The ‘Occupy’ movement

[alanjjohnstone]

Not just attend and participate in the debate but perhaps take along a stock of Socialist Standards to dish out – not a truck-load, mind you – just this month's issue will suffice with its direct relevance !!We're doomed, ah tell ye, doomed ah said, but just perhaps our view will find a resonance with one or two and the future will not be so bleak.

[ALB]

Went to a meeting in the London Occupy's New Putney Debates series last night. It was on Land and Democracy. About 100 people there in the same church where the original debates took place. The speakers were George Monbiot, Natalie Bennett (new Leader of the Green Party) and someone from a new "Digger" camp in Runnymede.What was revealing was how the Occupy moderator introduced the Green Party speaker. He said that Occupy didn't  normally associate with political parties but that the Green Party had supported them. When you think of it, this was going to be the most likely place Occupy activists would find congenial. The audience appeared to be natural Green Party supporters.As to the substance of the talks and discussions, they seem to have a vague idea that the land should somehow be commonly owned (or at least more equally distributed) and/or democratically controlled, but no hint that the same ought logically to apply to all wealth since this comes from the land (nature) in the first place. Henry George got a mention. Plenty of praise for Gerrard Winstanley. So, hopefully, our leaflet based on this will have gone down well.Three of four of us are planning to attend the one on "Capitalism is Crisis" on Sunday mentioned in message #300 above.

[ALB]

In the end only two of us went to this meeting. It was organised on the "open space" principle, ie no fixed agenda just a general theme (in the instance "capitalism is crisis") with people attending posting on a board something they wanted to talk about and for others to choose to go and listen to them and join in the discussion there. It worked very well. Perhaps we could experiment with it at our summer school.Those present, fifty or so, were a variety of "anti-capitalists" (including, oddly, Joseph Choonara, the SWP's expert on Marxian ecnomics). Most seemed to be concerned with acting now to create alternatives to capitalism today inevitably within capitalism to start with, such as local democracy, community trusts, co-ops and other not-for-profit or profit-sharing mutual societies. We pointed out that whatever might be the merits of these they could only be marginal within capitalism and would never be able to outcompete and take over "the commanding heights of the economy" currently controlled by capitalist corporations, which would require political action (via the ballot box). They also talked about introducing laws to permit this and to stop that, without thinking how these might come about without political action of some kind that would bring them up against the vested interests of the capitalist corporations and their owners and political representatives. The SWP continued to insist that the focus of struggles today should be the workplace rather than local communities. They also insisted that the only way to get control of the state was by violent insurrection, which didn't find any echo at all amongst those present. Tha is clearly not what present-day "anti-capitalists" are into.The trouble is that they are not into what we advocate either (democratic political action to win political control to end capitalism). The aim of the whole series of New Putney Debates is to draw up a New Agreement of the People. A draft for this gives an idea of their general approach. Basically, it's a draft for a new constitition for Britain which would be fully democratic (and so republican) with the usual civil and political rights guaranteed. The economic part reads:

Quote:

* the right to co-operative ownership in place of shareholder control* the right to democracy and self-management in all areas/activities of the workplace* the right to common land ownership in towns and rural areas.

Forty years ago this might have been described as "self-managed socialism" but "socialism" is not a word that modern anti-capitalists seem to like (though some will admit it privately). The criticism we made of a self-managed market economy of worker-controlled workplaces put forward by such groups as Solidarity in the 60s and 70s applies to them, but our problem is how do we get across the need for some degree of centralisation and for political action. Another drawback is that, unlike those we argued with at that time, modern anti-capitalists are not using the same language that we are used to (socialism, working class,class struggle, Marx, etc). But at least we've haven't got the baggage of vanguardism and insurrection that the SWP and other Trotskyists have.

[alanjjohnstone]

Once again, Adam, congratulations in getting out there and making contact.First let me hold up my hands an admit i don't know the answer. i have to confess sometimes i don't even know the question. But i will share my thoughts and hopes with others to be weighed up.i think again that the problem all leads back to reformism and the simplicity of the slogans that claim to offer a solution. A Robin Hood Tax and now the the latest being a Living Wage. The main proponents are no longer the political parties but the charities and NGOs and think-tanks. Because there is less linkage with ideologies then people are more receptive of proposals being without prejudice and therefore more reasonable. The politicians prove to be Johnny come latelys,  hanging on to the coat-tails of more neutral organisations and seeking identification with the reforms for popularity rather than really making anymore a  policy than an opportunist soundbite. Even Tory Boris as Mayor endorses the London Living Wage and lines up with the Millibands.Our language isn't particularly welcomed because over the decades the majority of people have been deceived by it and still are. Many groups have endeavoured to drop it and invent new words. Participatory. Communalisation. Horizontal. Resource Based Economy. But these orgnisations still remain just as insignificant as ourselves in the big picture.We know in our own development it required acquiring new understanding and re-defining our view of the world, learning new terminolgy and attaching new meanings to words that we believed we did know what they meant. But the environmentalists all need to overcome complex concepts and it is not beyond ordinary activists ability to do so. Like any learning there only requires a will, there is always a way. Our particular propaganda methods should include several means of education, written, audio, video and spoken.We had a lesson from the Economics Working Group within Occupy which has set out to explain and clarify what the issues are as they see it and what they meran. All we can do is the same. Beat the same drum as we always have. We can opt to change the language we use. Or choose to reclaim our words. We are all minded how the ideas of  Marx were declared dead and buried but were suddenly resurrected when they were found to reflect reality more clearly than existing interpretations. We have to present our ideas of common ownership as common sense solutions to present current social problems. Socialism as an immediate possibility to struggle for in the here and now, not the here-after. Our arguments cannot just be one-offs but must necessitate saying over and over again. Beat our drum and drum it into the workers' heads. Not always in the same repetitive way but always with the same message. And even then we have to face the fact that we cannot compete with capitalism's hegemony on society's ideas. A socialist revolution first must take place in the heads of the workers, then will follow the conquest of political power. The ideas about the aim derive from, are shaped by, the class struggle, but they also transcend it. It is hard to see how the working class would develop the ability to figure out how to reorganize society if they don't talk about it and discuss and clarify their ideas or their vision of where they would like to go. It is highly unlikely that an entire new social order emerges spontaneously in some crisis although some socialists see catastrophe as the trigger. More likely that people would "spontaneously" fall back into old habits inculcated by class society, such as giving power to leaders to make decisions for them or supporting the rise of the Right as witnessed in Greece. We need to know where we are going if we set out on a journey, otherwise we all risk ending up in different places. Agreeing the route is also an issue to reach agreement upon. We all must learn from our own particular exploitation but it is also necessary to go further and recognise the commonality of how we are all controlled and conditioned. Then we seek common cause and action . 

[alanjjohnstone]

Just to emphasise how we must engage on the battlefield of ideas with Occupy, there is a review of the new Adbuster book on economics in the Guardian today intended to give content to a Occupy's manifesto.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/05/kalle-lasn-man-inspired-occupyDescribed as an alternative economics book but how alternative is shown  by its interviews and essays – Stiglitz and Daly. The use of different concepts, "psychonomics" – economics that takes into account human behaviour – or "bionomics" which bears in mind the cost of environment damage. Different words but not really ideas that have not been discussed and debated before, even within orthodox economics.Many people are attempting to garb Occupy in the lastest fashion of economics…we should be emphasising the classic style of Marx that should adorn Occupy.

[SocialistPunk]

ALB wrote:

The criticism we made of a self-managed market economy of worker-controlled workplaces put forward by such groups as Solidarity in the 60s and 70s applies to them, but our problem is how do we get across the need for some degree of centralisation and for political action. Another drawback is that, unlike those we argued with at that time, modern anti-capitalists are not using the same language that we are used to (socialism, working class,class struggle, Marx, etc). But at least we've haven't got the baggage of vanguardism and insurrection that the SWP and other Trotskyists have.

I seem to recall saying something similar not that long ago. But I found I was critiscised heavily by many, even quite aggressively at times.But at least the reality is starting to sink in.During the late eighties and early nineties I came across a new breed of "punks" into very similar music, except they didn't like the term "punk". They had new words to describe their music and fashion.My point is, new generations want their own identity. They are not concerned and do not like it when it is shown their ideas, fashion, music and even politics have been around before them.I hate to bring this up, because it shouldn't really be important, but unfortunately it is so often in modern society. But there is probably also a generation gap. I imagine most of the SPGB members are over a certain age, probably forties onwards?I would love to be wrong. But if I am not, then we have ageing members using what is often perceived to be outdated language. Not quite a recipe for success in todays youth orientated consumer society.What to do about it. That is the big issue. I don't think Botox or mud masks would do much good and neither will pretending we are younger, by adopting modern fashions, and music tastes. That just leaves the obvious. Now I am not suggesting adapting language will work any magic, but it may stop the party slipping into irrelevant oblivion.  

[alanjjohnstone]

i have to admit we are seen as a party of "old" men talking in "old" language about "old" ideas. But what age is Noam Chomsky. What are the ages of the economists and anthropologists and writers that inspire Occupy. What is so different about their language (plenty of academics usually involved) they use from our own? Not very much! So i think it is a bit easy to put it down to a generational thing. The fact of the matter is that our ideas, in the way we express them do not relate to Occupy and they are not receptive to them. Is it a reflection that in todays world people want a fast fix? Then our aim must be to demonstrate that the solutions being offered retard radical change. The slogans and speeches of Occupy frequently sound revolutionary but from past personal experience in other similar situations when we start talking about no countries, no money, no leaders, no government, it is surprising how quickly some return to their conservatism and raise the usual objections that we have to take political baby-steps before we run. Erich Fromm called it the fear of freedom, didn't he? We must again declare ourselves the impossiblists demanding utopia now. Instead of challenging Occupy's manifesto, forcing them into being defensive, we must somehow get them to start questioning our positions, demanding we explain and justify them.The strengths we saw in Occupy, the leaderlessness, the lack of reform demands, are now being re-evaluated as its weaknesses. I think we have to defend Occupy's beginnings but repeat our original criticism  that Occupy's structurelessness  would  create a void that leaders fill and it lacked the defined goal of establishing socialism/communim/anarchism which would lead to lesser objectives substituting. What we first said appears to be more and more valid.In a blog post about Michael Albert of Parecon i made the point that Socialist Punk made, that it must be a bit ego deflating to learn that your ideas have been raised before and dismissed before and all you have accomplished is invented a few new words for much the same thing.  

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

So i think it is a bit easy to put it down to a generational thing.

I tend to agree. From my experience of attending 2 or 3 meetings in their New Putney Debates series over the past week or so, I would say that most Occupy activists seem to be university-educated professional workers in the 30s and 40s. As to those attending their meetings, very few were in their 20s or under and there were plenty of over 50s. And, perhaps surprisingly, a massive under-representation of women.

[J Surman]

Re ALB's 'and, perhaps surprisingly. a massive under-representation of women.'Should we be surprised? Isn't this how it is across the board in politics? I've never been into feminism or demonstrated for women's rights etc, but I am certainly aware of the discrepancies in the position of women compared with men in the worldwide arena. It's not necessary to go into details here but suffice it to say that even in the so-called 'developed' countries women have a long way to go to be on a par with men. I think what it demonstrates to us as socialists that here is another group we haven't managed to penetrate to any degree. (And before anyone makes a lewd comment – I did notice my choice of words and decided to stick with them – I do have a sense of humour too). Such a shame though that so much energy can be put into a separate cause, that many women don't feel they are part of an equal human race and only want to win their separate battle.I can't point to any good reasons why women, in general or in significant numbers, choose not to be involved in certain areas but I do wonder how much of it is down to a simple matter of perceived inequality. The patriarchal society – it's rife in the media, in main-line politics, in business and employment opportunities and also still in many homes – and I'm talking about  'the west' in general here.A couple of days ago Jondwhite posted 'Utopian feminist?' and the link below to an article from Laurie Penny about her recent book tour. At 26 she has a remarkable grasp of some of the divisions between the genders and a pretty good way of expressing herself. Especially if you don't know of her writing I recommend a look:http://www.newstatesman.com/laurie-penny/2012/10/notes-feminist-book-tour-its-alright-want-everythingA separate point now regarding the recent posts above and how we communicate – We can each only do what we know best, and there is surely plenty of variety in that. Let's have discussion on it, but not too much soul-searching which may be a distraction.

[SocialistPunk]

Hi JS

J Surman wrote:

A separate point now regarding the recent posts above and how we communicate – We can each only do what we know best, and there is surely plenty of variety in that. Let's have discussion on it, but not too much soul-searching which may be a distraction.

I attempted to bring attention to this very area on another thread not so long ago and got savaged for it.Caution is advised.

[SocialistPunk]

Hi Alan,You said the following in response to my observations about the combo' of party members age and the use of outdated language:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

i have to admit we are seen as a party of "old" men talking in "old" language about "old" ideas. But what age is Noam Chomsky. What are the ages of the economists and anthropologists and writers that inspire Occupy. What is so different about their language (plenty of academics usually involved) they use from our own? Not very much! So i think it is a bit easy to put it down to a generational thing. The fact of the matter is that our ideas, in the way we express them do not relate to Occupy and they are not receptive to them.

However I do not recall saying it was simply down to a generational gap. Not with regards to the actual age of members anyway. I said, "But there is probably also a generation gap."My whole point is the language the party is steeped in is perceived to be old fashioned and therefore makes ageing members seem more like fossils than they actually are. I am aware of Chomsky and his style or anti-style approach. The thing about his stuff and other accepted critics of capitalism is they do not actually call for a revolutionary overthrow of the system.If the SPGB and companion groups simply criticised, I am sure many members would be honoured speakers of the intellectual left. Revolution is the danger word to most.Now with the following bit, you are on to something. In the battle to win hearts and minds, attacking peoples views is a non starter.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Instead of challenging Occupy's manifesto, forcing them into being defensive, we must somehow get them to start questioning our positions, demanding we explain and justify them.

I agree with Alan that the best tactic, I am sure most socialists know, is to get people to actually think about and explain the ideas they support and how those ideas will lead to the improvements they claim will happen.

[SocialistPunk]

Hi Alan,Got a little confused at the end of my last post, or more accurately, got ahead of myself without fully digesting your statement.Sorry for that.I see what you mean. Try to get those such as Occupy to challenge our ideas.I think both non confrontational probing of others ideas, as well as what you suggest could be a good combo. The trick is, as always, in bringing them into play.

[ALB]

I left my email address at the Occupy New Putney Debate on Land and Democracy and have received the following email from them. It gives a good idea of where they (or at least their Environment Working Party) are coming from and want to go. Not too different, it seems, from existing activist groups in this area.

Quote:

Dear All,thanks so much for coming to our Putney Debate on Land and Democracy last Thursday. At Occupy London we hope that all of the debates will help build a community of people who want to do more than talk, and come together as part of a wider movement against neoliberalism and the corporate takeover of society, and for real democracy and sharing of natural resources, to help bring about real changes in our society and around the world. Details of how to get involved in our group can be found at the bottom of this message. Of course, the talk is important, for working out a coherent diagnostic of what is wrong with society and the kind of changes we wish to see. Action without thought is blind. Lots of interesting ideas came out during this session, and our occupier friend Tina has written a very good overview of the evening here: http://occupylondon.org.uk/archives/17849 You can also find a livestream of the event here, courtesy of our friend Obi: http://occupylondon.org.uk/archives/17835 Just a few of the ideas (based on what people have sent back to me) raised in the breakout groups (send in any others you have as a "reply all" to this message):*build and reinforce communities where we are*Occupy empty buildings/expand squatting (increasingly a necessity for many young people)*demand that the City of London make all its accounts transparent*learn from & get together with friends to replicate successful alternative community experiments, such as the occupied library at Friern Barnet (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/sep/11/squatters-reopen-friern-barnet-library) and the Diggers' camp at Runnymede (http://diggers2012.wordpress.com/) *devise strategies to counter "privatist" propaganda in every way we canThe event was organised by the Occupy London Energy, Equity and Environment Working Group (EEE). We are also organising an Environment Day, with some brilliant speakers like the energy expert Jeremy Leggett and Polly Higgins, leader of the campaign for Ecocide to be adopted by the UN as an international crime. There'll be lots of audience participation, and dealing with the crucial themes of food, energy, and environmental law. We hope you can come and invite lots of friends! The facebook page for this event can be found here: https://www.facebook.com/events/114672452021499/ The full programme for the Putney Debates can be found here: http://thenewputneydebates.wordpress.com/programme/If you agree with us that voting every 5 years or going on an occasional march won't change anything in any significant way, then we hope you'll get involved with Occupy London, UK Uncut, the Fuel Poverty Action Group, the Climate Justice Collective, Femcells or any of the groups that are part of the wider anti-neoliberal movement. EEE is an autonomous grassroots working group within Occupy London, set up 18 October 2011 to connect the dots between environment and economy, and put the environment at the heart of the Occupy movement in London, which I think we can say we have successfully achieved. We organise a mix of educational events, protests and direct actions, sometimes in association with other grassroots environmental groups, sometimes independently. If you would like to get involved with this group, please email me by reply.Best wishes,PeterOccupy London EEE

[alanjjohnstone]

I'll hazard a guess that many in Occupy will be adopting nationalise the banks slogans, based upon arguments presented by the likes of Ellen Brown here. http://www.alternet.org/economy/its-interest-stupid-why-bankers-rule-world?paging=offWe should be ready to counter that interest is from the surplus value extracted from workers. A nationalised bank will be just as much a robber as a private one and it is irrelevant how the spoils are divided.Ellen Brown cites the examples of Australia, Canada and Argentina of a reduced interest burden but glaringly omits any evidence of its benefit to workers in those countries. She refers to Iceland. This quote explains all "I think that people have learned that money is not made in banks. It is made by real people working hard at real jobs. Actually, deep down we knew that all along. We just have to learn it again." Asbjorn Jonsson, an Icelandic fisherman.As Marx identified “So long as things go well, competition effects an operating fraternity of the capitalist class…so that each shares in the common loot in proportion to the size of his respective investment. But as soon as it is no longer a question of sharing profits, but of sharing losses, everyone tries to reduce his own share to a minimum and to shove it off upon another. The class, as such, must inevitably lose. How much the individual capitalist must bear of the loss, ie, to what extent he must share in it at all, is decided by strength and cunning, and competition then becomes a fight among hostile brothers. The antagonism between each individual capitalist’s interests and those of the capitalist class as a whole, then comes to the surface…” Marx also pointed out that “the moneyed interest enriches itself at the cost of the industrial interest in the course of a crisis” Bankers are enriching themselves at the expense of industrial capitalist and workers, in other words. So whats new?Ellen Brown seeks a solution in the likes of the State Bank of North Dakota. That the bank owned by state authorities weathered the recession was perhaps more a reflection that the state’s economy which is primarily based on agriculture and oil, both involved in current boom times. Nor was the state particularly exposed to the sub-prime disaster “North Dakota really didn’t participate in subprime to a significant degree. I mean, that was–you know, it was sort of a flyover state. All of the aggressive subprime lenders apparently didn’t think there were enough folks in farms that they could get to lever up to take on these dodgy loans.”http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6239 Yves Smith. author of the book ECONned and creator of the website NakedCapitalism.com She wants to fix capitalism but revolutionaries want to abolish it. Some in Occupy will be impressed by her seemingly easy fix – we should rebut it vigourously.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I'll hazard a guess that many in Occupy will be adopting nationalise the banks slogans, based upon arguments presented by the likes of Ellen Brown here. http://www.alternet.org/economy/its-interest-stupid-why-bankers-rule-world?paging=offWe should be ready to counter that interest is from the surplus value extracted from workers.

That's why the October Socialist Standard was a special issue on this, but  I'm afraid we are facing an uphill task here. West London branch is covering another meeting in the New Putney Debates series this evening on "A New Economy". Apparently, it will be a workshop run by Clive Menzies, a currency crank who wants to abolish interest and has argued that monetary reform is necessary to avoid …. revolution:http://theoccupiedtimes.co.uk/?p=3015Should be fun.

[Author]

Posts