necessary, its not my, or anybody's role to "police the movement."

This is why sexual assault spiralled out of control at OWS. Occupy has a responsibility to police itself, unless you'd rather have the cops do it. I wouldn't.

ellipsis

5th January 2012, 04:39

I said in the article that different tactics would have probably allowed them to hold TAS into the day, so you agree with me.
Covertly, yes, with guns, sure. But as a open occupation on that day, made public on that day, they would not have been able to hold it, even with heavy fortification done in advance.

So wearing black is the same thing as handing people a flyer? I think not.I don't follow

This is why sexual assault spiralled out of control at OWS. Occupy has a responsibility to police itself, unless you'd rather have the cops do it. I wouldn't.Prevent violence towards people and preventing destruction of corporate property are not the same thing. Through what mechanism and in what ways do you propose Occupy police itself? Swinging clubs at people during demos? Turning "trouble makers" over to the police? Public flogging?

Also the police are going to police the movement, despite what you and I might hope for.

Binh

7th January 2012, 07:12

Covertly, yes, with guns, sure. But as a open occupation on that day, made public on that day, they would not have been able to hold it, even with heavy fortification done in advance.

Why?

Prevent violence towards people and preventing destruction of corporate property are not the same thing. Through what mechanism and in what ways do you propose Occupy police itself? Swinging clubs at people during demos? Turning "trouble makers" over to the police? Public flogging?

I never said they were the same thing. I simply pointed out the practical problems created by the "no one who is part of Occupy can/should police Occupy" line of thinking.

OWS had a security team from day one. The problem was that it refused to do its job because it didn't want to be "authoritarian." There are procedures in place but I don't think flogging or clubbing are included.

ellipsis

7th January 2012, 08:03

Why?

Police has a myriad of breaching tools from pneumatic devices to explosive to armored vehicles to special shotgun rounds, if they want, they are getting in. The police in oakland would not have let a building so close to OGP be occupied, and did not let it happen.

ellipsis

12th January 2012, 21:05

I never said they were the same thing. I simply pointed out the practical problems created by the "no one who is part of Occupy can/should police Occupy" line of thinking.

OWS had a security team from day one. The problem was that it refused to do its job because it didn't want to be "authoritarian." There are procedures in place but I don't think flogging or clubbing are included.

There are forms of communal self-regulation/mediation/deescalation that are non-authoritarian and not "policing". Why does one group of people need to be the enforcing authority?

You have yet to provide any examples of how occupy encampments can self-regulate, merely stating that self-regulation is necessary to defend the actions of vigilante "peace police". What are these regulations you claim to be in place?

The very people you cheer on for attacking people committing property destruction to enforce a consensus on non-violence were wielding clubs and violently threatening protestors.

This form of "security" gets ugly, quick; vigilante/mob justice is not the way in which the movement needs to head. I have seen this first hand; when I was in Oaxaca during the APPO occupation, a group of people brought this beat up alleged agent of governor quiz, the local paper the next day featured this individual tied to a lamp post, getting pummeled in the stomach by a middle aged women.

So clubbing and public flogging are very real and probable outcomes if such vigilante "policing" of the movement is allowed to continue.

syndicat

13th January 2012, 05:16

There are problems with the GA structure - the first being the length of time (which I think is coming from good intentions and a desire not to shut people out) and frequency of meeting which means to feel really connected and involved you either need to be a part-time student who doesn't have to work or be unemployed. There are other things I'd change if it was up to me, but the fact that people are open and these things can be debated and discussed and tested in practice is fantastic IMO. By coming together and working together not only are we able to do things in larger numbers, but there is more of a chance for people to learn poltical lessons. One of the problems with "autonomism" or affinity groups or sectarian socialist cliques is that if people are organized around a certain tactic then it takes longer for lessons to be learned and generalized and for people to learn from mistakes. OWS has helped radicals and the radicalizing learn first hand lessons that would take people years of reading history or theory or participating in one-off actions among people they already agree with.I've just read thru this thread and I'm generally in agreement with almost all of what Jimmie H. says here.

I think the absence of an agenda for GAs (at least I've not been able to find them, if they do exist) is a problem. Especially for someone like myself who can't get there that often (I live out in a suburb just south of Oakland). It's oriented to someone who has all the time in the world to devote themselves totally to activism, or living in a camp. I also tend to be skeptical of consensus decision-making because in my experience it often leads to interminable meetings and can lend itself to manipulation by small groups. And then people will be motivated to ignore GAs. And this may mean working groups or various groups becoming increasingly unaccountable or uncoordinated with others. The extreme frequency of GAs also seems to me to have the same problem.

This is why I tend to agree with the suggestion for a reduced majority for decisions...say, 2/3.

I think GAs are important because of building a democratic process for making decisions for a large grouping of people who come together to cooperate in the struggle. It's a way to facilitate that cooperation and movement building, at least in principle. Change and changing consciousness come through resistance increasing in terms of numbers. Our potential power is in numbers, and what is important is the apparent willingness of more people right now to stand up and engage in forms of resistance. Mass action means more power to have an effect.

I also favor GAs because I do believe that an authentic working class movement needs to be controlled by its participants, and how then are decisions to be made if not be a general meeting? (I mean the things that are the business of everyone, that affect us, the control and direction of the movement.) I do see this as potentially prefigurative in the sense that I don't think the transformation of society into one run by the working class can happen if practices of direct control of our own movements does not become an entrenched practice.

When I say "prefigurative" tho, I don't mean that we're literally building right now a post-capitalist society but rather that the latter comes out of the mass working class movement that brings it about, and we can't reasonably suppose that such a society will miraculously be self-managing and directly democratic if there didn't develop in the class struggle over a protracted period of struggle movements built on that basis.