Passing thoughts on the future of Occupy in the light of May 1.

[The Douche]

I wrote this somewhat quickly, and I have a lot on my mind right now (not just politically but personally as well, so this isn't as coherent, pointed, and in depth as I wanted, but I wanted to write it anyways, otherwise I would never do it).




1) The occupy movement is a wholly liberal movement. While it makes certain overtures to radical ideas (the occupation of property, claiming inspiration from the Arab spring), it has still confined itself to acceptable liberal politics. There is still a constant defense of the movement around the framework of rights. As revolutionaries, it is necessary that we acknowledge that we have no “right” to revolution. We have no “right” to occupy property. The movement as a whole still sanctifies private property, as seen in the constant condemnation of those who would attack private property. There is no movement towards real confrontation with the sources of our alienation and oppression. The concept of the “99%” is inherently bourgeois, we do not seek the overthrow of the “1%”, but of the ruling class of capitalists (and yes, that includes small capitalists) and the destruction of the systems and institutions which they use to maintain their rule (this is not limited to the police and the city/state/federal government, but also includes the unions, the courts, and the media).

2) Even those occupations which have set a more radical standard for themselves are still infected with this liberalism. Occupy Oakland was seen as and example of how radicals can conduct an occupation within this movement, especially with the example of, from the get go, declaring that they would have no dialogue with the representatives of the city government. Nonetheless, they established their camp on a park directly in front of city hall. This reinforces the illusion that our objective is/ought to be to pressure the state into giving in to us. Even if you don’t make any demands of the state, you’re still reinforcing bourgeois power dynamics.

3) The occupy movement has not sought to generalize itself, it has maintained the (now semi-acceptable) strategy of sitting in a park and conducting marches. It has been reduced to what every single social movement in the history of the US has been. It has been accepted/understood by the state, that individuals will participate in this movement by the means of camping and marching, and it has now been absorbed into the spectacle. Even those elements within the occupy movement which see themselves as outside of “the left” have taken on a recuperating role. Just as the parties and organizations of the left (be they democrats, socialists, unions, progressives, or single issue activists) tail populist movements and develop rhetoric in order to recruit, other radicals (be they anarchists, autonomists, or left communists) have used to occupy movement as a space in which they can conduct the sort of actions which they used to have to contain to summit hopping (smashing some windows, fighting the police, lighting some stuff on fire).

In general radicals must reject the concept of the “99%”, we are not the 99%, we (radicals) are the .0001%, that’s just a fact, and something that we must approach honestly. Obviously, not everybody will reach these same conclusions as I have, and of those who do, not all of them will develop the same ideas of how to move forward.

In my opinion, what is necessary, is an insurgent politics. If occupy continues or not as a movement means nothing to me, it has exhausted its progressive position, and now exists as a recuperative force, if anything, I’d be somewhat happy to see it go. (which it looks like it is, despite hopes of a “99% spring”)
The only realistic option for radicals at this point is the break out of the dynamic which has become acceptable over the past year. If it becomes acknowledged and understood that, sometimes, there will be a lot of people in the streets and they will occasionally do a few thousand dollars worth of damage, and they will fight with the police, then we have to get out of those streets, and into new ones. If there are 1,000 police officers downtown waiting for you to block traffic, then don’t go downtown. Power does not lie in the political buildings, it lies in the highways, ports, and neighborhoods. So that’s where we need to focus our actions, the state knows we’re gonna build barricades on May 1st, so lets start building them on May 3rd, and 4th, and 5th…

[Le Socialiste]

1) The occupy movement is a wholly liberal movement. While it makes certain overtures to radical ideas (the occupation of property, claiming inspiration from the Arab spring), it has still confined itself to acceptable liberal politics.

We knew this going in. America stands at the epicenter of global capitalism; the radicalization of the working-class on a mass-scale won't be immediate, but a progression. The Democratic victories in '08 exposed the party's vision of austerity, undermining their support base and forcing some to reassess their support. This dissatisfaction, spurred on by movements in Spain, Greece, and N. Africa found its initial expression in the Wisconsin protests, where the use of occupation as a tactic was first introduced after so many years at the wayside. This confluence of events portended Occupy's success, its resonance with the working to middle-classes was unmistakable. That the former threw itself into the early stages of the movement, with such gusto, shines a light on the desperation and frustrations of those carrying the brunt of the financial crisis. If we turn away from any movement that remains confined to liberal understandings of movements, demands, and tactics we'll have no movement to join (in the immediate future). The reclamation of public (and sometimes private) property for collective use, the swiftness with which it spread, and the widespread anger over party management of the economy created an opportunity for the revolutionary left to insert and involve itself into a movement that, while understandably liberal, carried with it a large subsection of radicalizing people.


There is still a constant defense of the movement around the framework of rights. As revolutionaries, it is necessary that we acknowledge that we have no “right” to revolution. We have no “right” to occupy property. The movement as a whole still sanctifies private property, as seen in the constant condemnation of those who would attack private property. There is no movement towards real confrontation with the sources of our alienation and oppression.

The best thing for people in the course of 'exercising' their rights is to realize they have no rights. In that regard we agree. This fixation on fighting for our right to assemble, to protest, means little if its confronted by a badge and a gun. Concerning the occupation of property: the tactic itself has redefined many people's earlier conceptions of what private property truly is, and why we must occupy it. The disturbance of property relations has drawn some of the heaviest excesses of force and criticisms from the state, which was most evident during the course of Jan. 28 in Oakland. So I take issue with your assertion that there has been no real movement towards this confrontation. The confrontation has been made, people are increasingly looking to property disturbance(s) to rally around a message, a demand. The effort in the Bay Area to stand in solidarity with individuals about to be foreclosed on, forcing the banks to (if temporarily) suspend foreclosure, is another outgrowth of this movement's confrontation.


The concept of the “99%” is inherently bourgeois, we do not seek the overthrow of the “1%”, but of the ruling class of capitalists (and yes, that includes small capitalists) and the destruction of the systems and institutions which they use to maintain their rule (this is not limited to the police and the city/state/federal government, but also includes the unions, the courts, and the media).

Nevertheless, the rhetoric and the message has reintroduced the question of class and property, wealth and division, and the role of capital into the public mainstream. It would be foolish to dismiss this outright as bourgeois, and therefore unsupportable. Our time is one of relative upheaval; the intensification of class-oriented conflicts and the process of reintegration of the ruler-ruled mindset have begun anew. There is a waking giant out there - whether it has legs, however, remains to be seen. Labor's management has been forced on the defensive, causing it to reluctantly go along with the rank-and-file's solidarity efforts. It can't resist too much, otherwise it's placed in an untenable position. To criticize unions outright and to dismiss them as dangerous to the movement is astonishingly shortsighted, albeit understandable. Our issue must lie with the union bureaucracy, not its membership.

Alright, I'm pressed for time and I really want to respond to the rest of your thoughts, but I have work to do before 4 pm comes around. I'll tackle the rest this evening.

Edit - Alright, let's look at the rest of your points:


2) Even those occupations which have set a more radical standard for themselves are still infected with this liberalism. Occupy Oakland was seen as and example of how radicals can conduct an occupation within this movement, especially with the example of, from the get go, declaring that they would have no dialogue with the representatives of the city government. Nonetheless, they established their camp on a park directly in front of city hall. This reinforces the illusion that our objective is/ought to be to pressure the state into giving in to us. Even if you don’t make any demands of the state, you’re still reinforcing bourgeois power dynamics.

One cannot isolate oneself from those to the right of them, namely liberals, progressives, what have you. The revolutionary left is not in a position to do so. American culture will not radicalize instantaneously, and any 'progressive' movement encountered in the future will undoubtedly contain a wide spectrum of political and philosophical outlooks, albeit radicalizing ones. When the material state of society deteriorates to a certain point, all it takes is a spark. Americans are not yet in such a place, if not visibly. The foundations of American capital have been shaken, however weakly. Occupy represented not just people's frustrations with Obama and the Democrats, but also carried with it an awareness of the global economy's effects on the world, culminating in the uprisings that tore through the Middle East and Africa. It was a response to international happenings, largely due to people's identification with what was happening abroad.

A revolution must target the symbols and institutions of capital, the protectorates and guarantors of stable markets. Even if this wasn't at the forefront of people's minds, places like city hall still represent the voice and reason of privilege. It made sense to occupy the space around it. Occupy wasn't a revolution, but it was a movement that has altered people's perceptions of power and coercion. Labeling a movement 'bourgeois', however justified, does not render it insignificant or beneath the revolutionary's notice. Struggle is struggle, and for true militancy to develop you need a mass that is prepared to begin taking those steps. Only through a movement's failures and successes can its participants learn and grow - through struggle. People must come to a place where they may realize the futility of appealing to representatives of the state, of differentiating between small business owners and multinational corporations, of protecting and adhering to the sanctity of private property. The vast majority of Americans won't come into this realization immediately, but they may through mass struggle.


3) The occupy movement has not sought to generalize itself, it has maintained the (now semi-acceptable) strategy of sitting in a park and conducting marches. It has been reduced to what every single social movement in the history of the US has been. It has been accepted/understood by the state, that individuals will participate in this movement by the means of camping and marching, and it has now been absorbed into the spectacle.

When did setting up tents and occupying a public space become semi-acceptable? Any attempts to do so are ruthlessly put down - with the exception being Occupy the Farm, which has lasted surprisingly long.

I certainly have no illusions about Occupy. I understand its shortcomings, but value what it has done to shape the debate and focus within American society. It has. There's no getting around that. Social movements in the U.S. often get absorbed into the system (i.e. the Democrats, to be more specific), but their immediate effects are worth noting. Occupy was/is unique in that significant layers within the movement trusted neither major party, rejected the established system, and fought fiercely against any perceived attempts at co-option. It sounds like you're saying there's no hope for a major independent social movement in the U.S., that it will inevitably reduce itself to a mere instrument of the Democratic party and the state. This is self-defeating.


Even those elements within the occupy movement which see themselves as outside of “the left” have taken on a recuperating role. Just as the parties and organizations of the left (be they democrats, socialists, unions, progressives, or single issue activists) tail populist movements and develop rhetoric in order to recruit, other radicals (be they anarchists, autonomists, or left communists) have used to occupy movement as a space in which they can conduct the sort of actions which they used to have to contain to summit hopping (smashing some windows, fighting the police, lighting some stuff on fire).

The working-class doesn't arrive at movements on command, nor will it engage the roots and foundations of capital knowingly. It comes into conflict with the system without fully realizing the implications of doing so. But each successive confrontation leaves less people in the dark as to where the power truly lies (the class).


In general radicals must reject the concept of the “99%”, we are not the 99%, we (radicals) are the .0001%, that’s just a fact, and something that we must approach honestly. Obviously, not everybody will reach these same conclusions as I have, and of those who do, not all of them will develop the same ideas of how to move forward.

This is isolationist, comrade. We are an integral aspect of the working-class, of this so-called "99%." We fight alongside the workers because we are workers. Just because we understand the general framework and workings of capital, and the exploitative nature of the bourgeois state doesn't necessitate our isolation from the masses. If you're merely referring to the fact that not all members of the working-class are radicalized to the extent that we are, you're right. To argue that this inevitably entails our actions as being isolated or apart from the movements of an entire class, however, is dangerous (please tell me if I've missed the mark here, it really sounds like you're saying revolutionaries should just take direct action independently of the general public).


In my opinion, what is necessary, is an insurgent politics.

Guerrilla warfare insurgency, or mass action, taking the streets, workplaces, and symbols of state power insurgency? Please tell me you mean the latter.


If occupy continues or not as a movement means nothing to me, it has exhausted its progressive position, and now exists as a recuperative force, if anything, I’d be somewhat happy to see it go. (which it looks like it is, despite hopes of a “99% spring”)

All I can really say is I take issue with your happiness. While I certainly won't mourn Occupy when it passes into irrelevancy, I won't celebrate it either. It was a movement that grew out of the material and global conditions of its time, and its successes and shortcomings were a reflection of that. I acknowledge Occupy for its role in properly framing the debate, even if it did eventually splinter off into small, isolated, and ultimately self-serving groups.


The only realistic option for radicals at this point is the break out of the dynamic which has become acceptable over the past year. If it becomes acknowledged and understood that, sometimes, there will be a lot of people in the streets and they will occasionally do a few thousand dollars worth of damage, and they will fight with the police, then we have to get out of those streets, and into new ones. If there are 1,000 police officers downtown waiting for you to block traffic, then don’t go downtown. Power does not lie in the political buildings, it lies in the highways, ports, and neighborhoods. So that’s where we need to focus our actions, the state knows we’re gonna build barricades on May 1st, so lets start building them on May 3rd, and 4th, and 5th…

All well and good, provided we have the strength and numbers to do so...

[The Douche]

Some other thoughts that have been raised in my mind/my conversations with others that I haven't been able to fully develop include:

The liberal white washing of the movements which inspire Occupy. Here is a portion of a letter, written by people participating in the occupation of Tahrir square, addressed specifically towards the occupations here:


Those who said that the Egyptian revolution was peaceful did not see the horrors that police visited upon us, nor did they see the resistance and even force that revolutionaries used against the police to defend their tentative occupations and spaces: by the government's own admission, 99 police stations were put to the torch, thousands of police cars were destroyed and all of the ruling party's offices around Egypt were burned down. Barricades were erected, officers were beaten back and pelted with rocks even as they fired tear gas and live ammunition on us. But at the end of the day on 28 January they retreated, and we had won our cities.

It is not our desire to participate in violence, but it is even less our desire to lose. If we do not resist, actively, when they come to take what we have won back, then we will surely lose. Do not confuse the tactics that we used when we shouted "peaceful" with fetishising nonviolence; if the state had given up immediately we would have been overjoyed, but as they sought to abuse us, beat us, kill us, we knew that there was no other option than to fight back. Had we laid down and allowed ourselves to be arrested, tortured and martyred to "make a point", we would be no less bloodied, beaten and dead. Be prepared to defend these things you have occupied, that you are building, because, after everything else has been taken from us, these reclaimed spaces are so very precious.
(emphasis mine)

Its pretty clear to me what is being said here, but this is a message that Occupy did not want to hear. They were proud to say that the people of the Arab world, with their successful struggles were on "our side", but they were careful not shout to loudly, what the Egyptian comrades suggested, which is, that we should destroy that which destroys us.


I also feel that there is now a fetish being placed around those spaces which we have half-heartedly occupied. In Oakland, for instance, all action focuses on OG plaza, and all confrontations occur within a block or two of that space. If OG plaza is really important to you (I hesitate to say us, because 1. I am not from Oakland and 2. I am not convinced that I want to be a part of the we/us that is occupy, and I am pretty damn sure that occupy doesn't want people like me) then defend it, but why? What concrete gains can be made by camping in a park? Is there really a benefit to it? Consider the risk, and the difficulty of defending those parks, could our energy be better spent elsewhere, if we're going to take risks, should we approach the situation with better tactics? Couldn't we be more effective taking risks elsewhere in the city?


On "strikes" (general and otherwise)...

What is the goal of the strike? Is it just mass participation, and if so, to what end? Is you goal in the strike to fill the streets with possible recruits to your line or organization, or is our goal to interrupt the flow of capital? Surely if we want to disrupt the day-to-day operation of capital, then mass involvement is not necessary?

[The Douche]

Le Socialiste:

Thank you for your reply.


This dissatisfaction, spurred on by movements in Spain, Greece, and N. Africa found its initial expression in the Wisconsin protests, where the use of occupation as a tactic was first introduced after so many years at the wayside.

Actually, the occupation as a tactic was reintroduced in the student movement before Wisconsin, focused mainly in the Bay Area and in NYC. Interestingly, many socialist organizations fought tooth and nail against the tactic, seeing it as to radical, some organizations went so far as to denounce and attempt to "out" the radicals (mostly anarchists and the new communist left) to the authorities.


f we turn away from any movement that remains confined to liberal understandings of movements, demands, and tactics we'll have no movement to join (in the immediate future).

Ought our objective be to enter into movements, which from the outset, are explicitly bourgeois? (if not in rhetoric then, at least in action) If so what is our reasonable goal in doing so, and what are the reasonable ways in which we might accomplish this goal(s)?


his fixation on fighting for our right to assemble, to protest, means little if its confronted by a badge and a gun.

I think it means little because the very concept of "assembly", "protest" or redress, is disempowering. From the get-go, Occupy was a vehicle through which people wanted their voices to be heard and their issues to be handled, it was part of the spectacle from the start. It was always about "speaking truth to power".


Concerning the occupation of property: the tactic itself has redefined many people's earlier conceptions of what private property truly is, and why we must occupy it

I disagree, while people now believe that it is ok to occupy a park (which means a crack in the facade of property relations), they do not think it is ok to disregard property relations in other ways. And they still commonly frame the defense of occupation in legalistic ways (citing their "right" to assemble in the park). They do not reject capitalist property relations, they reinforce them, but still find themselves powerless despite their pandering to rights, because, of course, rights are granted and rescinded at will by the state (which is to say, they do not exist).


The confrontation has been made, people are increasingly looking to property disturbance(s) to rally around a message, a demand.

Demands only weaken our position, by reinforcing the notion that our solutions will come from those who created the problem (the state). Occupy says "look at the mess you made, fix it".


Nevertheless, the rhetoric and the message has reintroduced the question of class and property, wealth and division, and the role of capital into the public mainstream

Nah, most people have always hated the super rich, there is nothing spectacular about that. The issue is that property relations have not really been called into question. (see the defense of the property)


Labor's management has been forced on the defensive, causing it to reluctantly go along with the rank-and-file's solidarity efforts. It can't resist too much, otherwise it's placed in an untenable position. To criticize unions outright and to dismiss them as dangerous to the movement is astonishingly shortsighted, albeit understandable. Our issue must lie with the union bureaucracy, not its membership.

Why wasn't the Golden Gate Bridge shut down? Because the leadership said no, and occupy listened. So even if our problem was with just the leadership and not the social role of unions, then why is occupy in bed with them? I am not bound by any sort of relationship with organized labor, and I refuse to enter into a binding relationship with them, they are the capitalists' best weapon against the militant working class.

[Ele'ill]

I think most of the radicals in Cascadia and even the (now somewhat experienced) liberal to radical converts hold a similar position with what you've posted here in this thread.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The liberal white washing of the movements which inspire Occupy. Here is a portion of a letter, written by people participating in the occupation of Tahrir square, addressed specifically towards the occupations here:


(emphasis mine)

Its pretty clear to me what is being said here, but this is a message that Occupy did not want to hear. They were proud to say that the people of the Arab world, with their successful struggles were on "our side", but they were careful not shout to loudly, what the Egyptian comrades suggested, which is, that we should destroy that which destroys us.

w/ regard to Egypt and the USA, it goes without saying that they're two different countries, right, with two different cultures etc. One of the guys who runs "Void Network" once made the observation that what works in Greece may not work in the USA (in the context of what anarchists in the USA could learn from the left-wing movement in Greece)...in Greece the ties that bind the individual to the state are pretty weak. In the USA (in my subjective opinion, as I've never been to Greece to make any sort of comparison) they're stronger, and that has more to do with the attitude Americans have toward, say, civil society and property and the police than it does to do with the repressive powers of the American state.

In Egypt they were able to create such destruction simply because they had a huge number of people participating. If we had hundreds of thousands of people participating we could basically run the streets too (hell, even tens of thousands of people would do it). We caught a very brief glimpse of that during the initial port shutdown, with a demoralized police force choosing not to engage and an impotent conservative media whining and handwringing about the economic costs of the shutdown (as opposed to deriding and mocking OWS as a bunch of loser hippies of no consequence). That was very satisfying.

Anyway, I guess the point is that American culture is a conservative one, and esp. the idea of private property is so deeply engrained here that I can't imagine any sort of generalized revolt anytime soon. Remember, this is the country that after the economy basically collapsed in "Black September", 2008, spawned in the aftermath The Tea Party, a overhyped group of individuals dedicated to less government control of everything, when it was precisely a lack of state control which led to the collapse of financial markets. That should tell you a lot about the character of this country. Looked at in that light, I'd say OWS is actually pretty radical, in comparison to what American politics has looked like for the past few decades.

I think it's pretty much shot it's bolt at this point, though.

[The Douche]

One of the guys who runs "Void Network" once made the observation that what works in Greece may not work in the USA (in the context of what anarchists in the USA could learn from the left-wing movement in Greece)...in Greece the ties that bind the individual to the state are pretty weak. In the USA (in my subjective opinion, as I've never been to Greece to make any sort of comparison) they're stronger, and that has more to do with the attitude Americans have toward, say, civil society and property and the police than it does to do with the repressive powers of the American state.

There are a lot of things that make the Greek experience different from the American one. Mainly; violence is a part of Greek political culture and there existed, already, safe spaces from which to conduct operations (the universities).

But to speak of an American culture (if there is such a homogenized institution anymore) without speaking of distrust for authority and fierce individualism is to be dishonest. While Greece may be the birthplace of democracy, America is the home of democracy grown up.


If we had hundreds of thousands of people participating we could basically run the streets too (hell, even tens of thousands of people would do it). We caught a very brief glimpse of that during the initial port shutdown, with a demoralized police force choosing not to engage and an impotent conservative media whining and handwringing about the economic costs of the shutdown (as opposed to deriding and mocking OWS as a bunch of loser hippies of no consequence). That was very satisfying.

There wasn't a cop to be found in Oakland on May 1st outside of the downtown area, that is a massive opportunity lost. Even on normal days what is police reaction time in the residential or industrial areas? 15, 20 minutes? Is that not enough time to erect a barricade or some other such action? What if such actions were dispersed to multiple neighborhoods or blocks? Is that within police capabilities, what if it happened on multiple sides of the city, and in other cities at generally the same time?


Anyway, I guess the point is that American culture is a conservative one, and esp. the idea of private property is so deeply engrained here that I can't imagine any sort of generalized revolt anytime soon.

To what degree should we seek the generalization of the struggle, and what do we mean by generalization? Why do we rely on mass society, when communism means the abolishment of mass society?


Remember, this is the country that after the economy basically collapsed in "Black September", 2008, spawned in the aftermath The Tea Party, a overhyped group of individuals dedicated to less government control of everything, when it was precisely a lack of state control which led to the collapse of financial markets.

I don't think the lack of state control caused the collapse, I certainly am not about to advocate for more state control, are you? The tea party represents that element of American culture which distrusts the state and authority in general, but that distrust has been harnessed by the right, at the current juncture. But in my mind, that fact is neither here nor there. Occupy is the tea party of the left, and what did either occupy or the tea party accomplish?

[Os Cangaceiros]

There are a lot of things that make the Greek experience different from the American one. Mainly; violence is a part of Greek political culture and there existed, already, safe spaces from which to conduct operations (the universities).

Violence is a big part of American culture too. Including American political culture...the Civil War, the labor movement, civil rights etc.

We didn't really have partisans, of course, or RAF/N17 style urban guerrillas (no great loss IMO), but American society is incredibly violent.


But to speak of an American culture (if there is such a homogenized institution anymore) without speaking of distrust for authority and fierce individualism is to be dishonest.

I used to believe the same thing. It's getting to the point where I don't really believe it anymore, though. There is distrust for authority, but only certain kinds of the most overt authority, and the days of serious generalized revolt have been over since about 1969. Anything since then (LA riots, militia/patriot movements, eco-terrorism, anti-globalization) has been provincial at best.

Americans are a very mixed bag, it's a diverse country. But here are two big things that Americans (generally) share cross-culturally that are two huge barriers, and I don't think I'm wrong on these points: Americans generally have respect for 1) property, and 2) work. I think those outweigh whatever animosity Americans have towards the cops, for example.


There wasn't a cop to be found in Oakland on May 1st outside of the downtown area, that is a massive opportunity lost. Even on normal days what is police reaction time in the residential or industrial areas? 15, 20 minutes? Is that not enough time to erect a barricade or some other such action? What if such actions were dispersed to multiple neighborhoods or blocks? Is that within police capabilities, what if it happened on multiple sides of the city, and in other cities at generally the same time?

Hmm, I don't know, were there actually enough like-minded people who were willing to undertake that sort of action? And if so, why didn't it happen?


To what degree should we seek the generalization of the struggle, and what do we mean by generalization? Why do we rely on mass society, when communism means the abolishment of mass society?

I don't think it's something that "we" can control, honestly. What I mean by generalization of the struggle is (for example) Egypt 2011, UK riots 2011, Greece December 2008, France 2005, Argentina 2001, late sixties/early 70's in France, Spain, Italy, and the USA, etc. Those are some examples. I think that revolt needs to be generalized to achieve maximum impact, but not necessarily...a small amount of people disrupting a critical piece of infrastructure can do a lot of damage as well.


I don't think the lack of state control caused the collapse, I certainly am not about to advocate for more state control, are you? The tea party represents that element of American culture which distrusts the state and authority in general, but that distrust has been harnessed by the right, at the current juncture. But in my mind, that fact is neither here nor there. Occupy is the tea party of the left, and what did either occupy or the tea party accomplish?

Well, I think that lack of state control could be blamed for the very specific example of the financial/derivatives collapse, but of course it has to do with capitalism more generally, in an overall sense. Neither the Tea Party or OWS contributed anything more than a slight shift in the dominant political culture, but if you want something more than that (ie a revolutionary movement that'll abolish class and exploitation)...I mean, you obviously were not going to get that from OWS, that was clear right from the onset. :unsure:

[The Douche]

Violence is a big part of American culture too. Including American political culture...the Civil War, the labor movement, civil rights etc.

The civil war and the labor movement (the one which is applicable to this discussion, at least) are distant memories, and have little bearing on modern political culture here. And the civil rights movements had a relatively low level of real violence, compared to say, the Greek junta period.


We didn't really have partisans, of course, or RAF/N17 style urban guerrillas (no great loss IMO), but American society is incredibly violent.

While American culture is quite violent, possibly the most violent in the developed world, one place where violence is not acceptable is in the realm of politics. Most people can agree that violence is just not acceptable in the political arena, because there hasn't been real political violence in the US for a long time. The same cannot be said for places like Greece, Egypt, Syria etc.


Americans generally have respect for 1) property, and 2) work. I think those outweigh whatever animosity Americans have towards the cops, for example.


Agreed.


Hmm, I don't know, were there actually enough like-minded people who were willing to undertake that sort of action? And if so, why didn't it happen?

I think it takes a pretty small number of people for those kind of actions. As far as why it didn't, well, I don't know how to get into that without violating security culture.


I think that revolt needs to be generalized to achieve maximum impact, but not necessarily...a small amount of people disrupting a critical piece of infrastructure can do a lot of damage as well.


I think the concept of generalizing the struggle leads us into the worst kind of opportunism and burnout. It turns radicals into this group that chases around movements acting like missionaries. And I think it still plays into this idea of mass society, which is not compatible with communism as I conceive of it.

[The Douche]

Another sort of disjointed thought, which seems to have lost most of its relevance in Oakland, but which may still be relevant to other occupations:

State-forms and the sanctity of consensus.

The GA is not a sacred body, its decisions are not binding to anybody other than those who wish to be bound to them. If at any point it attempts (formally or informally) to enforce its decisions then it is a state-form, and therefor ought to be opposed (especially since it is a state-form with bourgeois ideology).

Those GAs which have passed or attempt to pass proposals which violate the autonomy of individuals have betrayed themselves as recuperative institutions. (yes, this means statements disavowing things like property destruction)

But like I said, this was an issue I had earlier, and while I was in Oakland I didn't see a single GA, and I was glad to have avoided them.

[campesino]

Occupy is mostly liberal, and I am willing to say any member of an anti-capitalist party that is present there, is a reformist and not a revolutionary. Occupy hasn't organized the working class or the homeless or any segment of society adversely affected by capitalism. It seems to have only organized students, academics, some fed up regular folk and MSNBC. If occupy wants media coverage and change it has to show the world what organized radicals really do. The actions of the Egyptians were resistance, Occupy is just griping and submission. Most of Occupy's participants and the U.S have bought the idea that peaceful persistent protest brought down Mubarak.

here are my suggestions
0. seize power remove the state's security apparatus.
1. instill fear into the capitalist class, attack gated communities, town houses.
2. plunder the capitalist for funds.
3. root out all gov't agent in the local Muslim community
4. make NYC a "no-papers" city where indocumented immigrants will have no fear of deportation or fear of reporting exploitation to the peoples' security police
5. remove all elements of organized crime
6. basically repeat the Paris commune
those are just my two cents

[Le Socialiste]

Le Socialiste:

Thank you for your reply.

You're welcome. :lol:


Actually, the occupation as a tactic was reintroduced in the student movement before Wisconsin, focused mainly in the Bay Area and in NYC. Interestingly, many socialist organizations fought tooth and nail against the tactic, seeing it as to radical, some organizations went so far as to denounce and attempt to "out" the radicals (mostly anarchists and the new communist left) to the authorities.

That's unfortunate (if true), but Occupy has successfully introduced the occupation as a tactic that most people readily agree to now. It's no longer confined to certain regional areas within the country.


Ought our objective be to enter into movements, which from the outset, are explicitly bourgeois? (if not in rhetoric then, at least in action) If so what is our reasonable goal in doing so, and what are the reasonable ways in which we might accomplish this goal(s)?

Our objective should be to enter into those movements, despite their bourgeois character. Our goal is to fight those elements that give it this nature, while acknowledging that they will have a presence (however unwelcome that may be). We should seek to organize any given movement's participants, to try and present a ready alternative in the face of everyone's questioning. We fight alongside the rank-and-file in solidarity, because ultimately our grievances are theirs. This entails fighting to keep people in their homes, to protect them from eviction, to working with labor and its membership, and providing a socialist alternative to the current capital/bourgeois/liberal/property dynamic. If we don't, we're in no position to build the movement (and those that come after).


I think it means little because the very concept of "assembly", "protest" or redress, is disempowering. From the get-go, Occupy was a vehicle through which people wanted their voices to be heard and their issues to be handled, it was part of the spectacle from the start. It was always about "speaking truth to power".

Because that's partly what people already knew. The working-class will always initially turn to those actions and methods it knows and understands. Not everyone is going to immediately think "let's erect a barricade," or "let's take down private property." It takes years of active struggle to achieve that, not a handful of individuals autonomously taking out a couple of car windows.


I disagree, while people now believe that it is ok to occupy a park (which means a crack in the facade of property relations), they do not think it is ok to disregard property relations in other ways. And they still commonly frame the defense of occupation in legalistic ways (citing their "right" to assemble in the park). They do not reject capitalist property relations, they reinforce them, but still find themselves powerless despite their pandering to rights, because, of course, rights are granted and rescinded at will by the state (which is to say, they do not exist).

You need a crack if you wish to break the dam. You can't always rig it with explosives and expect everyone to be ready on the other side. If history is any indicator, it shows us that property relations can be upset - and commonly are during periods of mass upheaval. There's a reason why hundreds of thousands of people raid businesses and disrupt these relations during such times. It requires the delegitimization of the state and capital, including the very institutions that grow from them. Not everyone is prepared to to do away with private property, but that isn't to say they won't be some time down the road.

I agree with your last point concerning rights, though.


Demands only weaken our position, by reinforcing the notion that our solutions will come from those who created the problem (the state). Occupy says "look at the mess you made, fix it".

True enough. I can concede that. But demands also give people something to rally around and build awareness for (a weak point, I know).


Nah, most people have always hated the super rich, there is nothing spectacular about that. The issue is that property relations have not really been called into question. (see the defense of the property)

You're wrong on this one. There is a strong current within American society that says "if you want to make it in this country, work hard." Plenty of people still believe that. Another common point of the ruling-class is "we're all in this together," or "shared sacrifice." Even the way of framing the whole situation around wealth disparities didn't take into account class and divisions, much less the relations between the two. Occupy forced that idea back into the open, and it is a step forward. Better to identify the ruling-classes and capital as the source of one's exploitation than to hate the rich without fully understanding why. I also think you're wrong on the matter of property relations, I don't think it was left behind in the tumult. I think that question has been brought up several times over the course of the movement - there's a reason why people make a point of shouting out the fact that it's "Their streets," "Their university/education," and "The people's property." Hell, I was recently in a march where one of the main chants was "private property has got to go!" Just because you never encountered it doesn't mean it never came up.


Why wasn't the Golden Gate Bridge shut down? Because the leadership said no, and occupy listened. So even if our problem was with just the leadership and not the social role of unions, then why is occupy in bed with them? I am not bound by any sort of relationship with organized labor, and I refuse to enter into a binding relationship with them, they are the capitalists' best weapon against the militant working class.

Unions arise naturally out of the workers struggle, there's no way of getting around that. It is a reaction to the dictates and exploits of a predatory capitalism, and thus defendable. However, and this is where we'll agree I think, they do not seek to abolish the relations between the worker and the product of her/his labor, nor does it upset relations pertaining to property, production, and private capital. It becomes a solely defensive organization, eventually degenerating into a mere microcosm of the capitalist system. That's why labor's rank-and-file must take their unions back, disband the bureaucracy, and govern their organizations along collective lines. A fighting union that takes the struggle to the very foundation(s) of capital is one that I'm willing to get behind. It's not impossible, either.

There's been a lot of talk in the various circles I frequent surrounding the possibility of forming a student union in California on the college and university level, the intent being to reclaim and democratize the higher education system. Are you going to tell me students shouldn't organize around such a goal? Just look at the student strikes in Quebec, which have successfully mobilized hundreds of thousands of students for several months. I know I'm deviating a little bit, but is my point clear?

[Ravachol]

The occupy movement is a wholly liberal movement. While it makes certain overtures to radical ideas (the occupation of property, claiming inspiration from the Arab spring), it has still confined itself to acceptable liberal politics. There is still a constant defense of the movement around the framework of rights.


It's a mass-movement nonetheless, as opposed to the Occupy movement here in the Netherlands which was a mere copy of the form, without any of the content and ended up being a platform for small groups of around 10 people into conspiracy theories, aliens, 'alternative history' and newage crap.

Movements which develop into the base of a revolutionary upheavel often start out confused and full of contradictions (not saying occupy has this potential, imo it hasn't). If we look at the German revolution of 1918-1919 the Wilhelmshaven mutiny and the subsequent Kiel sailor's revolt initially were full of rethoric loyal to the brand new SPD government, in their (understandable) confusion hailing Noske and making him representative of the Sailor's council. They saw their revolt as being within their 'right' and acting within the spirit of the government. This attitude only changed later, just before the SPD started actively dismantling the councils and crushing them by force. Regardless, it was out of this movement with it's initial confusions and contradictions that something as radical as the workers' and soldiers' councils was born, swiping away the old military-controlled state organs that ran Germany during WWI.



The only realistic option for radicals at this point is the break out of the dynamic which has become acceptable over the past year. If it becomes acknowledged and understood that, sometimes, there will be a lot of people in the streets and they will occasionally do a few thousand dollars worth of damage, and they will fight with the police, then we have to get out of those streets, and into new ones. If there are 1,000 police officers downtown waiting for you to block traffic, then don’t go downtown. Power does not lie in the political buildings, it lies in the highways, ports, and neighborhoods. So that’s where we need to focus our actions, the state knows we’re gonna build barricades on May 1st, so lets start building them on May 3rd, and 4th, and 5th…

The problem is, the construction of communism requires numerical and spatial expansion and a certain guarantee of acceleration of the entire process. Militants are not born or forced into existence through sheer ideological willpower, they are produced by historic processes. I doubt whether the current tiny spectrum of militants is capable of building something constructive out of focusing solemnly on 'hitting capital' without seeking to re-orient and converge other struggles that aren't directly an expression of the communist tendency. After all, the KPD's Marz Aktion didn't succeed either under conditions far more favorable than those of this day and age. Not saying that what you propose shouldn't be done "because the time isn't ripe" (i hate that shit), by all means it should. But it shouldn't be the sole horizon of the movement.



On "strikes" (general and otherwise)...

What is the goal of the strike? Is it just mass participation, and if so, to what end? Is you goal in the strike to fill the streets with possible recruits to your line or organization, or is our goal to interrupt the flow of capital? Surely if we want to disrupt the day-to-day operation of capital, then mass involvement is not necessary?

Strikes, in my opinion, are more valuable as a taste of the refusal of work than they are as means of damaging capital in itself. It's the collective nature of the event and the (temporary) refusal of work that make them interesting (or not, depending on the nature of the strike).



I think it means little because the very concept of "assembly", "protest" or redress, is disempowering. From the get-go, Occupy was a vehicle through which people wanted their voices to be heard and their issues to be handled, it was part of the spectacle from the start. It was always about "speaking truth to power".

I think this mainly results from naivety regarding the way the world works, a baseline idealism that assumes the world works through a 'marketplace of ideas' and 'free discussion' instead of material processes of action and force that move the levers of society. It's a fetish of the assembly-form mistaken for content. What should be pursued is not the gathering of words and impotence but the convergence of action.


There are a lot of things that make the Greek experience different from the American one. Mainly; violence is a part of Greek political culture and there existed, already, safe spaces from which to conduct operations (the universities).


But such a culture is the result of long experiences. Political violence is far more acceptable (though polarized) in Germany or Italy as well for example and neither have a history like the Junta or civil war as recent as Greece. Such a culture is the result of a relentless praxis by militants who normalize it through it's daily operations. It's not unlike police violence, which is normalized in countries the more often it is applied. While not initially popular, it ceases to be an 'exception' and becomes part of a general tradition to which the psychological entry-barrier is far lower when 'the time comes', as the spontaneous adaption of such tactics during December 2008 by high-school students with no connection to the anarchist milieu shows.



Americans are a very mixed bag, it's a diverse country. But here are two big things that Americans (generally) share cross-culturally that are two huge barriers, and I don't think I'm wrong on these points: Americans generally have respect for 1) property, and 2) work. I think those outweigh whatever animosity Americans have towards the cops, for example.


But, the revolutionary process is exactly the deconstruction of the sanctity of these pillars no? Property and work are such fundamental concepts within Capitalism that their abandonment is literally unimaginable to most people, they cannot imagine a world without them. For most, work has become completely synonymous with 'activity' in general, immediately equating a refusal of work with general inactivity.



I think the concept of generalizing the struggle leads us into the worst kind of opportunism and burnout. It turns radicals into this group that chases around movements acting like missionaries. And I think it still plays into this idea of mass society, which is not compatible with communism as I conceive of it.

That depends, when 'generalizing the struggle' means that a dedicated minority starts to 'bring the struggle' to other sectors or regions where there is no self-activity, this is ridiculous. But the process of connecting various isolated struggles, raising their general levels of intensity and contributing to their overall direction towards communism is crucial I think. I don't think this necessarily means giving in to 'mass society', something I'm not fond of either.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Another sort of disjointed thought, which seems to have lost most of its relevance in Oakland, but which may still be relevant to other occupations:

State-forms and the sanctity of consensus.

The GA is not a sacred body, its decisions are not binding to anybody other than those who wish to be bound to them. If at any point it attempts (formally or informally) to enforce its decisions then it is a state-form, and therefor ought to be opposed (especially since it is a state-form with bourgeois ideology).

What are you talking about?

Enforcing majority decisions on minorities is not a "state form." If a union voted to strike and some workers wanted to abstain, would you call attempts to enforce a higher turnout a "state form"? :confused:

[The Douche]

That's unfortunate (if true), but Occupy has successfully introduced the occupation as a tactic that most people readily agree to now. It's no longer confined to certain regional areas within the country.

I don't agree. The movements are still demanding the state recognize their "right" to "occupy", which means, they have not mentally broken with the idea that the state holds the power over them, and it means they're not breaking down property relations because of the manner in which they defend themselves. If people actively defended their camps then I could see what you're saying, but there are practically no camps left in the country, so no, nothing is really occupied, and when there were camps they only existed at the mercy of the state. People are down with the imagery of occupation, but not with actually occupying shit.


Our goal is to fight those elements that give it this nature, while acknowledging that they will have a presence (however unwelcome that may be).

Not just a presence, leadership and domination of the dialogue.


We should seek to organize any given movement's participants, to try and present a ready alternative in the face of everyone's questioning.

You're taking here about evangelising. This is an example of the conception of occupy, and other movements, as a recruiting ground for your organization/ideology.


Not everyone is going to immediately think "let's erect a barricade," or "let's take down private property." It takes years of active struggle to achieve that, not a handful of individuals autonomously taking out a couple of car windows.

Active struggle means? It seems to me that the traditional approach, the one you suggest of entering into the movements and struggling alongside of them has not been successful. Probably because these movements, actually sanctify the things we attack.


There is a strong current within American society that says "if you want to make it in this country, work hard."

Most people don't like those who they perceive as snobbish, and acting as if they're better than everyone else. In a big way this includes the rich, most people resent the super wealthy, even if they think that they can work hard enough to make a lot of money one day. While there is a love of money in the US, there is not a particularly high opinion of those who have it. While there are some exceptions in popular culture, you can look at TV shows like "housewives of ______" to see whole shows based around rich people acting like fools.


Just because you never encountered it doesn't mean it never came up.

Just because I have encountered this rhetoric doesn't mean I'm convinced that there is any real meaning, depth, or understanding to it. It's also just a protest chant...


Unions arise naturally out of the workers struggle, there's no way of getting around that. It is a reaction to the dictates and exploits of a predatory capitalism, and thus defendable. However, and this is where we'll agree I think, they do not seek to abolish the relations between the worker and the product of her/his labor, nor does it upset relations pertaining to property, production, and private capital. It becomes a solely defensive organization, eventually degenerating into a mere microcosm of the capitalist system. That's why labor's rank-and-file must take their unions back, disband the bureaucracy, and govern their organizations along collective lines. A fighting union that takes the struggle to the very foundation(s) of capital is one that I'm willing to get behind. It's not impossible, either.

There's been a lot of talk in the various circles I frequent surrounding the possibility of forming a student union in California on the college and university level, the intent being to reclaim and democratize the higher education system. Are you going to tell me students shouldn't organize around such a goal? Just look at the student strikes in Quebec, which have successfully mobilized hundreds of thousands of students for several months. I know I'm deviating a little bit, but is my point clear?

Nah, unions are organizations which maintain capitalist property relations and regulate rebellious workers. I don't support them, and they're on a massive downturn, they're no longer something that arises "naturally out of workers' struggles". I can't think, off-hand of anybody that I know who is in a union anymore, and I'm 24 years old, 10 years ago I don't think that would be very common for a working class young adult to say.

There are other forms which can serve the positive purposes of a union, without the negative, thats where the future lies.

Ravachol:


It's a mass-movement nonetheless, as opposed to the Occupy movement here in the Netherlands which was a mere copy of the form, without any of the content and ended up being a platform for small groups of around 10 people into conspiracy theories, aliens, 'alternative history' and newage crap.

A waning mass movement, and as I have mentioned, I don't necessarily think thats inherently a good thing. (that its a mass movement)



Movements which develop into the base of a revolutionary upheavel often start out confused and full of contradictions

I don't really see contradictions, I see the dialogue dominated by liberals, and I see radicals operating to some degree within the movement and on the peripheries. With the leninists trying to acquire non-existant leadership and anarchists/other radicals sort of operating on the fringes.


The problem is, the construction of communism requires numerical and spatial expansion and a certain guarantee of acceleration of the entire process.

But to what degree do we participate in mass movements when we're trying to abolish mass society?


Militants are not born or forced into existence through sheer ideological willpower, they are produced by historic processes.

Tell that to the organizations trying to hijack occupy, or who view it as a recruiting ground, not me.


I doubt whether the current tiny spectrum of militants is capable of building something constructive out of focusing solemnly on 'hitting capital' without seeking to re-orient and converge other struggles that aren't directly an expression of the communist tendency.

I think that attacking capital can only be successful if one can build the necessary support structure to sustain that attack, and such structures are naturally going to come into contact with social movements as they come up. But they should take a hands off approach in my opinion, and keep doing what they normally do, while exploiting any new opportunities that arise with the creation of new social movements.


Strikes, in my opinion, are more valuable as a taste of the refusal of work than they are as means of damaging capital in itself. It's the collective nature of the event and the (temporary) refusal of work that make them interesting (or not, depending on the nature of the strike).

I mean, you can help people not to work, if you chain the subways closed instead of open...


But such a culture is the result of long experiences. Political violence is far more acceptable (though polarized) in Germany or Italy as well for example and neither have a history like the Junta or civil war as recent as Greece. Such a culture is the result of a relentless praxis by militants who normalize it through it's daily operations. It's not unlike police violence, which is normalized in countries the more often it is applied. While not initially popular, it ceases to be an 'exception' and becomes part of a general tradition to which the psychological entry-barrier is far lower when 'the time comes', as the spontaneous adaption of such tactics during December 2008 by high-school students with no connection to the anarchist milieu shows.

I agree with this, thats why I'm talking about building barricades every day, not just on the days when the police tell us we can have our fun.


But the process of connecting various isolated struggles, raising their general levels of intensity and contributing to their overall direction towards communism is crucial I think.

And I think that in order to generalize intensity (something I'm ok with) we need to increase our own intensity, which means that we pretty much need to start acting outside of the context of occupy.

DNZ:


If a union voted to strike and some workers wanted to abstain, would you call attempts to enforce a higher turnout a "state form"?

Nah, I'd take autonomous action in order to ensure that nobody sabotaged our struggle. Which is the same thing I'm suggesting here, that the GAs have on occasion attempted to sabotage the struggle. But I think its a non-issue now cause I get the impression that GAs aren't even really happening anymore. Like I said, they weren't in Oakland.

[Le Socialiste]

I don't agree. The movements are still demanding the state recognize their "right" to "occupy", which means, they have not mentally broken with the idea that the state holds the power over them, and it means they're not breaking down property relations because of the manner in which they defend themselves. If people actively defended their camps then I could see what you're saying, but there are practically no camps left in the country, so no, nothing is really occupied, and when there were camps they only existed at the mercy of the state. People are down with the imagery of occupation, but not with actually occupying shit.

You're looking to make great leaps without the strength and support mass movements provide. Insurrectionary tactics are only of great significance to the organization(s) carrying them out (with few exceptions); at points of low struggle, however, actions of the sort you're advocating can serve to further alienate the working-class from the left, thus boosting the credibility and standing of the right. Active struggle entails spending a great deal of time on the self-educative efforts of labor. The realization of class interests is a necessity for the worker. The paramount needs of the working-class revolve around this form of self-emancipation. Today the occupation (despite its liberal character) has superseded the march - tomorrow can only bring further intensification of the antagonisms that pushed people beyond mere activism and into active defiance of property 'rights'. A struggle of immense proportions along mass lines is the only fighting method capable of undermining property, labor, and state relations. Guerrilla tactics at a time like now would only weaken the movement, if not fulfill the role of its gravedigger.


Not just a presence, leadership and domination of the dialogue.

I realize this, and hate it as much as you do. The predominance of liberal ideologies within Occupy have a tendency to make their appearance every time the working-class (and those that claim to support it) begins to organize around a specific idea or grievance. The point isn't to abandon an event such as Occupy because it happens to be swamped by bourgeois-liberal and populist rhetoric, however, but to agitate for its radicalization beyond the comfort of this reactionary segment. Conversely, it must be understood that movement building takes time. Liberalism prevailed over much of Occupy's dialogue, but it couldn't wholly redirect the movement back into the Democratic wing of the state. Occupy has successfully resisted such attempts, and continues to do so. The state may have a clearer understanding of what they're up against, but this doesn't mean the movement has reconciled itself to the machinations of the Democratic party.


You're taking here about evangelising. This is an example of the conception of occupy, and other movements, as a recruiting ground for your organization/ideology.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. How else can the revolutionary left successfully present an alternative to the dictatorship of capital if it doesn't take part in these movements and talk about socialism in the process? Unless you hold the view that only a handful of revolutionaries are all it takes to bring about capitalism's ruin, in which case I think you're wrong. The working-class has to be involved as well. Anything that doesn't take this aspect into account can accurately be labelled as self-defeatist.


Active struggle means? It seems to me that the traditional approach, the one you suggest of entering into the movements and struggling alongside of them has not been successful. Probably because these movements, actually sanctify the things we attack.

Which movements are you thinking of? Active struggle entails the organization and eventual mobilization of the working-class as a relatively united and cohesive unit, prepared to enter into conflict with the relations and interests perpetuated by finance capital and the ruling-class that profits from it. Active struggle as in Egypt, Greece, and Tunisia, where labor is continuing to agitate around an increasingly radicalizing program. The working-class must first be raised to a state of readiness before one can successfully charge the gates. With the rise and fall of financial markets, living and material conditions, and the words and assurances of bourgeois parties/organizations, each successive wave has the potential to leave more and more radicalized people in its wake. One can't dismiss the first steps of the people heading in this direct for their bourgeois conceptions of class and property - to do so without fully understanding the implications of such a shift would be foolish.


Most people don't like those who they perceive as snobbish, and acting as if they're better than everyone else. In a big way this includes the rich, most people resent the super wealthy, even if they think that they can work hard enough to make a lot of money one day. While there is a love of money in the US, there is not a particularly high opinion of those who have it. While there are some exceptions in popular culture, you can look at TV shows like "housewives of ______" to see whole shows based around rich people acting like fools.

While public perception surrounding the super wealthy may be turning, a large segment of the population still clings to the maxims that one's work ethic, perseverance, and 'freedom of opportunity' can produce results. It'll take a little more before frequent outbursts of open hostility towards the ruling-classes become acceptable and supportable. Popular culture may poke fun at these personalities, but it pokes even more fun at the people who rally against them.


Just because I have encountered this rhetoric doesn't mean I'm convinced that there is any real meaning, depth, or understanding to it. It's also just a protest chant...

And it was also just a port shutdown last fall...and wildcat labor struggles that saw seizures of private property...and 'move-in' days that met heavy state repression...but these were just actions without any meaning, depth, or understanding to them, right?


Nah, unions are organizations which maintain capitalist property relations and regulate rebellious workers. I don't support them, and they're on a massive downturn, they're no longer something that arises "naturally out of workers' struggles". I can't think, off-hand of anybody that I know who is in a union anymore, and I'm 24 years old, 10 years ago I don't think that would be very common for a working class young adult to say.

There are other forms which can serve the positive purposes of a union, without the negative, thats where the future lies.

You have no real material basis with which to base that assumption on. But I've already highlighted why unions arise and are initially necessary (as well as why they're ultimately unsatisfactory so far as the struggle goes), and won't go through it again. A parting note on why unions are at such a low point: the past three decades have seen intense efforts to subjugate and dismantle organized labor in the U.S. Part of the ruling-class' success in doing so lies in the complicity of labor's management. Rank-and-file workers, however, are worth rallying around, and must be rallied around if we're to defend their ability to organize against the onslaughts of capital. They're an integral part of the working-class.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I agree that we need to start making a movement outside of the occupy movement. May first was a pretty fun day for me but it was also kind of disappointing. Just look at the anti-capitalist "march". We had 100, maybe 150(I'm not really good at this crowd estimating thing) and look what we did. At most 150 of us shut down some of downtown when we went marching down the streets shutting down banks and the pigs blocked off some of the other streets. We met up with two other marches which grew our numbers to about 300 people when we got met with the police trying to arrest some members of the march. Then we had maybe a thousand people at the park push the pigs back down the street. What did we do then? We sat around, listened to music, ate, talked to people, etc. We had a thousand people and what did we do? We sat in the park when we were supposed to be trying to implement a general strike! Finally we started to move, which I thought meant shutting down more stuff, but all we did was circle city hall one time when the police confronted us. After that confrontation we walked all the way to meet up with the other march. What happened with that? We had a few thousand people when they came, I thought shit was going to get crazy real when I saw that. Because we were doing our best to shut things down with only maybe 150 people and actually shut a few places down, what would be able to do with a few thousand people! Nothing of course. We get yelled at by these fucking peace police to not start shit(When we weren't, but it was supposed to be a fucking general strike, they made it out to be a march). They even let the march get split by the police without a peep. I sat there and watched in amazement as a few police officers(who could have easily been passed with our numbers) stood in the street and directed a large portion of the march to go down a different street.

That's what happened when the official parties and unions showed up. We marched back to the park(split of course because they complied with the pigs) and did NOTHING for the rest of the time except for stand on one street intersection as people with bullhorns gave their little speeches and danced in the middle of the street. Just when we had the numbers to effectively start doing things it seems we actually did nothing. Did we start marching around town and actually trying to implement a general strike? No. The fucking Burger King and Subway that were literally within eye-site of Oscar Grant Park didn't even have anything done to them. There were places of business right in front of us that were open on a day that was supposed to be a general strike and we did nothing about it. That's what happened when the various communist/socialist parties and unions showed up.

If we wanted to actually get a message across, to "wake people up" we did a piss poor job because walking to the BART station just a block over everything was going on just as it usually would. There are some homeless people I gave money to(literally a block away there were homeless people oblivious to the fact that there was a protest going on, I told them to go there if they wanted a free meal), there are some people at the park playing basketball, etc. I get to the BART station and some person asks me about a sign that he found on the ground that said something like "Profit is a crime". I told him about the protests, he said he didn't hear about it or anything all day.

We had thousands of people on the streets and couldn't do anything, I think we were seriously more effective with actually trying to get something done when we only had 150 people there.

I think that says a whole lot about some of the organizations that were there that day. We had thousands of people in the streets and all that happened was the leaders of organizations lead their organizations down a few streets to Oscar Grant Park to commence in a giant preaching to the choir event.

I don't know about tactics, I'm not a genius when it comes to theoretical discussion, but in my view it would have been a lot more effective if we actually disregarded what the fucking police told us to do and actually did something(Like putting up barricades and blocking off businesses that are open) instead of sitting at a park dancing/listening to people talk into the microphone about such and such movement and "all power to the people". If they actually thought like that they shouldn't have just sat there and tell this to the already converted, they should try and show people that they could have power if they actually did something. Sitting in a park didn't do anything and they just got kicked out at night anyways.

[Fawkes]

There are other forms which can serve the positive purposes of a union, without the negative, thats where the future lies.
Like what? I'm not being combative, I'm genuinely curious

[Paulappaul]

Like what? I'm not being combative, I'm genuinely curious

Workplace Committees like the Workmates Collective, Solidarity Networks, Workers' Councils, etc.

[Fawkes]

Workplace Committees like the Workmates Collective, Solidarity Networks, Workers' Councils, etc.

After commenting in this thread I did some research into union alternatives and came cross a pretty awesome, albeit long, article on libcom:
http://libcom.org/library/anarchy-unions-contemporary-anarchists-work-jefferey-shantz

for the tl;dr crowd, just skip to the conclusion section



Just for shits and giggles, I was reading the comments section of the Egyptian article cmoney posted on the OWS website and came across one comment that said:
"as far as non-violence goes, what do we do when police start using live ammunition on us?" to which someone responded with this profound insight:
"when it reaches a point where police are ordered to use live ammo, they'll refuse, and we will have won"

it really must be nice to be so privileged coupled with near-hopeless ignorance. a peace sign is nothing but a fancy bullseye

The current pathetic state of the occupy movement is the result of a failure to engage those communities most negatively effected by capitalism. The lack of immediate emphasis on the bourgeois as opposed to the "%1" is to be expected, Americans are largely ignorant of marxian class analysis. However, when you fetishize pacifism and put so much effort into occupying a park in downtown fucking manhattan, you're doomed to failure. Well-off white people don't actively combat the state because, well, they don't have to.