Is the Occupy movement the missing link?

[radiocaroline]

In my lifetime, no organisation or movement has generated as much interest and support amongst Leftists than the Occupy movement.

At first (thanks to the mainstream media) I began to think that it was just a group of hippies with mad ideas that caused nuisances in large cities. Developing my Marxist beliefs however, I began to become massively attracted to its resentment of the economic and political hierarchies in the world we live in today. Looking past the media I found a group which I was immensely intrigued with, it was like nothing I had seen before.

Its become massive in recent years since 2011 with major activity in Western Europe, North America and Oceania and I think its only a matter of time before they organise another mass occupy event.

The most positive aspect of the Occupy movement in my opinion however is the fact that it has managed to catch on across the farthest corners of the world and is creating international interest. With great help from both social media and the youth sections of the movement. There is a great graphic on wikipedia which I will attach to the end of the post which gives the amount of activity in all the continents of the world.

Another massive strength of the movement is its ability to motivate both the young and the old and subsequently, both students and workers. There seems to be a real sense of community within the group despite its international stretch and a real belief of changing the rigid structures of society in the modern world.

I think that with the steady growth of this movement we will have a better chance than ever before, with a collective ideology as a figurehead to break down the walls of capitalism once and for all and establish and spread the international commune.

Anyone share this optimism? And anyone heavily involved in the movement that can speak for it? Unfortunately I live miles from London and am not as involved as I would really like to be..


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Occupy_Protests_Map.svg/700px-Occupy_Protests_Map.svg.png

Graphic Key: Cream = Protests in 1-4 cities, Orange = Protests in 5-9 cities and Red = Protests in 10 or more cities.

[The Feral Underclass]

This is a good article: Obituary of a movement yet to be: occupy UK one year on (http://libcom.org/blog/obituary-movement-yet-be-occupy-uk-one-year-19102012)

[The Idler]

I think it's fairly clear now how the concept of the 99% was popularised way beyond what leftists have achieved for many years. The bolsheviks and democratic centralisers didn't like the non-hierarchical structure concept and already had dismissed it on these grounds. Fortunately it is Bolshevism that is unpopular and class consciousness that persists.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think it's fairly clear now how the concept of the 99% was popularised way beyond what leftists have achieved for many years. The bolsheviks and democratic centralisers didn't like the non-hierarchical structure concept and already had dismissed it on these grounds. Fortunately it is Bolshevism that is unpopular and class consciousness that persists.

Yes, because "class consciousness" apparently means conflating the proletariat, the petite bourgeoisie, all of the special and middle strata and lower strata of the bourgeoisie as some mythical "99%" and blaming the gummint and bankers instead of capitalism.

[Pinto Morais]

The most positive aspect of the Occupy movement in my opinion however is the fact that it has managed to catch on across the farthest corners of the world and is creating international interest.

That is indeed the greatest thing it managed to achieve, but that does not change the fact that it was, after all, a liberal movement that promoted class collaborationism.
A question I have is, why are we still talking about this? The Occupy movement lost it's force after 2011 and I don't think it ever will recover.

[Light of Lenin]

Most of the people I might at Zuccotti were the worst scum I've ever had the displeasure to met in my life. It was most definitely a hispter anarcho-dufus scene of Labor Aristocrats begging for a larger share of the imperialist pie.

[KurtFF8]

Most of the people I might at Zuccotti were the worst scum I've ever had the displeasure to meet in my life. It was most definitely a hispter anarcho-dufus scene of Labor Aristocrats begging for a larger share of the imperialist pie.

How exactly did you might them?


I think it's fairly clear now how the concept of the 99% was popularised way beyond what leftists have achieved for many years. The bolsheviks and democratic centralisers didn't like the non-hierarchical structure concept and already had dismissed it on these grounds. Fortunately it is Bolshevism that is unpopular and class consciousness that persists.

Yet Leninist groups were involved the entire time.

[Light of Lenin]

How exactly did you meet them?

By going over there dozens of times and talking to people.

[Prometeo liberado]

You didn't have to be a genius to know what their political make up was when the call went out for "someone" (insert "cops help us")to handle the homeless problem that started to be too much for the Occupy leaders in L.A. I was always really disturbed by that.

[The Idler]

How exactly did you might them?



Yet Leninist groups were involved the entire time.
Yes, no amount of hostility to vanguardism or democratic centralism puts them off, but thankfully their efforts to co-opt it were unsuccessful.

[Prometeo liberado]

Yes, no amount of hostility to vanguardism or democratic centralism puts them off, but thankfully their efforts to co-opt it were unsuccessful.

Thankfully they were not co-opted by those other great evils, reason, foresight and organizational development. Whew, they sure dodged a bullet on that one.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Lol why is everyone so harsh on them? I think we're calling them out for the wrong reasons.

Yeah, they're a bunch of liberals and class collaborationists, but so? What exactly did you expect? A bunch of Bolsehvik-type proletarian badasses? It's a phenomenon originating in Western countries, of course it's going to be liberal and class collaborationist. BUT, it is a medium for which more proletarian-minded movements can grow. Remember, the Bolsheviks evolved out of the workers councils in Russia.

What we SHOULD be condemning is the disturbing amount of sexual violence that occurred within the movement. It was not a very safe place for many people, especially women. We need to condemn those fedora-wearing hipster idiots as well.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yeah, they're a bunch of liberals and class collaborationists, but so?

So they shouldn't be given any form of political support. It's really not that difficult a concept.


What exactly did you expect? A bunch of Bolsehvik-type proletarian badasses? It's a phenomenon originating in Western countries, of course it's going to be liberal and class collaborationist.

Except that "Western countries", America in particular, have a healthy tradition of proletarian militancy in opposition to liberals and class-collaborationist forces.


BUT, it is a medium for which more proletarian-minded movements can grow.

How? That was precisely the line of every reformist organisation on the planet during the protests - that somehow, if our articles praising the petit-bourgeois "revolutionaries" of the "Occupy Movement" were mindless and laudatory enough, this would lead to the growth of proletarian militancy.

It didn't work, to put it politely.


Remember, the Bolsheviks evolved out of the workers councils in Russia.

No, the Bolsheviks participated in the soviets, which they predated (the RSDRP was formed from existing Marxist circles, and the Bolshevik fraction by the majority of the Second Congress of the RSDRP), and the soviets weren't class-collaborationist - not during the period the Bolsheviks participated in them at least (of course there were all sorts of collaborationist tendencies while the Mensheviks had the majority in the soviets, but the development of the war straightened that out).

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

So they shouldn't be given any form of political support. It's really not that difficult a concept.



Except that "Western countries", America in particular, have a healthy tradition of proletarian militancy in opposition to liberals and class-collaborationist forces.



How? That was precisely the line of every reformist organisation on the planet during the protests - that somehow, if our articles praising the petit-bourgeois "revolutionaries" of the "Occupy Movement" were mindless and laudatory enough, this would lead to the growth of proletarian militancy.

It didn't work, to put it politely.



No, the Bolsheviks participated in the soviets, which they predated (the RSDRP was formed from existing Marxist circles, and the Bolshevik fraction by the majority of the Second Congress of the RSDRP), and the soviets weren't class-collaborationist - not during the period the Bolsheviks participated in them at least (of course there were all sorts of collaborationist tendencies while the Mensheviks had the majority in the soviets, but the development of the war straightened that out).

Well I guess my point is that this is the closest we're going to get for now. Proletarian movements may have thrived in Western countries in the past, but that was before Project Mockingbird and the strict pro-bourgois control of the mainstream media. You have to realize, today, it is much much more difficult to have an actual proletarian movement. You don't think it's at least getting somewhere for people to physically occupy a space, while denouncing the top tiers of the bourgeoisie? Because I haven't seen anyone doing much else. It's a process, why scrap the whole thing? I'm not trying to claim that it's some revolutionary movement, just that it's something

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well I guess my point is that this is the closest we're going to get for now.

And yet, shortly after the end of the "Occupy movement" there were important strikes by longshoremen, defections from the liberal AFL-CIO and so on.

So obviously that's not the closest we're going to get.


Proletarian movements may have thrived in Western countries in the past, but that was before Project Mockingbird and the strict pro-bourgois control of the mainstream media.

Yeah, in the McCarthy era, when state oppression of socialists was at an unprecedented height, and being even a milksop reformist posed a direct danger.

And what does the "mainstream media" have to do with it? Revolution isn't a product you sell by mail-order or through a TV shop.


You don't think it's at least getting somewhere for people to physically occupy a space, while denouncing the top tiers of the bourgeoisie?

No, because liberals, conservatives, social-democrats and even fascists have done that for quite some time now.


Because I haven't seen anyone doing much else. It's a process, why scrap the whole thing? I'm not trying to claim that it's some revolutionary movement, just that it's something

Well, it certainly is "something". Maidan was also something. So was the Lebanese Civil War. The Iranian "Revolution" was also something. Groups that jump at the chance to tail every movement that is making "something" happen end up breaking their necks, at best.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

And yet, shortly after the end of the "Occupy movement" there were important strikes by longshoremen, defections from the liberal AFL-CIO and so on.

So obviously that's not the closest we're going to get.



Yeah, in the McCarthy era, when state oppression of socialists was at an unprecedented height, and being even a milksop reformist posed a direct danger.

And what does the "mainstream media" have to do with it? Revolution isn't a product you sell by mail-order or through a TV shop.



No, because liberals, conservatives, social-democrats and even fascists have done that for quite some time now.



Well, it certainly is "something". Maidan was also something. So was the Lebanese Civil War. The Iranian "Revolution" was also something. Groups that jump at the chance to tail every movement that is making "something" happen end up breaking their necks, at best.

Lol you just admitted that important strikes sprang out of the occupy movement, which was like, my point.

You don't think the mainstream media directly shapes the thoughts and values of people? Hundreds of studies would prove otherwise. During the McCarthy era, it wasn't at all like it is today. In fact, during the McCarthy era, people were actually talking about communists. Right now, the word communism is like an ancient word that nobody acknowledges.

Again, I never claimed that the movement was the missing link, I agree with your analysis of it. I just don't think it's necessary to denounce it in its entirety.

[Prometeo liberado]

just that it's*something



Oh god, really?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Oh god, really?

Did I stutter?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Lol you just admitted that important strikes sprang out of the occupy movement, which was like, my point.

No, the strikes happened after the "movement" was dead, and had more to do with things like the constant erosion of workers' rights and the disgust many workers feel for the AFL-CIO bureaucracy.


You don't think the mainstream media directly shapes the thoughts and values of people?

I think people attribute an almost magical power to the "mainstream media" because they are lazy to do actual organising, to be frank, and think that the socialist left will suddenly explode in popularity if it rebrands itself and starts selling the revolution through the New York Times or something.


During the McCarthy era, it wasn't at all like it is today. In fact, during the McCarthy era, people were actually talking about communists.

Yes, in the same way people talk about "the terrorists" today.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

No, the strikes happened after the "movement" was dead, and had more to do with things like the constant erosion of workers' rights and the disgust many workers feel for the AFL-CIO bureaucracy.



I think people attribute an almost magical power to the "mainstream media" because they are lazy to do actual organising, to be frank, and think that the socialist left will suddenly explode in popularity if it rebrands itself and starts selling the revolution through the New York Times or something.



Yes, in the same way people talk about "the terrorists" today.

I agree with almost everything in this post, I have no idea what we're arguing about to be honest.

My only point is that I think the Occupy Movement isn't doing any negative. Bringing attention to workers' rights, however unrevolutionary it is, is generally a good thing and has the potential to influence people positively.

Although I do think the mainstream media sedates people more than you think. But otherwise, I agree with your analysis.

[The Idler]

Thankfully they were not co-opted by those other great evils, reason, foresight and organizational development. Whew, they sure dodged a bullet on that one.
Vanguardism and democratic centralism aren't exactly much related to reason, foresight or organisational development.

[Prometeo liberado]

Did I stutter?

Unfortunately you were clear as a bell. Going about trying to effect systemic change is not a casual, "at least something" endeavor. It's just to goddamn important. And you should know at least that as a starting point. Now pull your britches and try again.

[DOOM]

I think we have to be critical with the Occupy movement. The greatest problem with Occupy was, that there were actually no real intentions to abolish capitalism. I mean yeah, there was a fair amount of communists and anarchists at the protests, but if we just analize that famous slogan - "we are the 99%" - from a communist perspective, we can clearly see where Occupy failed. Instead of criticizing capitalism as a system, they criticized the bankers and politicians. This is a very simplistic way of criticizing capitalism and does more harm than good. They mixed up capitalists with capitalism (structural antisemitism -> "Judenkapital") and they additionally fell for the SocDem fallacy "b-b-but we can make it fair". Occupy ended up being overrun by self-proclaimed-communists-but-actually-SocDems.

However, I love how Occupy raised leftist consciousness - I believe that the Wall Street Protests were actually the trigger that made me read more about communism and anarchism.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Occupy WS was a thing that happened. It was good but flawed. As mature Marxists, I hope that we can seriously analyze the progress made by Occupy WS. No mindless criticism, no mindless celebration. Yes it was flawed, but its flaws emerged from the various historical conditions relevant in 2011. It's like blaming hippies for the failure of 60s social movements without bothering to wonder where hippies came from, or the social appeal of that subculture.

Considering where the American working class and left political voices were in 2011, I don't think it's reasonable to have either predicted or wished for anything more than we got. Most Leftist movements are obscured by their own dogmatic formulations of Marxism (unfamiliar to most people and often highly esoteric) and while people knew there was some deep relationship between the nature of capitalism and the economic meltdown of 2011, it wasn't framed in a revolutionary way in the common discourse. There were radicals at the events, but (a) many people weren't ready to listen to them and (b) the radicals lacked the rhetorical skill, self awareness and theoretical clarity to change the conversation. Well, at least some cool shit went down in Oakland.

I think a good example to follow for this kind of forward thinking analysis is Marx's position on the Paris Commune. Surely the Occupy "movement" was no Commune, but there are parallels in that the movement was at once framed by its historical limitations while still helping to realize a better possible future.

[audiored]

Occupy WS was a thing that happened. It was good but flawed. As mature Marxists, I hope that we can seriously analyze the progress made by Occupy WS. No mindless criticism, no mindless celebration. Yes it was flawed, but its flaws emerged from the various historical conditions relevant in 2011. It's like blaming hippies for the failure of 60s social movements without bothering to wonder where hippies came from, or the social appeal of that subculture.

Considering where the American working class and left political voices were in 2011, I don't think it's reasonable to have either predicted or wished for anything more than we got. Most Leftist movements are obscured by their own dogmatic formulations of Marxism (unfamiliar to most people and often highly esoteric) and while people knew there was some deep relationship between the nature of capitalism and the economic meltdown of 2011, it wasn't framed in a revolutionary way in the common discourse. There were radicals at the events, but (a) many people weren't ready to listen to them and (b) the radicals lacked the rhetorical skill, self awareness and theoretical clarity to change the conversation. Well, at least some cool shit went down in Oakland.

I think a good example to follow for this kind of forward thinking analysis is Marx's position on the Paris Commune. Surely the Occupy "movement" was no Commune, but there are parallels in that the movement was at once framed by its historical limitations while still helping to realize a better possible future.

Wow, a rational, sensible comment.

In a different forum I commented that I felt we are living a period of real confusion and uncertainty about what working class organization, strategy, and tactics should look like in the 21st century. But all the struggles around the world whether in the work place or in the "social factory" are forging that model which will show success and will be emulated and refined.

Certainly in the US Occupy was part of that, the $15 minimum wage campaign, Moral Mondays, etc. They have elements of old and bad forms of organizing but are also innovating and adapting to current conditions.

It is so amazingly small minded to dismiss these movements as unimportant or unrelated to a communist project.

[KurtFF8]

By going over there dozens of times and talking to people.

I was poking fun at your typo.

Anyway I also spent quite a lot of time down there, and there was a strong presence of Leninist organizations at every point in the movement. The Leninist groups never took an "official" leadership role because the structure only allowed a small group of people to really take that role but I feel your characterization is quite inaccurate to say the least.

[Left-Wing Nutjob]

Nah, the Occupy movement is/was far too disorganized, undisciplined, unfocused, and petit-bourgeois in attitudes, generally speaking. That doesn't mean, of course, that there weren't some decent radicals among their ranks; but the overall movement? Meh.