Failures of Occupy?

[Illegalitarian]

What, in your opinion, was the major failure of the Occupy movement? Or perhaps a better question, what did the Occupy movement represent?

To me, it seems as if Occupy both captured the dissatisfaction of the working class with their material conditions but also highlighted the extent of the false consciousness that exists within the disenfranchised masses, hitting all of the symptoms (calling for more corporate accountability, heavily regulated finance, etc), but not recognizing the disease.


I think the latter might be a big case of me answering my own question at least partially, but I also can't help but feel that perhaps Occupy was just as a big a failure for the international left as it was for the protesters themselves.

You hear both anarchists and many Marxists alike talking about capitalizing on the natural reaction of the working class to their oppression and helping spread information to eliminate this false consciousness, building a legitimate, organized working-class revolution, but where was that? Where were the affinity groups, the parties such as Socialist Alternative etc, trying to organize people and spread their ideas? If they tried this, it certainly wasn't effective, and at that point it's important to ask why, exactly this strategy of communist evangelism did not work as so many say that it should.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

I was involved in Occupy Atlanta for a bit.

The problem was that the central organizers of the occupation of Woodruff Park at Five Points, temporarily renamed Troy Davis Park by the occupiers, were obviously prepared by another organization to disseminate ideas among the occupiers. While I admire how they were able to provide shelter and water to many homeless people, I noticed the camp was mostly made up of these petty bourgeois white hipsters, many on their laptops using generators.

But back to the organizers: every time they held a "workshop" or something, the discussion would always be monopolized by some hipster in a wool cap reading off a printed sheet of paper. He would always make a point of saying that a "people's movement" needed a combination of reformist and revolutionary elements to have any effect (although he made sure to mention, several times, how bad the communist dictators were). What I never got him to answer was where all these revolutionary elements were. In fact, every time someone had a question or tried to add something, particularly an older Black man who seemed very knowledgeable about Mao, the speaker would tell them that now wasn't really the time for discussion, that it was just a time for getting certain information out.

It wasn't a movement at all. It was a way of attracting people into a place to prepare them to accept certain information without question or discussion. There was nothing being done among the people to elevate their consciousness and promote an actual collective effort of the disenfranchised workers.

It really was an advertising campaign of, by, and for white liberal hipsters.

[Illegalitarian]

Sounds like a fair assessment from what I saw as well.

I think liberal undertones kept the entire thing from really getting off the ground. No "mass line" as the Maoists say, no propaganda by the deed, as anarchists say. No attempt at a united front, as the trots say. Nothing, just liberal platitudes such as "the answer is somewhere in the middle ground" and colorful personalities shouting loudly about how "both communism and capitalism have failed humanity and now it's time for a new way" idealist pandering.

It's a trend I've noticed among real life friends from my hometown, as well, recognizing the issues but then placing the blame on the "Illuminati" or the "banksters" or being anti-capitalism, conflating capitalism with oligarchy with a strong belief that more regulation and heavy-handed keynesianism is the answer, shying very far away from the C word. Or even worse, citing Zeitgeist third positionism as the way forward.

I'd like to think of myself as an astute observer, but there's always someone out there capable of looking at things and boiling them down to their essence far more concisely than the next guy, or at least someone who sees something the next guy doesn't. Hopefully someone with such insight will drop in.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

The worst irony of it, in Atlanta anyway, was that the vast majority of the homeless even in just that area kept away from the encampment. I would walk a few blocks from where they were giving out water and some food to people at the park and happen upon a more "traditional" camp of native homeless. In Atlanta, especially in that downtown area, you couldn't walk a block without seeing someone resting on a cardboard pillow.

It occurred to me that this wasn't remotely socialistic in any sense. When I say liberal, I mean it. The more "Keynesian" elements of their vague platitudinal speeches serve the smaller or more nouveau riche factions of the bourgeoisie, those that tend to align themselves with the Democrats. In fact, I think the original Occupy Wall Street was organized by a group called Adbusters, who seem to specialize in purveying liberalism wrapped in progressive or even borderline socialistic language.

"Occupy" was a flash in the pan meant to mobilize liberals to support a new mode of liberalism, like how Reagan ushered in the era of "neo" conservatism. Obama is basically the Democrats' Reagan, and I feel like Occupy was a perfect storm of dissatisfaction with the disastrous path the country has taken since the fall of the Soviet Union and the liberal faction's anxiety over losing ground to "old money" in a culture of irrational hostility to any policy someone could tack the word "socialist" onto (if you care to remember the bizarre trends leading up to the 2008 presidential election).

We live in an age in which Americans will seriously look at a gutted welfare system and call it a sign that communists are taking over America. And that's bad news for the new-money trying to usurp the place of old-money.

[BIXX]

I have an analysis here, given to me by Mr. 60, but RevLeft won't left me post the image

[Creative Destruction]

The "99%" thing was ridiculous.

[Sabot Cat]

Occupy honestly filled me with hope, because it wasn't just an intellectual circlejerk. It was a bunch of people pissed off at capitalism, and engaging in direct action to show it. Sure, there were definitely liberal undertones, but a movement like Occupy is a sure sign that, even in the United States, the proletariat is discovering the identity of their oppressors.

I say it's a victory. A firm first step towards broader class consciousness. People have marched on Washington. Never before had they taken their struggle to Wall Street.

[consuming negativity]

Occupy honestly filled me with hope, because it wasn't just an intellectual circlejerk. It was a bunch of people pissed off at capitalism, and engaging in direct action to show it. Sure, there were definitely liberal undertones, but a movement like Occupy is a sure sign that, even in the United States, the proletariat is discovering the identity of their oppressors.

I say it's a victory. A firm first step towards broader class consciousness. People have marched on Washington. Never before had they taken their struggle to Wall Street.

This. How are liberals ever going to realize we're right if they don't do stuff like Occupy and then get pepper sprayed in the name of http://blocgame.com/forums/Smileys/default/emot-911.gif freedom and democracy http://blocgame.com/forums/Smileys/default/emot-911.gif? What Occupy did was get millions of people riled up for change that never happened. Just like Obama. Just like everything else that has played into our idealist fantasies but then left us crashing down into a reality that is cold, hard, and unforgiving. It failed pretty much completely to do everything except the one thing that matters: show people that they aren't the only ones pissed off. Which is exactly what is so dangerous about public gatherings, and why dictators never allow such open displays of disobedience; even "democratic" ones. Eventually people will realize that they actually aren't powerless because they have numbers and are in agreement, and they'll go "fuck this" and start breaking shit rather than stealing it. They push harder, they get pushed back harder, and we keep on doing the dance until it goes too far.

[Creative Destruction]

Occupy honestly filled me with hope, because it wasn't just an intellectual circlejerk. It was a bunch of people pissed off at capitalism, and engaging in direct action to show it. Sure, there were definitely liberal undertones, but a movement like Occupy is a sure sign that, even in the United States, the proletariat is discovering the identity of their oppressors.

I say it's a victory. A firm first step towards broader class consciousness. People have marched on Washington. Never before had they taken their struggle to Wall Street.

it was a collaborationist movement in the end. i had mixed feelings about the whole thing in the beginning, and as it went on, i grew more negative about it. you can't just occupy the space and think that naturally brings revolutionary change; and you can't leave the movement in an aimless mess, like occupy was. the framing of the crisis was all off and a lot of it was about garnering support from the petit-bourgeoisie.

there were some serious political factions that came to the table, and there were some great projects that happened (the push for a free [in price] internet, the support for the longshoremen strikes in Oakland, the Rolling Jubilee, the direct resistance to foreclosures), but the movement itself was too steeped in liberal, collaborationist politics from the get-go, which was really set in stone with their clinging to the "99%" idea from the beginning. that was a horrible error. really. fuck the middle class.

if the Occupy movement was more like the Occupy Oakland one, which Boots Riley, an actual communist, lent a guiding hand in, i would've been a lot more supportive of the movement in general.

[Atsumari]

For a reformist movement, the universal demands were excellent and the Occupy tactic was the best way to open the movement.
1. Student loan forgiveness
2. Jobs program for young people
3. Rebuilding the infrastructure
4. Moratorium on foreclosures and bank repossessions

What amazed me is that these are barely even center-left demands and they had the financial institutions scared. Sending infiltrators, provocateurs, and police crackdowns were actions that were traditionally used against revolutionaries, not moderate reformists which shows how fucked we are.

I am sure another movement will be back soon. In Ukraine, they had the peaceful Orange Revolution which failed but it came back with Euromaidan. Turkey had the mass Republican protests defending secularism and 5 years later, Taksim Sqaure happened. Another major event will happen within the next five years, I am very sure. The world is on fire and I doubt America can escape the flames when it is the one playing with it.

[Sabot Cat]

it was a collaborationist movement in the end. i had mixed feelings about the whole thing in the beginning, and as it went on, i grew more negative about it. you can't just occupy the space and think that naturally brings revolutionary change; and you can't leave the movement in an aimless mess, like occupy was.

And you can't do nothing for fear of failure. I believe the Occupy movement did a lot with what they had.


the framing of the crisis was all off and a lot of it was about garnering support from the petit-bourgeoisie.


The framing of the crisis was that the bourgeoisie screwed over the working class, at least among the Occupiers. These were understood more in terms of relative wealth than relationship to the means of production, but again, it's not going to be perfect when the entire nation is drowning at the bottom of an ocean of capitalist propaganda.


there were some serious political factions that came to the table, and there were some great projects that happened (the push for a free [in price] internet, the support for the longshoremen strikes in Oakland, the Rolling Jubilee, the direct resistance to foreclosures), but the movement itself was too steeped in liberal, collaborationist politics from the get-go, which was really set in stone with their clinging to the "99%" idea from the beginning. that was a horrible error. really. fuck the middle class.

if the Occupy movement was more like the Occupy Oakland one, which Boots Riley, an actual communist, lent a guiding hand in, i would've been a lot more supportive of the movement in general.

I agree that Occupy Oakland was more revolutionary and anti-capitalist in its rhetoric, but we shouldn't look at Occupy Wall Street with disdain. An ideologically pure movement won't drop out of the sky and free us all. It's a cumulative process, full of learning and missteps.

Expounding on what I meant by hope: I'm just so, so tired of having nothing to look towards as a revolutionary leftist. Some days I feel like capitalism is here to stay for at least my lifetime, that it's a historical force so powerful that the proletariat has little hope of countering it.

But seeing up to 100,000 protesters converge at the seat of capitalist power -with peak numbers on May Day- to tell the bourgeoisie to fuck themselves? That shows that their grip on our society isn't unshakable, that it isn't here to stay because we're not alone in this struggle.

How can I call that a failure?

[The Feral Underclass]

This was an article I was part of writing back in 2012.

Obituary for a movement yet to be: Occupy UK one year on (https://libcom.org/blog/obituary-movement-yet-be-occupy-uk-one-year-19102012)

[Palmares]

The "99%" thing was ridiculous.

Some "Occupiers" claimed that the police were a part of this demographic... :rolleyes:

[Illegalitarian]

it was a collaborationist movement in the end. i had mixed feelings about the whole thing in the beginning, and as it went on, i grew more negative about it. you can't just occupy the space and think that naturally brings revolutionary change; and you can't leave the movement in an aimless mess, like occupy was. the framing of the crisis was all off and a lot of it was about garnering support from the petit-bourgeoisie.

there were some serious political factions that came to the table, and there were some great projects that happened (the push for a free [in price] internet, the support for the longshoremen strikes in Oakland, the Rolling Jubilee, the direct resistance to foreclosures), but the movement itself was too steeped in liberal, collaborationist politics from the get-go, which was really set in stone with their clinging to the "99%" idea from the beginning. that was a horrible error. really. fuck the middle class.

if the Occupy movement was more like the Occupy Oakland one, which Boots Riley, an actual communist, lent a guiding hand in, i would've been a lot more supportive of the movement in general.


Its reformist nature is what made it, by nature, collaborationist. After all, if you believe meaningful, worthwhile change can come from the bourgeois state, why worry about coming under the banner of one of its parties?

But then again, what else was it supposed to be? There were legitimately good things going on in Oakland due to communist elements such as the calls for a general strike, some serious black bloc shit going on, etc, but then you had shit like anarchists who were trying to engage in direct action in Occupy Boston being ratted out to the police and a complete lack in NYC of any sort of socialist movement, by anarchists, parties, etc, which was the head of the movement.. why? Or were attempts met with contempt.

Will every such movement in the west be doomed to useless liberal reformists who give lip service to the idea of real change without recognizing what needs to be done to bring it about due to the big C word being a no-no that = millions of dead peasants in the minds of most?

[John Nada]

Around the time occupy start I was getting pretty depressed that the only voice of opposition was from the rightist tea party, who only want to make things that are wrong worse. Started getting mad that no one seemed to give a fuck. It made me happier that someone remotely progressive actually still exists.:)

They probably should of built a more permanent organization out of Occupy. A lot of people I know complained that they were taking that whole supposedly no leaders and consensus thing too far, to the point of being ineffective. Also that they were being too peaceful, non-violence is a tactic, not an invariant strategy. Their broad front strategy even let conspiracy theorists and, in some cities, actual fascists have a say(Fuck That Shit!), that turned people off.

My city might have not been too bad compared to many, it seems to have stuck around much longer too. A lot of preexisting socialist, oppressed minority rights groups, and environmentalist dominated it(though you still had the conspiracy theorists), many of the liberals got radicalized latter out of shock over how the police acted, and they still helped the homeless too.(I'd prefer not to say where or the groups). Wish I would have participated in it more, but I was going through too much bullshit already. Probably for the better, seeing as the police were spying on the participants:ohmy:

I think that even small things can add up in the long run to something bigger. I remember when the Afghan War started I saw only one protester. This was when the country was in a patriotic fever. Yet there were people hooking in support. Now that fringe opinion is very common. Maybe just learn and do better another time.

[Magón]

While there were some genuine people, doing some good work, I found a lot of people in my local Occupy were just there, sitting on their hands or twiddling their thumbs, not really contributing much of anything, just wanting to "be there".

But now a lot of those people who were doing things, are mostly just doing the same old things they did before OWS, and it doesn't do a damn thing. Even the more creative acts, aren't doing anything.

[Illegalitarian]

They probably should of built a more permanent organization out of Occupy. A lot of people I know complained that they were taking that whole supposedly no leaders and consensus thing too far, to the point of being ineffective. Also that they were being too peaceful, non-violence is a tactic, not an invariant strategy. Their broad front strategy even let conspiracy theorists and, in some cities, actual fascists have a say(Fuck That Shit!), that turned people off


I know a lot of really principled anarchists and councilists who are all about consensus democracy but I simply don't see why a good ol' majority is so bad outside of perhaps small affinity groups. Occupy stuck to such a formula early on but then abandoned it after a brief time.


Occupy was all about loosey-goosey "united front" (if you can even call it that..." of literally everyone because of the prevailing liberal overtones, this busted notion that suppressing reactionaries makes one reactionary by nature.

I think the 99% was a very good from below proto-analysis of class relations, recognizing that it is in fact the bourgeois who are the enemy of the working class (though in reality it is the entire capitalist mode of production, from the smallest business running to the megacorps, that is the issue), but it stopped just short of not only recognizing that it's the entire capital-based system that is the issue instead of simply the most elite enclaves of the bourgeois, but they also failed to recognize the various sub-classes of the working class and the fact that none of them, especially the ones in service to the state, are not our allies.


Occupy definitely needed to better recognize its enemies, and the 99% spiel was bound to make sure it didn't.. are cops really on the same side as us in relations to the means of production just because they're technically working class? Are soldiers, then? Politicians, maybe? After all, they're technically "working" for a wage and do not, in fact, own the means of production. :laugh:


Marx's class analysis was all about describing the nature of their relations to the means of production and the role of the various classes within society, simply leaving sub-classes alone without explaining their very real and important differences from other classes and how they too relate to the means of production is doing an extremely large disservice to marxist theory (I don't how Marx saw the police or politicians as a class) and to any working class movement fighting for its own interests as a class that is going to survive, and thrive.

[Sewer Socialist]

I can't recall Marx saying anything either way on it, but I think Marxists can clearly see that the cops maintain the capitalist mode of production.

The "1%" slogans however, since they focused on people and not systems or conditions, make that a little more unclear; they also tended to support a fix-the-system sort of idea, where people are only interested in fighting corruption, and making sure the state ensures everyone's previously recognized civil rights.

The whole thing got my hopes up, only to dash them. I also saw a lot of people who were just "there," (Occupy Portland) not really doing anything, but I think a large part of that is that they didn't know what they could do. I tried to get things rolling with a couple local groups that didn't really go anywhere, I went to some protests, I saw some general assemblies that were total shit shows, and came out of it all really disappointed.

It seems like the local groups here don't have much to offer. I should try to do... something, but I guess I don't really know how I could improve the state of radicalism here.

[Bala Perdida]

Sounds like most of these groups have been forced into populism. Which still fails anyway. I guess the good that came out of it was the groups publicising themselves. Other than that, the movement has basically been forgotten.

[John Nada]

IIRC Marx did make a joke about how criminals do contribute to the economy, by provided jobs for cops, lawyers, bailsman, politicians and judges.:lol: I think Engels(and Marx IIRC) wrote about a strata of managers, foremen and overseers, who didn't own the means of production but helped maintain the exploitation. Also I think that Engels thought that politicians were bourgeois. I think they're probably classed in the petty-bourgeoisie or labor aristocracy. I don't remember if Marx and Engels themselves said they were bourgeois, but I think they didn't consider them proletarians. For me they're only cool if they're class traitors to the bourgeoisie, down to commit class fratricide-suicide.:grin:

I was hoping that the 99% would've been just rhetoric to explain the real class divides(maybe closer on a global scale if you count the peasantry and lower petty-bourgeoisie, but probably more like 70% vs. 30%, not as catchy though). Funny thing is I've read rightist who said that all Americans are in the 1% globally by income(Paulist third-worldist?):laugh:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This was an article I was part of writing back in 2012.

Obituary for a movement yet to be: Occupy UK one year on (https://libcom.org/blog/obituary-movement-yet-be-occupy-uk-one-year-19102012)

I want to write a full response to the article, late as it is. I'm only half way through, at the section where the article ponders why OWS was more successful in achieving links to wider working class struggles where Occupy LSX was not. The article states:

"Whatever the weaknesses of the camp model, elements within the North American occupiers have at least acknowledged that to be effective anti-capitalists you have to disrupt the flow of capital. Hence the moves towards the “General Strike” as the principle demand there. In the UK no such connection has been made on any organisational level. "

I am surprised (unless this is dealt with later in the article) that there is little critical discussion of the original Initial Statement put out by Occupy LSX. I read it as so wide and varied (and the article does make some mention of this), that it seems to have little potential to resonate with local economistic struggles. I remember at the time there were struggles going on in relation to cabbies, electricians, and the fire brigades, in addition to the well-documented students' strikes. I always felt that if Occupy LSX had put out an initial statement that was more focused on solidarity with these local, contemporary, specific issues, rather than talking in more general terms about 'global inequality' or whatever, then they may have had more success in resonating with the wider working public.

As it is, I always felt (judging from afar) that the Occupy LSX movement failed to shake the shackles of 'we are hippies trying to save the world'-type ideas. Very vague, very generalised, lacking in class content and not really having any basis for class solidarity.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Oh OK so the article actually makes reference to everything i've said in the next paragraph.

Great minds. :rolleyes:

[Lily Briscoe]

The group 'GegenStandpunkt' (there was just a thread about them on here recently) wrote an article on Occupy Wall Street when it was still a thing, and I remember thinking it was like the only decent, critical piece put out at a time when any sort of criticism of the 'movement' seemed to be taboo among a lot of the left. Here is a link: http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/occupy-wall-street.html

I haven't actually read the article in probably close to two years, and it's 4 in the morning so there's no way I'm rereading it right now, but I don't imagine my opinion of it will have changed much.

[Erfurt 1891]

Isn't occupy too much fuss about few white hippies in the park?

I mean, this may sound snarky, but what did actually OWS achieve and what does it have to do with working class?

[Illegalitarian]

I want to write a full response to the article, late as it is. I'm only half way through, at the section where the article ponders why OWS was more successful in achieving links to wider working class struggles where Occupy LSX was not. The article states:

"Whatever the weaknesses of the camp model, elements within the North American occupiers have at least acknowledged that to be effective anti-capitalists you have to disrupt the flow of capital. Hence the moves towards the “General Strike” as the principle demand there. In the UK no such connection has been made on any organisational level. "

I am surprised (unless this is dealt with later in the article) that there is little critical discussion of the original Initial Statement put out by Occupy LSX. I read it as so wide and varied (and the article does make some mention of this), that it seems to have little potential to resonate with local economistic struggles. I remember at the time there were struggles going on in relation to cabbies, electricians, and the fire brigades, in addition to the well-documented students' strikes. I always felt that if Occupy LSX had put out an initial statement that was more focused on solidarity with these local, contemporary, specific issues, rather than talking in more general terms about 'global inequality' or whatever, then they may have had more success in resonating with the wider working public.

As it is, I always felt (judging from afar) that the Occupy LSX movement failed to shake the shackles of 'we are hippies trying to save the world'-type ideas. Very vague, very generalised, lacking in class content and not really having any basis for class solidarity.



Indeed. The absurdity of Occupy in general's extreme appeals to indifferent "the answer is somewhere in the middle" language born out of its liberal vaguely leftist sentiments always reminded me of early Nazi propaganda that tried to play both the rightists and the leftists with language such as "Down with bolshevism, down with world finance!".

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Indeed. The absurdity of Occupy in general's extreme appeals to indifferent "the answer is somewhere in the middle" language born out of its liberal vaguely leftist sentiments always reminded me of early Nazi propaganda that tried to play both the rightists and the leftists with language such as "Down with bolshevism, down with world finance!".

I think this is a ridiculously unhelpful sentiment. Occupy never killed nobody and it didn't put people to work in concentration camps.

If this isn't trolling, then it's a downright stupid thing to say.

[Illegalitarian]

I think this is a ridiculously unhelpful sentiment. Occupy never killed nobody and it didn't put people to work in concentration camps.

If this isn't trolling, then it's a downright stupid thing to say.

It wasn't supposed to be a sentiment of any kind nor was it in any form a comparison of Occupy to Nazi Germany, jesus christ lmfao.


I was merely saying that Occupy's liberal indifference for the sake of indifference reminds me of how Nazi Germany tried to foolishly play both sides of the field, an issue in Occupy that was also symptomatic of the 99% Popular Frontish approach.

[Sewer Socialist]

I wouldn't say it was "foolish"; their appeals to populism rewarded them with power, which was exactly what they wanted.

[Sewer Socialist]

...I do feel the analogy was accurate. Occupy often seemed like a directionless mass. If it had managed to really threaten capital, we probably would have seen significant opportunism.

But politicians seemed to absorb enough of it by adopting some "99%" rhetoric.