The ‘Occupy’ movement

[Anonymous]

stuartw2112 wrote:

When Dave and I first left the party, we often repeated a few predictions of our own: that an upturn in the class struggle and improved prospects for revolution would not come out of nowhere, or out of party propaganda, but out of a crisis of capitalism. We further predicted that following the first signs of this upturn, or of the emergence of a revolutionary or popular movement, the party would condemn it within seconds of hearing about it. Our predictions were fulfilled.

I disagree with this Stuart. For a start I think it’s delusional to refer to Occupy as either revolutionary or popular – it has no real agenda or program nor even an underpinning set of ideas other than vague demands, which rules out the revolutionary aspect and as for popular? I think most working people honestly know more about Sheryl Cole’s hair than they do Occupy, despite the press coverage most of which was from a biased and sniping capitalist owned media.

The Party so far as I have read or heard has neither condemned nor ‘supported’ the movement such as it is but has attended and taken part in the actual protests and online, as well as discussed the events in the Standard and this forum and the Blog. As stated time and again, The Party as a group can do no more than put our view of the world and how we see as ‘The Answer’ as you sneeringly put – what group does anything else? Party members as individuals may well have done more or less, but that is their perogative.

The long and the short of it is, in this incredibly long winded discussion (28 fecking pages lads?!) is that Occupy has and is fizzling out, nothing has changed really and the working people of this country are still toiling and paying their bills and trying to make ends meet – for us, the working class, this movement has solved nothing, provided no answers we didn’t know already and has given no indication of being anything other than mere protest with the vaguest of demands hoping to make the current system ‘a bit fairer’.

Squatting never cured the homeless problem, millions marching did not save the mines, and Occupy will not change the world. So, just to be fair, I will make my own predictions: Tomorrow, and the day after, the capitalists will still own the means of production, we’ll still own nothing. They’ll still be the 1% and we will still be the 99% and in a few years time this will all be another chapter of protest along with the Poll Tax, the Miners, the dockers, the Ford Women and the rest.

Is the SPGB any better? Maybe not. All we can do, and all the Party can do, is make more socialists and put forward the answer as we see it. Perhaps you’re right, perhaps it is probably futile, it may never change things, perhaps the war is already lost but then so is pointless protest after protest all claiming to be ‘revolutionary’ – they are, but in a circular sense only. As is this discussion.

[alanjjohnstone]

Also to be welcomed – a good bank?”Carne Ross, is involved with an Occupy offshoot focused on “alternative banking.” In the near future, Mr. Ross said, the group plans to launch what sounds, for all intents and purposes, like a bank under the Occupy name. It will be governed by its users and staff, transparent and risk-averse, and accessible to all, he said. The group has received “tremendously good advice,” he said, from people including the ex-head of Chicago’s largest community bank, former regulators, and even finance professionals secretly moonlighting as activists. “Our vision was always to establish an alternative, not just to debate it,” Mr. Ross said.  “If we could change banking and make it embody the values of Occupy—equality, transparency, democracy—we might not only change the financial industry for the better, but also change the very nature of the economy—and thus society itself…Make no mistake, the kind of bank we are discussing is both plausible, and better, than the conventional for-profit banks. It can and should be done. These ideals are the stuff that make Occupy such an exciting movement to be part of.” – Carne Ross, Revolution Through BankingMore here Very little difference in essence from Labour Party’s leader Ed Milibands recent call for the “creativity” of capitalism to be harnessed and made “more decent” and “humane”. Socialists must be present and vocal within Occupy to combat such reformism masquerading as revolutionary before it takes root. 

[DJP]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Socialists must be present and vocal within Occupy to combat such reformism masquerading as revolutionary before it takes root.

I don’t know what the situation is like in London but where I live it’s already died a death.

[HollyHead]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Socialists must be present and vocal within Occupy to combat such reformism masquerading as revolutionary before it takes root.

 How? Surely not by joining and boring from within??

[alanjjohnstone]

My view has been pretty much consistent and has been expressed on our blog and by several posts on this list (which i note from a previous post, Hollyhead, you are deign to read due to their word-length). As a party, i think we had some way to go to develop a relationship with Occupy. Foremost, we have to develop a party strategy and a course of action which is not one that is based upon the ad-hoc impromptu interventions of party-members as individuals but co-ordinated in the name and as a policy of the party. This has to be done within the party through discussion documents and analyses, conference resolutions and eventually by actual practice of trial and error. We are a propagandist party with an intimate acquaintance with the various struggles in history of our class since our foundation. Our purpose is to advocate socialism, and advance the necessary pre-requisites for a movement to achieve it, primary a democratic decision making structure, whilst at the same time, identifying and criticising trends that obstruct that object, which is mainly but not entirely the diversion and siren-call of reformist platforms. Our job is to provide the ideological tools (the ideas and the theory and the evidence)  for those in Occupy to maintain an effective anti-capitalism. It is not to lead workers to socialism but to push them by discussion, argument and debate into reaching the inescapable conclusion that for society to go forward, free-access socialism is the only solution. We have to have a physical presence within those working class struggles which seek alternative answers to their problems. It means possessing a confidence in our politics and recognising ourselves as part of the working class and a legitimate expression of it. The mountain won’t come to Clapham High St.- we have to go to the mountain. It can also mean opening up and sharing resources, such as our office space for meetings, our printing facilities and our web-site for exchange of views. Nothing as drastic as becoming assimiliated and surrendering our independence or bestowing our much-needed finances.Darren, you may be right. Many have now written the epitaph of Occupy and conducted the post-mortems. I am not so sure. After all, there are ups and downs, highs and troughs. Nevertheless, Occupy presents the SPGB with the challenge of lessons to be learned and the necessary approach we will need to adopt for similar future class struggles. We have to pin-point the strengths and the weaknesses of our party-case in regards to how it is perceived. More importantly, we have to ensure that the socialist system is seen as a practicable possibility to be worked for, and not one to be casually dismissed as wishful pie in the sky.

[HollyHead]

 So your answer is yes — you are in favour of boring from within.I’m not – on the grounds that I think it dishonest to join an organisation whose aims one does not agree with.Such membership of course might also be seen to be incompatible with membership of the Socialist Party.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 My view has been pretty much consistent and has been expressed on our blog and by several posts on this list (which i note from a previous post, Hollyhead, you are deign to read due to their word-length).

It’s true that I have pleaded for brevity (both here and on other party forums). I am of the opinion that the logorrhoea to which many Party members are prone makes for poor communication. Excessive length fails to persuade.Internet forums are not (in my opinion) the place for lengthy expositions of the party case for socialism. Better by far to have short, snappy, exchanges. Three thousand word postings are not the way forward — they’re difficult for many of us oldies to read I suspect. 

[HollyHead]

So your answer is yes — you are in favour of boring from within. I’m not – on the grounds that I think it dishonest to join an organisation whose aims one does not agree with.Such membership of course might also be seen to be incompatible with membership of the Socialist Party.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

My view has been pretty much consistent and has been expressed on our blog and by several posts on this list (which i note from a previous post, Hollyhead, you are deign to read due to their word-length).

If by “deign” [=think fit, condescend] you mean “reluctant” then yes that’s true. I did, however, read your 2,900 word posting but gave up about a quarter of the way through the 14,000 word link you provided. I don’t consider it compulsory to complete such tasks. It’s true that I have pleaded for brevity (both here and on other party forums). I am of the opinion that logorrhoea to which many Party members are prone makes for poor communication of socialist ideas.  Excessive length fails to persuade.Internet forums are not (in my opinion) the place for lengthy expositions of the party case for socialism. Better by far to have short, snappy, exchanges. Three thousand word postings are not the way forward — they’re difficult for many of us oldies to read I suspect.

[alanjjohnstone]

A strange interpretation of advocating direct up-front  engagment with a movement to describe it as “dishonest” and “boring from within”. Perhaps you might define what you mean by the phrase since I would have guessed that historically it is associated with the Trotskyist policy of entryism which is certainly not my intention for the Socialist Party and it is to misconstrue the post as a proposal to do so. I would also have thought when I wrote “Nothing as drastic as becoming assimiliated and surrendering our independence” explains that we remain distinctly separate from  Occupy and be clearly identified as the Socialist Party and that we interact “not one that is based upon the ad-hoc impromptu interventions of party-members as individuals but co-ordinated in the name and as a policy of the party.” doesn’t say joining it as members to be in contravention of our rules. The degree and extent of our involvement with Occupy I purposefully said would have to be discussed within the party. “This has to be done within the party through discussion documents and analyses, conference resolutions.” I think it would also be up to debate within the party that involvement with Occupy in its present form would be lead to a breach of the hostility clause. It is clearly a much less political organisation than Zeitgeist Movement is and more an generalised umbrella working class protest movement. But if you wish to put that to the test, feel free to bring charges against me. It appears to me, when a post such as mine is (wilfully?) misinterpreted by yourself, then lengthy explanations are indeed going to be necessary in future just for clarity since you fail to understand even my short posts!!

[ALB]

Among the things Occupy London have done (besides chaining themselves to the pulpit in St Pauls in what appears to be an inter-Christian dispute) to mark their first anniversary is to produce The Little Book of Ideas which can be read online here:http://occupylondon.org.uk/archives/17533A quick look suggests that they have absorbed a number of currency crank ideas. From the chapter headings it seems to be expressing the same sort of ideas for reforming capitalism as the Green Party. That would be a sad outcome, but I'm suspending judgement till I've read it all.

[alanjjohnstone]

http://issuu.com/occupylondon/docs/occupy_little_book_of_ideas/1The 60 page pamphlet is by the working economic group which Carne Ross is involved with and which i drew attention to in an earlier post on the thread. The group in its foreward claim to be authorative in the field.They are indeed endeavouring to furnish Occupy with re-hashed theories of bank and tax reform . This is the battle of ideas that we should be engaging in as directly as possible and in a comradely style with Occupy participants who genuinely seek explanations.As been pointed out across at Spintcom, a speedy detailed reply is always best to the myths being propagated and the futility and consequences of all those nice sounding reforms has to be made as i said in the name of the party, whether it is the EC, The Gen Sec, or a sub-committee.A leaflet in the form of an  open letter would be obviously the first and easiest option, followed by a more meaty rebuttal of the economic group.Perhaps this months Socialist Standard could be reformatted and re-edited into a counter-pamphlet on HO equipment with an appropriate introduction, and  if not all issues are covered – ie Robin Hood Tax, previous articles from archives can be included. The title can reflect the haste by being described as The Socialists Answer – Part One or whatever to show that we are prepared for an ongoing discussion. (hopefully a Part Two and Part Three would materialise)An invitation to exchange views with this Economics Group in a public forum, whether a meeting/debate or online discussion should be made. A refusal can be used as evidence of closed-minds within sections of Occupy to relay to other Occupy activistsWe have to challenge errononeous ideas but tailor our approach to be seen as educational and instructive – just as authorative in our knowledge and eperience as the Economics Working group tries to present itself and let the Occupiers judge for themselves who has offered the better case. Feasible Socialism or Unachievable Radical Capitalism 

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Perhaps this months Socialist Standard could be reformatted and re-edited into a counter-pamphlet on HO equipment with an appropriate introduction, and  if not all issues are covered – ie Robin Hood Tax, previous articles from archives can be included. The title can reflect the haste by being described as The Socialists Answer – Part One or whatever to show that we are prepared for an ongoing discussion. (hopefully a Part Two and Part Three would materialise)

OK, let's try to do something like this. I've just selected 20 articles on banking and money from the Cooking the Books column in the Socialist Standard since it started in 2005. At 500-600 words these are as short as the chapters in the Occupy booklet and they cover the same subjects as them, eg Basic Income, Ron Paul, Social Credit, Land Tax, Quantititive Easing, local currencies as well as banking and "credit creation". In all, about 12,250 words, so about the same length as theirs (and the same number of words as in the Standard).I'll send them to the Publications Department tomorrow. This should be do-able. Maybe also to them with a proposal to meet their Economics Working Group?

[alanjjohnstone]

Where there is a will there's a way. Well done, Adam.  I hope the publications can prioritise it. I know a nationalism pamphlet is in the making but that can wait until the Scot Nat referendum in 2014!!! Of course,  the next challenge is distribution. I suggest mailing hardcopies  free of charge to as many relevant contacts in Occupy we can collect, friend or foe, describing it as a complementary review copy for their comments. The hardcopy should be speedily scanned and placed on the website so it can be linked to at various discussion lists and worldwide organisations. Using the same compiled address list , the Campaigns committee should then issue comradely invitations to local groups ( not forgetting this Occupy Economic Working Group) to discuss the differences between the two viewpoints. The separate committees, Publications, Campaigns, the Media and the Internet should be coordinating to produce a joint effort.  Slightly heretical it might be but there is no need for it to be a Socialist Party Versus Them. It could include other parties such as Anarchist Federation or CPGB (or whoever ) as well as Occupy…a genuine Question Time format. If we have confidence in the validity of our ideas i see no reason why we should not give a platform to others if by doing so it presents us with a wider audience and more exposure.  I expect a couple of dissensions. First being from those who will argue that we should not put propaganda material of second-rate standard out there until its perfected ( Paddy's view that a 1000 flowers blooming is in the end counter-productive.) Waiting unfortuately until the i is dotted and the t is crossed and some nice colours and images are chosen for a pamhlet would lose the impetus. We have witnessed that before. The other is that once again someone from the other end of the world is delegating the hard slog to others. However, once it is online many individuals regardless of location can email and post the pamphlet and initiate debate. Activity should be seen as including those members unable to make a physical presence either due to age, infirmity or distance but capable of using a key-board. The web has really made the armchair revolutionary a vital component. Best of luck with re-editing the collected articles and an appropriate introduction.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

http://issuu.com/occupylondon/docs/occupy_little_book_of_ideas/1The 60 page pamphlet is by the working economic group which Carne Ross is involved with and which i drew attention to in an earlier post on the thread. The group in its foreward claim to be authorative in the field.

Read through this last night (it's an easy read and only takes an hour or so). To tell the truth, it is not what I first assumed it to be, i.e a statement of policy. It's an attempt to explain some of the terms used in discussions about banking and the financial crisis, and it gives the case for and against particular reforms. Its description of how banking works is not all that cranky, but not much different from how the textbooks say it works. I imagine hardcore cranks will be disappointed.But the overall assumption is that the crisis is financial and has been caused by certain activities of the banks, with the implication that it could have been avoided if banks hadn't been allowed to behave in this way and that future crises can be avoided if banks can be stopped behaving in this way. It's still "the bankers" rather than the capitalist profit system as a whole that is blamedSo, there's still a need for us to produce something on the same questions as there is clearly an interest in them amongst those who are critical of present-day society and economic system.Incidentally, I read their pamphlet on my computer as an e-book. Are we capable of producing something like this on our site?

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

Incidentally, I read their pamphlet on my computer as an e-book. Are we capable of producing something like this on our site?

Depends by what you mean by 'e-book', that term normally refers to files for e-readers like the kindle. In which case I'm going to add software which will allow all the content to be downloaded in e.pub format. The 'download pdf' option does more or less the same thing.But if you're specifically talking about that site, some of our stuff is on there already, see for example:http://issuu.com/imposs1904I've just reserved the user name 'thesocialistparty' so I'll see if some members of departments want to keep this current.

[ALB]

Here's a meeting organised by Occupy London next Sunday (4 November) that we must be present at:

Quote:

Sunday 4 November Venue: Toynbee Hall, 28 Commercial Street, London. E1 6LS 11am-5pm Capitalism is Crisis (Another World is Possible…) The sessions on capital, power and the State will tell a story of capitalism. They will explore the character of the capitalist process that is continuing to tear up the planet and to exterminate its inhabitants. The purpose of the sessions is to investigate why we are doomed, and also how we might escape the doom. Speakers. Discussion. Workshop. Event page: https://www.facebook.com/events/283364291772404/

We'll try and organise a group of comrades to go. Anypne interested please contact Head Office.

[Author]

Posts