The pathetic death of Occupy Wall Street

[Agathor]

An article in The New York Review of Books documents and diagnoses the collapse of the OWS movement.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/feb/09/what-future-occupy-wall-street/

The protests failed to develop into an organization with goals, tactics and a base. The movement has became impossible for busy working people to penetrate, as to participate you must dedicate most of your time to it. The effect is that the only activists who remain are the young counter-cultural hippie types who don't have much to do. They are dogmatically anti-politics and content for their actions to go no further than 'occupations' and media stunts.


Organizers described Occupy Wall Street as “a way of being,” of “sharing your life together in assembly.” To participate fully in its process of “horizontal, autonomous, leaderless, modified-consensus-based” democracy, you had to make the movement a central part of your existence. For many, this posed an insurmountable problem. A social worker and single mother with little free time told me that she had given up trying to join Occupy Wall Street because she couldn’t figure out how to do so “without hanging out with them all the time.” The ambitions of the core group of activists were more cultural than political, in the sense that they sought to influence the way people think about their lives. “Ours is a transformational movement,” Amin told me with a solemn air. Transformation had to occur face to face; what it offered, especially to the young, was an antidote to the empty gaze of the screen.

[Marquess]

The Occupy Movement lost its core message almost right after it started. It used to be about protesting against wealth inequality, the corporate influence in government, and bringing about a Social Democracy (At least according to Wikipedia). At this point it's merely become a media spectacle about the right to protest vs. police brutality that most other supporters (Including myself) I know gave up hope on since it's clear that no change will come about from this. The actual occupying should have been the FIRST step, not the ONLY step in my opinion. That's why it lost most of it's momentum half way through, it just came off as people sitting around complaining instead of people actually wanting to do something about it.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I can only speak definitively about my local one, but it's demand to be non-partisan effectively translated into being non-political. Their site claims to still be occupying our statehouse, which I think constitutes a few people and a tarp on the sidewalk. It's a disappointing end but you could see it coming after the first GA when the liberals began complaining about the use of Anti-Capitalist rhetoric from some of the participants.

At least there's not much left for the Democrats to assimilate and use for the election.

[Lobotomy]

It's sad to see Occupy fading away, but I think we can learn a lot of lessons from it. For example, we cannot allow the ancaps and Ron Paulistas to participate. We're not going to get any help from the media. and the police will show no mercy when it comes to anti-ruling class rhetoric.

of course, these things were probably pretty obvious from the get-go, but at least now we have solid evidence to support those kinds of arguments, just in case the liberals try to make the same mistakes next time around.

[Comrade-Z]

In my opinion, the cardinal error of the Occupy movement has been that it has been tactically radical, but ideologically conservative, whereas it should be the other way around. It should tactically be very conservative until it has recruited broad sections of the working class, but all the while it should be ideologically radical, as radical as possible, so that working class recruitment actually means something, and so that the working class that is recruited is prepared to really go all the way.

It darkly amuses me that the "anarchists" of Occupy Wall Street have been flailing about for a "message" and a goal, when if they knew the history of their own movement, they'd have a ready template from which to begin working immediately: anarcho-syndicalist Catalonia of 1936.

What exactly is wrong with starting from there? Obviously material conditions aren't the same now as then, but at least start from there, learn from where those anarchists went wrong, and adapt things to modern conditions as necessary.

For example, an easy slogan that OWS activists should be publicizing at every gathering is, "workplace democracy." Likewise, "All power to workers' councils!"

Goal: enjoin workers in various local industries to set up workers' councils for administration of their workplaces and joint administration of their industries with other workers' councils in that industry.

That goal is not going to come to fruition overnight, but it is something clear towards which to work, and it is easy to gauge one's success at achieving that goal. "Every worker we meet thinks this idea is crazy" vs. "Hey, we encountered one worker who agreed with this goal. Progress!" (Whereas now all we have are the murky goals of "ending income inequality" and "ending corporate influence over the political system". How do you measure your success at those things? And how do you even accomplish those things, aside from taking over the means of production as a class?)

[gorillafuck]

It darkly amuses me that the "anarchists" of Occupy Wall Street have been flailing about for a "message" and a goal, when if they knew the history of their own movement, they'd have a ready template from which to begin working immediately: anarcho-syndicalist Catalonia of 1936.it would be ridiculous to build a movement that just intends to recreate a specific event in history in a much different situation.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's sad to see Occupy fading away, but I think we can learn a lot of lessons from it. For example, we cannot allow the ancaps and Ron Paulistas to participate. We're not going to get any help from the media. and the police will show no mercy when it comes to anti-ruling class rhetoric.

of course, these things were probably pretty obvious from the get-go, but at least now we have solid evidence to support those kinds of arguments, just in case the liberals try to make the same mistakes next time around.

I don't think it's sad that OWS is fading away. I always knew it was going to have to develop into something else from what it initially was, it was inconceivable (and undesirable) that it would just continue on it's initial trajectory indefinitely. Even if there were no police repression, even if there were no Ron Paul supporters (who were so marginal that I don't even see how they had a significantly detrimental effect), and even if there were no liberals...where would OWS have gone? It would've had to have moved beyond just setting up camp in a park somewhere in order to remain politically relevant.

Some minor good things came out of OWS, such as the wealthy FINALLY being put on the defensive a bit in the American media, and some nice inspiring moments came out of it as well. But it was never "our" movement, it was only of interest to the left because it was a way for us to get our propaganda out there. The same conditions exist today as existed last year, so I think the same opportunities exist for the left. Hopefully when summer rolls around we'll see a wave of smart occupations, such as a movement dedicated to taking over foreclosed property.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ That's already happening. Lots of Occupy activists have shifted their focus toward foreclosures.

[Ocean Seal]

Pretty sure Occupy isn't dead, just saying. The voices in the past few months have gotten more and more militant, sure the majority is composed of liberals, but try going to an Occupemos el Barrio or Occupy the Hood, you'll find radical workers there. Its not over yet comrades. Don't sell the movement or yourselves short.

[Zostrianos]

On the Occupy movement, I hoped for the best but expected the worst. And the worst happened: Like always, people go out and protest for a while, then get tired, and go back to their old lives without having accomplished anything. Meanwhile the capitalist politicians and bourgeoisie are laughing their asses off and continuing to do whatever they want. It's nearly always the same: people go out and protest against something, but in the end they don't really do anything. So much for a revolution this time :thumbdown:

[workersadvocate]

Occupying working class hoods--and actually involving and organizing numbers of local working people in an occupation movement of our own rather than of the middle class activists--- would make all the difference now.
Combining this with a real effort to educate, organize and prepare for workplace occupations backed by the working class hood occupations would be obvious next step.

We have to turn to our own class power, to our own class masses, and not remain cut off from that, nor to beat around the bush implying that we seek anything less then systematic change via working class revolutionary self-emancipation.
Anybody who isn't fully committed to such systematic change from workers revolution has no place in the leadership of a workers' Occupy or the workers movement generally.
Anybody who doesn't take Occupy to the working class neighborhoods and workplaces under workers' democratic control is playing around in an activist hobby...what's the point?

[Binh]

Qaddafi thought the revolution was dead in the spring of 2011 too. :D

[Comrade-Z]

it would be ridiculous to build a movement that just intends to recreate a specific event in history in a much different situation.

Notice that I talked about anarcho-syndicalist Catalonia in 1936 as a starting point from which to build our vision. Surely we would have much about it to update to accord with current circumstances. But what, pray tell, was ever shown to be fundamentally dysfunctional about what happened in Catalonia in 1936, aside from the fact that they just had too few weapons and fighters (but especially weapons) on their side?

[Buitraker]

This happen in spain too, here with 15M

[bcbm]

it ain't over til its over

[Jimmie Higgins]

At least there's not much left for the Democrats to assimilate and use for the election.

Actually I have the opposite view. The confusion in the movement while the "original message" still has a lot of resonance means it will be easier for the Democrats to capitalize on it. They will say, well it's a good idea, anarchists wreaked it by being too radical, now grow up and support us (coz you got no viable alternative).



The protests failed to develop into an organization with goals, tactics and a base. The movement has became impossible for busy working people to penetrate, as to participate you must dedicate most of your time to it. The effect is that the only activists who remain are the young counter-cultural hippie types who don't have much to do. They are dogmatically anti-politics and content for their actions to go no further than 'occupations' and media stunts.
I love your avatar by the way - it brightened my day.

But anyway, I think OWS and more generally the whole sweep of the struggles since Wisconsin is more like a real movement than things we saw before the economic crisis. In the past, there would be a surge of protest and activity around a single issue or cause and then it would hit some kind of impasse and then retreat or fade or be redirected into Democratic party approved channels (immigrant rights/anti-war/gay marriage). What is going on now, however seems different. Not only are people more willing to take illegal and militant action (Republic Windows and Doors, Campus Occupations, OWS encampments, shutting down the port of Oakland) but when faced with repression and establishment liberal criticism, people have not been deterred and have come back. It's taken a lot of repression and media spin just to reduce the movement to it's current state.

Yes the issues in the OP are "issues" with the movement and I agree with most of what was put out. I think there is a tendency to want to preserve unity by not talking about politics which means in the more liberal occupations, things got real Adbuster-y with a lot of "consumer" oriented politics and in the more radical occupations (like Oakland) tactics became more of a focus than the poltics behind the tactics. I also agree that the movement should be base-building and doing outreach to grow in numbers and win the confidence of working class people. But I think we should be clear that what ended the encampment phase of this movement (if, as I suspect, this will be part of an ongoing and developing and mutating movement) was police repression. It took physically destroying the public face and organizing hubs of this movement to actually create this impasse.

Is it over? Maybe it will turn out that people don't use these tactics or encampment strategy any more, but I don't think the actual trajectory of struggle has been reversed or haulted. First, in Oakland, a lot of the militants here cut their teeth in college and university occupations and movements against budget cuts in California. So this already distinguishes this current struggle from the ones in the past where pro-immigrant or anti-war activists rose and fell with that particular struggle. A few people would stick with other activism, but for the most part unorganized activists fell off when the movements died. Now we have a much larger pool of militants who are not against prop 8 or this or that anti-immigration bill but against the whole state of affairs.

Second, the conditions that gave rise to this movement continue and will get worse.

Third, even if the encampment strategy is dead, the movement will pop-up somewhere else. It could be an occupy-influenced rank and file unionist struggle, it could be a re-emergence of student activism around these issues (in California, there will be an attempt to occupy the state capital next month, so it's kind of strange IMO to talk about the movement being dead). It could be a "occupy the hood" movement or something else we can't anticipate.

This is what movements look like. In the 1960s and 1970s there wasn't a straight line of struggle in the anti-war or anti-racism movements. There were plenty of times when the protest movements were called "dead" even by protesters themselves and then in 6 months there'd be some new development and new protests and organizing.

Rather than the explosions of class anger that would pop-up in the past decade, I think now there's an actual dynamic at play where people will move forward, stumble, get pushed back, then learn and move forward again. Radicals have an important part in that process since we take a larger view of things and have a better understanding of how this system works and so we will be able to help people find confidence and possibly help contribute to deepening the politics and class nature of the movement.

[KurtFF8]

What an untimely article/thread considering this past weekend has been largely considered the "flare up" of activity within the Occupy Movement, obviously via Oakland, now to NYC and DC.

Although this is an interesting article by CSMonitor http://news.yahoo.com/weekend-violence-oakland-occupy-movement-back-broken-014822690.html

[blake 3:17]

The protests failed to develop into an organization with goals, tactics and a base.

One of the big problems with the 60s New Left is that they thought everything would change right then right there.

Having been at this stuff for a few years, I can tell you that the Occupy has created all sorts of new openings for building a base and making demands. One of the key messages that the Zapatistas sent to their supporters, was don't worry don't so much about us, we'll work it out, but be where you are and be a Zapatista in your own community.

It can be quick and easy to make the world a worse place; making it better is long and hard.

[khlib]

I can only speak definitively about my local one, but it's demand to be non-partisan effectively translated into being non-political.

Exactly my experience too.

[ckaihatsu]

As for projectiles being hurled at the police, notes Drexel University political science professor George Ciccareillo-Maher, who has been following the events closely, “protesters tossed back the tear gas canisters that were being shot at them by the police.”

Perhaps one of the most incendiary images that arose from the weekend’s skirmishes is the American flag in flames. But, points out Scott Kimball, secretary for the Board of Directors of Iraq Veterans Against the War, which has worked with Occupy protesters, “burning the flag is a protected form of political speech.”


So that must mean, then, that *hurling* an American flag in flames is a protected form of political nonviolence...!


= D

[Drosophila]

Qaddafi thought the revolution was dead in the spring of 2011 too. :D

Except they had weapons and armor, which was being supplied by the imperialist West.

[Doflamingo]

I don't think the Occupy movement is dead yet, but it has a long way to go before it is truly effective.

[Agathor]

It darkly amuses me that the "anarchists" of Occupy Wall Street have been flailing about for a "message" and a goal, when if they knew the history of their own movement, they'd have a ready template from which to begin working immediately: anarcho-syndicalist Catalonia of 1936.


A libertarian-syndicalist labour union would have been the best outcome. The more likely and troubling outcome -- absorption into the Democratic Party -- would have been a disappointment, but at least then they would have some influence over legislation as an internal pressure group, even if it consisted of nothing more radical than New Deal liberalism. There are a lot of people in America who are being crushed by neoliberalism and would be greatly relieved by a return to Roosevelt.

When the protests started I voiced worries that the people involved were the same sort who had been peopling G20 and WTO protests since the early 90s -- young, bohemian and politically evanescent, with a second-hand anarchist ideology. I was thrilled to see, a few weeks later, men in their thirties and fourties wearing overalls and white shirts, who appeared slightly uncomfortable chanting the embarrassing slogans. A few weeks after that it was clear that the young bohemians were a minority and the movement was peopled by the working class. Now the movement is again composed mostly of radical students and 'culture-smashers', who are making it difficult for anyone normal to join.

[Le Socialiste]

Occupy is far from dead - it's evolving. Recent events within the Occupy movement have led many to radicalize their outlook and demands. Everyone I talked to, whether they were participating in OO's march or just watching from the sidewalk agreed with the sentiment that the police aren't there to protect us - their purpose is to guard and protect the privilege and interests of the political-financial elite. Of course, it was Oakland, so it probably wasn't that much of a stretch for some people.

As for future plans, I'm on a committee that's planning logistics and outreach for the March 5th demonstration/occupation in Sacramento. Out of 15 or so people, 8-9 were communists of varying stripes, 4 were liberals, and 2 were somewhere in the middle. Occupy, and the events surrounding it, is attracting a more militant and radicalized following. While it is weighed down by some liberal and/or "no politics" sentiments, it is increasingly evident that we're seeing the formative beginnings of a reawakened people. It's just a matter of resisting any attempts to narrow the movement's focus to this or that issue, to keep it in line with the view that the entire political and economic system needs changing.

Don't count OWS out just yet. We're still fighting.

[A Marxist Historian]

An article in The New York Review of Books documents and diagnoses the collapse of the OWS movement.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/feb/09/what-future-occupy-wall-street/

The protests failed to develop into an organization with goals, tactics and a base. The movement has became impossible for busy working people to penetrate, as to participate you must dedicate most of your time to it. The effect is that the only activists who remain are the young counter-cultural hippie types who don't have much to do. They are dogmatically anti-politics and content for their actions to go no further than 'occupations' and media stunts.

Well, this article was about Occupy Wall Street in New York. And in NY OWS is pretty dead, because that's where the original organizers, following the basically bad news liberal apolitical Spanish model, were in charge, and strangled it.

The focus shifted nationally to Oakland, which basically replaced New York, where you had much less cultist "human miking" and whatnot, less fondness for cops and liberals from the getgo, and a clear orientation to the labor movement. The Oakland port shutdown wasn't a "general strike," but it seems to have actually helped the Longview longshoremen more or less win one of the most important class warfare battles of the recent period. A first labor victory after a long line of sellouts and defeats, that is bound to have big positive consequences.

But even in Oakland, the movement was doomed to fall apart at some point, due to its very nature. It is supposed to be a movement of "the 99 percent," everybody vs. the richest banker elite. That's just not the way the world works.

It could never come up with a central slogan because it is a movement against Wall Street. So the question becomes, do you abolish Wall Street, and the only way you can do that is to get rid of capitalism and establish socialism, or do you just clean it up a little, tax the bankers more?

That's where the liberals and Obama come in. Indeed, how can Obama possibly wage more wars in Pakistan or against Iran or whatever unless he raises taxes, and how can he possibly get away at this point with raising taxes unless he raises taxes on the rich too?

Already, he has more or less gotten out of Iraq and is negotiating with the Taliban to get out of Afghanistan, in both cases ultimately because America is too broke to afford a lot of wars. So if he wants to wage some wars, and he certainly does, taxing the rich is vitally necessary.

So either OWS becomes explicitly socialist, an idea no occupy movement, even in Oakland, is ready for, or it is doomed to become an adjunct to the Democratic Party.

What we can hope for is that the best of the Occupy activists will learn from their experiences, drop this populist 99% nonsense, and join the revolutionary left.

In general, OWS has pushed the American political landscape a bit to the left, and so now leftist organizations are recruiting again. A very good thing.

-M.H.-

[KurtFF8]

^While I do agree with some of those criticisms about NY OWS, the Oakland Solidarity march this weekend was an example of how it's certainly not dead.

And people are still active here planning for the Spring.

[Renegade Saint]

Talking about "the OWS movement" is a misnomer. Because of the decentralized nature of the movement it's really a separate movement in every city. While there are some commonalities (the consensus system is idiotic and impedes progress), the movement certainly hasn't collapsed here. We're still very involved with actions, may have some big announcements to make soon concerning our legal fight against the city, and just rented a very large warehouse type space to act as an HQ.
No, we're no longer in a park-but that stage was bound to end sooner or later.

[ColonelCossack]

I go to school weekdays. So I stayed one night outside occupy LSX with the other cossacks. Not the same as staying there long term, but at least it shows my solidarity. Right? better than nothing!

[bcbm]

i think there are some short attention spans/ridiculous expectations going on here. 'oh the global rev didn't kick off from this in a few short months it must've been worthless and is dead now.' where y'all been the last few years? occupy marked a pretty big leap in terms of what has been happening in this country and put in the global context of a wave of similar or even more radical events, combined with the ongoing crisis, i think its much too earlier to declare it dead or say it was no big deal. obviously it has not been as wonderful as many of us would like but i think it marks a very important shift in the national if not global political landscape. the crisis has no end in sight and people are getting increasingly fed up. even if occupy is dead, it marks a breach in the social peace that i think will only get bigger from here. just because it didn't rip wide open all at once doesn't mean the hole is closed

[Sensible Socialist]

Tell the people getting arrested by the hundreds, pepper-sprayed, gassed, and beaten, that Occupy is dead. Encampments have come and gone, others continue to be, but just because we're not a socialist utopia yet does not mean it's dead. It's the winter; what do you expect?

Furthermore, if you think it's dying, get out there and do something. Don't sit on the sidelines and weep. Start something, join something, do something.

[workersadvocate]

Part of the problem here is the over-focus on media-splash "activism".

How about turning to education and organizing working people widely now, networking and interconnecting these so that when working people self-initiate their own class action, they'll be more conscious, more united and strong, and armed to the teeth prepared for the next struggle?

What's good for the working class, instead of what's good for the left sects or what makes the most exciting "activism".

[GoddessCleoLover]

Can testify first-hand that the Occupy movement is far from dead, but Renegade Saint is absolutely right about its decentralized nature and the wide variances from city to city.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Your not dead until the bullet leaves the barrel.

[marl]

An Adbusters article on the current state of Occupy:



Three days after Adbusters put out a call to #OCCUPYCHICAGO (http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/tactical-briefing-25.html) for a month during the May G8/NATO summits, spectacular clashes erupted between #OCCUPYOAKLAND (http://occupyoakland.org/) militants and armored police. Attempts to occupy an abandoned building were put down with tear gas, less-lethal munitions and baton charges. What was new, and surprising, this time around was that some Oakland occupiers came equipped as altermodern Hoplites (http://publicintelligence.net/occupy-oakland-move-in-day-photos-january-2012/) with plastic and tin shields. And to everyone’s amazement they performed an eerie quasi-military discipline and phalanx formation that had clearly been worked out beforehand. They came ready and willing to confront police. On a symbolic level, the Oakland street battle struck a chord in the movement because its theatrical staging functioned as an inverted repetition of the Brooklyn Bridge arrests (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/police-arresting-protesters-on-brooklyn-bridge/) that electrified the first phase of Occupy.
In both cases, a group of protesters engaged in the ostensibly illegal behavior (blocking traffic, occupying space) courageously faced down police while spectators, journalists, photographers recorded the scene from the left flank on higher ground. Both events are watershed moments that define phases of the movement. #OCCUPYOAKLAND’s phalanx and #OCCUPYWALLSTREET’s mass arrest represent different, at times compatible and sometimes conflicting, futures of #OCCUPY. That is why #OCCUPYOAKLAND’s public performance of a West Coast anarchist ethos has sent a chill down the international spine of #OCCUPY, sparking raging debates on many movement email lists.
At stake is not who will determine the future of #OCCUPYWALLSTREET (http://occupywallstreet.org/). At stake is who will determine the future of #OCCUPY… which is to say what vision of the movement will emerge during the next big showdown, #OCCUPYCHICAGO in May (https://www.facebook.com/events/215015741925055/)?
Until now many people have believed that #OCCUPYWALLSTREET is synonymous with #OCCUPY and that the beautiful spirit of Zuccotti will forever dictate how the movement unfolds. But this assumption is fracturing as it becomes clear that the movement is actually comprised of dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of autonomous forces acting in concert. The perfect example is OccupyWallSt.org (https://occupywallst.org/), the flagship website of the movement which is not itself of, or beholden to, the movement. Coding for the site began weeks before any on-the-ground meetings were held in NYC. OccupyWallSt.org explains (http://occupywallst.org/about/) that they are an autonomous “affinity group” that is not “a subcommittee of the NYCGA nor affiliated with Adbusters, Anonymous or any other organization” which means that they do not receive orders from nor accept the authority of any of these organizations, including the General Assembly of NYC (http://www.nycga.net/). They are allies but nonetheless autonomous. Of course, this is the same position that Adbusters, Anonymous and the NYCGA take in regards to each other as well. And, when you think about it, it is also the same position that your local #OCCUPY might take towards the dictates of #OCCUPYOAKLAND, #OCCUPYCHICAGO (http://occupychi.org/) or even #OCCUPYWALLSTREET.
With today’s hindsight it is obvious that what have been called the core principles of the #OCCUPY movement have been overdetermined by an East Coast vibe inherited from the pre-September 17 meetings of the NYC General Assembly (http://www.nycga.net/), another organization that predates #OCCUPY but has been considered synonymous with it. It was in these meetings that consensus-based general assemblies were agreed upon as the model. It is interesting to read the various declarations (http://www.nycga.net/resources/) of the NYC General Assembly in light of the waning influence that New York occupiers over #OCCUPY as a whole. In these declarations, for example, one detects a frequent slippage between the NYCGA speaking for itself and speaking for the movement as a whole. This used to make sense but it no longer does as murmurs on the West Coast suggest a growing sentiment that the folks on the East Coast have gotten a bit too comfortable with the NGOs, unions and behind-the-scenes power-brokers in DC that the movement explicitly rejected before September 17. #OCCUPYOAKLAND’s powerful emergence is a symptom of the fracturing of the movement as various autonomous forces push-and-pull the movement in new, surprising directions.
The consensus of the movement over itself has been lost. It will take weeks, perhaps months, for these debates to simmer into discussions and then be settled within the movement. Ultimately, the matter will not be decided until we see what plays out in Chicago when the world’s supposed leaders meet and 2,500 journalists are watching. The situation is made all the more difficult because consensus decisions in New York City cannot dictate the consensus in Oakland, Los Angeles, Portland or Chicago. Inter-occupy (http://interoccupy.org/) conference calls are now happening to address this reality. And perhaps even more significant is the looming possibility of multiple #OCCUPYs in the same city. If there are two #OCCUPYOAKLAND general assemblies, one which embraces militant street battles and one which does not, who is to say which has greater authority over the name? Or, what if there is a defunct #OCCUPYX and a new crop of people move in and claim to speak for #OCCUPYX? What is the relationship between a preexisting #OCCUPY and an autonomous group who comes in later, acts autonomously and claims the right to also speak in the name of that city’s #OCCUPY? The old answer would have been that all #OCCUPYs must abide by the declarations of the NYC General Assembly… but this no longer seems tenable.
Behind this soul searching is the unresolved question of whether a movement that fractures into smaller autonomous groups can still build and maintain a consensus larger than its individual parts. The answer is probably yes… after all, we’ve been doing it unconsciously up until now. What is different is that we’re being forced to acknowledge that autonomy is a core principle of the movement, for better or worse.

[runequester]

It's interesting to watch the commentary. Given the diffuse nature of it, and the fact that it's literally "everyone who doesn't like how things are now", you get a wide range of people.

I've seen people attempt to do actual educating and training, and try to develop consciousness and build cadres. I've seen good political discussion.

I've seen dumbass 18 year old "anarchists" thinking that breaking a window changes anything.

It is what it is, but what is certainly is not, is one specific thing.

[Raúl Duke]

I think why someone might think Occupy is dead has to do with how it grew in the first place.

Occupy spread all over fairly rapidly to many cities and towns, many of which couldn't effectively maintain an Occupation. For example, Ft.Myers and Naples Occupy have been mostly dead in the water (although Naples is up to something, Occupy Fort Myers is for the most part a corpse). This rapid rise for the short-term self-perpetuated the enthusiasm in the beginning. But in the end many of these small-town occupations died or ended up amounting to nothing.

But in certain major cities, as far as I'm aware, they're still Occupations occurring and doing things so it's still to early to say "it's over" until it really is. As long as those occupations have developed to a point where they're "stable" and "active" than they still may have a chance.

[Die Neue Zeit]

When the protests started I voiced worries that the people involved were the same sort who had been peopling G20 and WTO protests since the early 90s -- young, bohemian and politically evanescent, with a second-hand anarchist ideology. I was thrilled to see, a few weeks later, men in their thirties and fourties wearing overalls and white shirts, who appeared slightly uncomfortable chanting the embarrassing slogans. A few weeks after that it was clear that the young bohemians were a minority and the movement was peopled by the working class. Now the movement is again composed mostly of radical students and 'culture-smashers', who are making it difficult for anyone normal to join.

I think that's because of factors outside people's control, most notably the winter weather.

I won't pass judgment until the spring comes. Let's see if the "culture smashers," "Battle of Seattle" types, young apolitical bohemians, and the Student Left are still in charge.

[workersadvocate]

I think that's because of factors outside people's control, most notably the winter weather.

I won't pass judgment until the spring comes. Let's see if the "culture smashers," "Battle of Seattle" types, young apolitical bohemians, and the Student Left are still in charge.
What is to prevent the union bureaucracies and Dems from taking charge (with the help of fake-socialist middle class liberals like Mr. "The Cancer of Occupy") if most if ehat remains of Occupy in the major US cities by springtime? There is a presidential election cycle under way, and that means pressure on all reformists and union bureaucrats to get campaigning for Obama. They have to coopt or kill Occupy soon.
Now consider what many people here on Revleft mean when they question if Occupy is dead. They obviously know that actions are still taking place in a few places by, well, not so many people (most working people are not actively involved or not actively supporting Occupy and encouraging non-participant working people to join the effort at this time).
What are the current debates within Occupy? I'm not near a serious Occupy effort, so I can only go by what those here who are involved say, and it would seem the liberals/union bureaucrats have successfully put the focus of debate on the question of violence. This helps them secure solid ground for cooption or destruction of most Occupy efforts by springtime.

AMH's last comment really bugs me, because it says blatantly what the focus of most left sects has been regarding Occupy. In sum, they expect Occupy to be coopted or ruined like a thousand movements before,
so this justifies keeping left sects' focus on recruiting a few more members, rinse and repeat at the next movement or broad left event. "But Lenin said..." is the constant worn out excuse for this, and though I still have some remaining sympathies for the Great Bald One, I think hanging on his every word and every action is a mistake, especially when it's all about building and maintaining irrelevant left sects in spite and regardless of what is happening to and within the working class at large. Yo, the "party" (usually not even 100 members yet, and most of them are middle class) ain't everything and ain't supposed to exist just for itself or just to impotently interpret the world from the fringe.
How about these left sects actually earn their stripes educating and organizing and agitation with the working class masses before considering themselves vanguard material? Just because you got a few ideas from some radicals that once upon a time actually did some good for working people doesn't mean you in 2012 can expect working people to treat you as entitled to be vanguard leadership today like it was a passed down inheritance from Gramps Lenin or whomever. Those radical men and women of the past did their historical roles, for better or worse, and now they are dead and gone. Should we just be a tiny memorial society for quote-mongering nostalgics?

[Die Neue Zeit]

How about these left sects actually earn their stripes educating and organizing and agitation with the working class masses before considering themselves vanguard material?

You forgot the part, comrade, about them proletarianizing their processes and their members.

By the way, I'm not clear about what you're saying re. Occupy's potential from spring onwards. :confused: Unless your question that I quoted is the answer, "What is to prevent..." sounds as pessimistic as AMH's position.

[workersadvocate]

You forgot the part, comrade, about them proletarianizing their processes and their members.
Indeed...and it's sad that this really needs to be repeated so often among communist revolutionaries when it should be as "second nature", coming as almost instinctual to us.


By the way, I'm not clear about what you're saying re. Occupy's potential from spring onwards. :confused: Unless your question that I quoted is the answer, "What is to prevent..." sounds as pessimistic as AMH's position.

Well, I am somewhat pessimistic about what I think will become of MOST of what is still called "Occupy (fill in the blank)"...political independence will be no more there, and it will be a middle class liberal pole of attraction having transformed into their own "Tea Party" for the Democrats.

Of course, not all Occupiers and not all Occupy efforts will go down the drain with the Dems & company. The question I ask now, and they will be asking soon if not already, is what to do at that point? I really don't want the left sects to wipe their brows and return to old go-nowhere self-satisfied fringe routines nor to get swept up into reformist capitulation by the gravity of the Dem's "Tea Party" equivelant and because they had no serious independent class-strugglist alternative strategy. Either we [email protected], go back to our old left-sect fringe ways and pretend that's revolutionary, or get sucked into serving the Dems & Company because " that's all there is right now" and because " we gotta do something, and this is all we can do now".

[Die Neue Zeit]

Indeed...and it's sad that this really needs to be repeated so often among communist revolutionaries when it should be as "second nature", coming as almost instinctual to us.

[...]

Either we [email protected], go back to our old left-sect fringe ways and pretend that's revolutionary, or get sucked into serving the Dems & Company

It's a bit ironic to see me envy workers south of the 49th parallel like yourself organize things like [email protected] :blushing:

[Binh]

Except they had weapons and armor, which was being supplied by the imperialist West.

The cells in Tripoli didn't. :)

[workersadvocate]

It's a bit ironic to see me envy workers south of the 49th parallel like yourself organize things like [email protected] :blushing:

Well, I'll be honest that in my current circumstances and locale I couldn't do much of a successful [email protected] Not unless martyrdom on turf where we would be weakest will advance it somehow. I raised this with others, about the strategic "where this should be done first", so it will actually be successful, so the initiators aren't isolated and nipped in the bud before success by the 33% (and their legal and extralegal "armed bodies of men"). My conclusion is that [email protected] really needs to be undertaken in major or "minor-major US cities first, especially where their is a large, quite diverse, worse off and more discontented proletariat with little realistic hope for upward mobility in this system and little faith left in the existing institutions or various leaderships within this system. I mean the sort of US cities where serious "riots" by many thousands of the working people and poor and specially oppressed might most likely occur within the next few years.

The middle class left instinct is to stay away from such potential battlegrounds...until Dems/liberal left political personalities and union bureaucrats and preachers move in to condemn independent militant action from below, coopt, mislead and sellout. Rarely will you see middle class left groups around before or immediately during a mass rebellion situation, certainly not doing anything that is not the usual routine left-sect "activism" and "party building". Afterwards, some revolutionaries will wonder why the rebellions didn't advance beyond. Comrades, this is why, this narrow focus on our sects and our routines and not boldly intervening where and when it counts to ORGANIZE working people and poor and oppressed seeking to fight back before and during these self-initiated mass uprisings, and to set the conscious class-strugglist anti-system political narrative among these rebelling masses BEFORE enemy politicos and bureaucrats have time to react. I want to find working people on the left who want to do that. No, it probably doesn't mean revolution right away, but it does mean helping to prepare the working class itself for its own revolution from below, so it is more conscious and more organized and stronger and more independent and much more confident in itself versus the institutions and opposing classes of the system. Gotta actually do the hard prepatory work and actually help the working class advance itself in its struggles and rebellions beforehand if you want them to every take working class socialist revolution seriously, and if you don't do that, what are they supposed to think when working people encounter these silly fringe creatures that are never around in the working class' serious times of need just pushing their sect newspapers and membership recruitment appeals? Let's get past this bullshit separation of vanguard (especially class conscious revolutionary working people) from the working class itself.
We should be where our class is mostly likely to fight back on its own independent initiative and where we could actually help our class advance...then maybe we can talk about proper meaningful vanguards and not just be shooting the breeze in left sect fantasyland among a bunch of middle class temporary psuedo-left friends who will forget about us and the working class and systematic change the moment they think they can get a piece of the system's pie for themselves.

[Die Neue Zeit]

We should be where our class is mostly likely to fight back on its own independent initiative and where we could actually help our class advance...then maybe we can talk about proper meaningful vanguards and not just be shooting the breeze in left sect fantasyland among a bunch of middle class temporary psuedo-left friends who will forget about us and the working class and systematic change the moment they think they can get a piece of the system's pie for themselves.

The reason why I'm not as skeptical about the spring is that there are other factors, both in the US and elsewhere. Let's see, for example, if EuroMayDay will do something related to Occupy on May Day.

[A Marxist Historian]

The cells in Tripoli didn't. :)

They had something even better, they had air support.

-M.H.-

[The Douche]

Interesting how adbusters, who are essentially responsible for this movement, support diversity of tactics, not dogmatic pacifism, and are obviously acknowledging that OWS and OccupyDC have been taken over by the left-wing of capital, and that the only way to prevent that, is to engage in tactics which those organizations can never cozy up to...

[Raúl Duke]

Interesting how adbusters, who are essentially responsible for this movement, support diversity of tactics, not dogmatic pacifism,

The history how this came to be is quite hazy, which is unfortunate to me.
Which is problematic because the usual liberal activists insist on dogmatic pacifism and than make allusions that this pacifism is a "core" idea of Occupy since its inception; using this conception of Occupy's history as a sort of argument. I remember raising the issue about "diversity of tactics" (I said that an insistence/commitment to pacifism was something I don't support and think it's silly; it's better to be flexible and do what's needed/possible depending on the situation) and how I thought it was stupid for people within Occupy to criticize the West Coast for their actions; particularly if they choose them. You mention "diversity of tactics" and these liberals take it to mean you automatically support rioting, looting, fighting-killing cops "all day erryday" by any means necessary and go on hysterics. Also these liberals go on about how "cops" are nice or whatever; don't they see the media showing reports of police brutality?

Another dogmatic insistence I've seen in Occupy held by many, usually key people, is the insistence of using a pure form of consensus. I really don't personally care about whether they want to use it or not; but I find it jarring when even putting consensus into question is seen as "bad" or "taboo."

[Brosip Tito]

OWS didn't collapse, it moved. Sadly, the OWS people weren't fond of winter weather, however, Oakland is the focal point now.

[The Douche]

The history how this came to be is quite hazy, which is unfortunate to me.
Which is problematic because the usual liberal activists insist on dogmatic pacifism and than make allusions that this pacifism is a "core" idea of Occupy since its inception; using this conception of Occupy's history as a sort of argument. I remember raising the issue about "diversity of tactics" (I said that an insistence/commitment to pacifism was something I don't support and think it's silly; it's better to be flexible and do what's needed/possible depending on the situation) and how I thought it was stupid for people within Occupy to criticize the West Coast for their actions; particularly if they choose them. You mention "diversity of tactics" and these liberals take it to mean you automatically support rioting, looting, fighting-killing cops "all day erryday" by any means necessary and go on hysterics. Also these liberals go on about how "cops" are nice or whatever; don't they see the media showing reports of police brutality?

Another dogmatic insistence I've seen in Occupy held by many, usually key people, is the insistence of using a pure form of consensus. I really don't personally care about whether they want to use it or not; but I find it jarring when even putting consensus into question is seen as "bad" or "taboo."

It has a lot to do with the fact that the NGOs and professional activist organizations who have things like "community organizer" schools and shit like that, openly and directly instruct their organizers not to tolerate diversity of tactics.

These people are trained and well equipped, with the goal of coopting any social movement that arises so that they can channel the energy into acceptable and official movements.

[gorillafuck]

Notice that I talked about anarcho-syndicalist Catalonia in 1936 as a starting point from which to build our vision. Surely we would have much about it to update to accord with current circumstances. But what, pray tell, was ever shown to be fundamentally dysfunctional about what happened in Catalonia in 1936, aside from the fact that they just had too few weapons and fighters (but especially weapons) on their side?what is so unique about it that the occupy movement should try to use it as a basis? I can't think of one thing that existed in Catalonia that hasn't also existed or been propagated somewhere else as well.

[The Douche]

what is so unique about it that the occupy movement should try to use it as a basis? I can't think of one thing that existed in Catalonia that hasn't also existed or been propagated somewhere else as well.

I think there are two important reasons why people need to get over Catalonia:

1) It happened 76 fucking years ago.

2) It only lasted for like 3 months.

[Conscript]

I think there are two important reasons why people need to get over Catalonia:

1) It happened 76 fucking years ago.

2) It only lasted for like 3 months.

But you can say the same thing about the paris commune, and who doesn't want to hark back to that?

[The Douche]

But you can say the same thing about the paris commune, and who doesn't want to hark back to that?

I don't want to "hark back" to anything...

[TrotskistMarx]

Of course the Occupy Movement of protesting against Wall Street is not only dead, but it was also very anti-scientific, because the theory that the 1% of the population of USA are evil and the 99% are good and oppressed is not correct. A more realist ratio would be the 30% who are benefitting from capitalism and the 60% who are oppressed.

But asides from the ratio of who are the exploiters and/or supporters of the capitalist system and who are our allies in favor of a socialist system and a socialist government in the USA right now is very hard to tell with the exact %s.

But talking specifically about The Occupy Protesting Movement. They were too closed minded toward Marxist Socialism Ideology, I say this because I was banned from many Occupy Protesting Facebook group sites for suggesting that the only solution for the members and leaders of the Occupy Protestors is to turn that movement into a United Socialist Marxist Front and to apply the basic theories of social changes of Marxism, Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci, Stalin, Mao, Hugo Chavez, Castro, etc. etc.

It is the *real marxism* left of the USA the ones who have to think about a movement of protesting bankers and capitalists with the basic theories of change of Marxism.

Thanks


.



What is to prevent the union bureaucracies and Dems from taking charge (with the help of fake-socialist middle class liberals like Mr. "The Cancer of Occupy") if most if ehat remains of Occupy in the major US cities by springtime? There is a presidential election cycle under way, and that means pressure on all reformists and union bureaucrats to get campaigning for Obama. They have to coopt or kill Occupy soon.
Now consider what many people here on Revleft mean when they question if Occupy is dead. They obviously know that actions are still taking place in a few places by, well, not so many people (most working people are not actively involved or not actively supporting Occupy and encouraging non-participant working people to join the effort at this time).
What are the current debates within Occupy? I'm not near a serious Occupy effort, so I can only go by what those here who are involved say, and it would seem the liberals/union bureaucrats have successfully put the focus of debate on the question of violence. This helps them secure solid ground for cooption or destruction of most Occupy efforts by springtime.

AMH's last comment really bugs me, because it says blatantly what the focus of most left sects has been regarding Occupy. In sum, they expect Occupy to be coopted or ruined like a thousand movements before,
so this justifies keeping left sects' focus on recruiting a few more members, rinse and repeat at the next movement or broad left event. "But Lenin said..." is the constant worn out excuse for this, and though I still have some remaining sympathies for the Great Bald One, I think hanging on his every word and every action is a mistake, especially when it's all about building and maintaining irrelevant left sects in spite and regardless of what is happening to and within the working class at large. Yo, the "party" (usually not even 100 members yet, and most of them are middle class) ain't everything and ain't supposed to exist just for itself or just to impotently interpret the world from the fringe.
How about these left sects actually earn their stripes educating and organizing and agitation with the working class masses before considering themselves vanguard material? Just because you got a few ideas from some radicals that once upon a time actually did some good for working people doesn't mean you in 2012 can expect working people to treat you as entitled to be vanguard leadership today like it was a passed down inheritance from Gramps Lenin or whomever. Those radical men and women of the past did their historical roles, for better or worse, and now they are dead and gone. Should we just be a tiny memorial society for quote-mongering nostalgics?

[Raúl Duke]

It has a lot to do with the fact that the NGOs and professional activist organizations who have things like "community organizer" schools and shit like that, openly and directly instruct their organizers not to tolerate diversity of tactics. Perhaps that's the case in many places. I doubt in Ft.Myers though...
But among the 'liberal' activist milleu there's this discourse that perpetuates a dogma of 'commitment to pacifism' so it doesn't necessarily have to come out of some special training; it's just ingrained in their milieu (plus wider society). Hedges himself is an example of a proponent of this liberal/"progressive" activist discourse with his article on the black bloc.

These 'liberal' activists (plus the Paultards) will now probably seek to co-opt Occupy for electoral purposes in some places. The liberals will probably not exactly endorse a specific politician (although some will probably say "vote the dems, lesser of evils!") but they will continue to endorse the idea of voting (as if that changed anything). The paultards will of course seek to turn it into an electoral machine for Ron Paul. Of course, this won't play out in every Occupy. But in Occupy in SWFL that's what I'm seeing, Paultards trying to co-opt and the liberal activists registering people to vote and "getting the word out" against certain politicians. Among some minor demonstrations.

In the beginning, before the cops came in and put down the tents, there was a much wider audience of people at Occupy Ft.Myers. Many mostly "apolitical" young people, apolitical in the sense of cynicism and non-participation of establishment politics, plus regular older people as well. The apolitical young people were perhaps mostly attracted to it because it was like a bunch of people camping at the park doing whatever, drinking, smoking pot, hanging out besides protesting. However, there was always a lot (or, more accurately, a more vocal lot) of conspiracy theorists, Paultards, libertarians, liberal activist-types, etc. The apolitical people, particularly the younger ones (many unemployed for a long duration or chronically underemployed or in a precarious employment situaton), tended to be the least dogmatic and surprisingly receptive to radical notions. Some were cynical about capitalism, some didn't have a "moral" problem with 'violence' (i.e. against cops and property), some wouldn't mind or would like a revolution. The most dogmatic and moralizing were the liberal activist types.

[Anon4chan1235]

with the occupation of the ports, Occupy has started to show some balls. Occupy oakland has particularly shown the way

[Ele'ill]

I've been in this thread now for about five minutes and I still don't know what else to write about the Occupy movement. The pacifists we're talking about have literally done nothing at all for the movement except moan endlessly about confrontation. This spring what I want to see from Occupy are occupations.

[Binh]

They had something even better, they had air support.

-M.H.-

By any means necessary. Libya is now more democratic than Egypt and Tunisia.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If even half of what I hear on the news is true, Libya is a complete clusterfuck filled with militias who torture with total impunity and refuse to disarm. But that's off topic.

[KurtFF8]

By any means necessary. Libya is now more democratic than Egypt and Tunisia.

Huh? This is the first time I've heard this claim made. Even more surprising coming from someone on RevLeft of all places

[A Marxist Historian]

By any means necessary. Libya is now more democratic than Egypt and Tunisia.

Well, they drove out just about all the foreign workers, killing a lot of them in the process. And that used to be the solid majority of the Libyan working class. How they're going to pump out the oil now is a bit of a mystery, which is likely why Libya is collapsing into tribal chaos with everyone shooting at everyone else.

If that's democracy, well, maybe democracy is something the world can do without.

-M.H.-

[Blackburn]

For example, we cannot allow the ancaps and Ron Paulistas to participate.

This cannot be emphasised enough! These confused leftists, or rather Far Rightists in lefty clothing.

Also anyone wearing a Guy Fawkes mask should be screened out. Clearly that meme has been done, and quite frankly these mask wearing idiots have ruined a good comic/movie for me.

If you are still wearing one of those masks in 2011/2012 you cannot be taken seriously. :laugh:

[Prometeo liberado]

This cannot be emphasised enough! These confused leftists, or rather Far Rightists in lefty clothing.

Also anyone wearing a Guy Fawkes mask should be screened out. Clearly that meme has been done, and quite frankly these mask wearing idiots have ruined a good comic/movie for me.

If you are still wearing one of those masks in 2011/2012 you cannot be taken seriously. :laugh:

And the current OWS sheek is?