The ‘Occupy’ movement
- This topic has 355 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“There are no magic answers, no miraculous methods to overcome the problems we face, just the familiar ones: honest search for understanding, education, organization, action that raises the cost of state violence for its perpetrators or that lays the basis for institutional change — and the kind of commitment that will persist despite the temptations of disillusionment, despite many failures and only limited successes, inspired by the hope of a brighter future.” Noam ChomskyThis discussion is not about whether or not we sympathise with the Occupy movement , that support goes without saying as many have already clearly stated, but it is a matter of how the World Socialist Movement makes the case for socialism within it.What should the party do is a valid question. We have precedents as we once acted as a conduit for the Bolsheviks during WW1 to publicise an anti war statement. But the Occupy movement didn’t spring up from no-where but was called by organisations with far more skill and expertise in publicising themselves particularly on the internet than we can do and which gave the protests the advantage over the Spanish intrados or the Greek anti-austerity demonstrators and Chilean student protests when it comes to media coverage. Nor do we need to offer financial support, OWS acquiring a fund of half million dollars.”The occupiers don’t need bloody leaflets or smart arses with all the answers or Socialist Standards… they need practical support.” explains Stuart…”A knowledge of a possibility is not practical support. It’s not as if these camps are against political discussion. A major purpose of them is to start them and organise them…”This is what we should be doing, engaging in discussion and debate. “One organiser, Vera Weghmann said: “We’re here because we want to discuss alternatives and not just oppose something; we’re coming together in lectures and workshops to educate each other.” If we don’t try creating our own influence, plenty of other “smart arses” are out there doing it already and giving a less revolutionary analysis or agenda than we would.”Yesterday brought a talk from Professor Richard Wilkinson, author of The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. “People often talk about whether it’s more important to talk to the converted or the unconverted, but I think both are very important – people should have a more sophisticated understanding of the things that they intuit.” he said “http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/campus-under-canvas-inside-the-st-pauls-tent-city-university-6256935.html”This is a time for action, but there also is a need for analysis.” Robert Jensen, professor at the School of Journalism at the University of Texas, Austin on Al JazeeraStuart says “”our theories” will be of any use to any bugger. I’m afraid it’s not a faith I share. It’s a peculiarly arrogant view when you compare what we have achieved in the past century with what Occupy Wall Street achieved in one month.” Our theories are part of the battle of ideas, because like it or not, accept it or not, the Occupy movement are being courted and wooed by all sort of reformists and are we to leave it an open field for them and not challenge erroneous views that are so often just re-formulated old theories that we have, as a party, encountered and critiqued in the past century and have integrated into our political and economic analyses. Should we adopt the lapses of class memory achieved by so many of the academic commentators and not cast up unpopular reminders from the past?But what sort analysis can the party contribute. As others have said , the protesters have discovered and adopted many principles of the Socialist Party for themselves. But we possess just one key core message – socialism. But is it too idealistic simply to offer this aspiration and nothing else. Chomsky talks of a middle-way.”QUESTION: I was thinking of your text, “Goals and Visions,” and I think that sometimes it is much more important to concentrate on goals and forget the visions!CHOMSKY: You don’t have to forget them; there is a balance. You have to make your own choices; I mean, close friends of mine may make very different choices than me. For example, Michael Albert thinks that is really important, to spell out the visions. My feeling is that we don’t know how to do that, so this kind of work is less important than that on goals. These are speculations about reasonable priorities, doubtless different for different people, as they should be. There is no general right or wrong about it.”Rather than immediate goals, which i think would require the formation of those demands the movement have been so far reluctant to press for since it may mean co-option into the bourgeois politics process , we have to try and make socialism the object of the protest – the vision – and to do so we have to expose the non-revolutionary alternatives visions being peddled.That is the raison d’etre of the Party. To abrogate that role makes the party redundant.How we do that? I can only say we should be participating, be part of it all as an organised party and not hide from that in the guise of individuals.Setting up a lit table with a full selection of books and pamphlets, and yes the Socialist Standard, could be easily implemented.But more importantly an on-site daily discussion group, perhaps producing a bulletin of the talks. We are gaining experience from conducting non -adversary, non -confrontational forum type public meetings, we can begin such informal talks under a gazebo and banner. (and hopefully continue with our free refreshments policy) I believe many members are attending the occupations individually but in an ad hoc fashion yet it is not beyond our organisation to formalise it a bit better, with volunteer members rotating their attendance to maintain a full-time presence. By being involved and being seen to be taking part, our criticisms which have to be made, a responsibility not to be shirked or shied away from because of a fear we may alienate protesters, we will perhaps have a more receptive audience and have our ideas heeded more.” I’m really not interested in persuading people. What I like to do is help people persuade themselves.” – Noam Chomsky We, as socialists, are simply presenting choices to the working class, for them to reject or accept, that is all we can do but without a choice being offered, there is no choice.
I quite agree, I too can’t at all understand the hostility directed towards the Occupy movement, or the felt need on the part of socialists to get their backs up by telling them they’re all wasting their time.
Hi Alan,Nice post. I don’t agree with it, but it was well argued. And I think you’ve spotted something that I’m becoming more and more aware of: that my position is essentially Chomskyan, anarchist if you like. It’s me that’s in the wrong party, not all you lot.One final point: I agree that you as an individual and the party as an organisation should be a part of the debate, if it wants to be. But in my view, we have more to learn from Occupy than they have to learn from us. There’s no recognition in your post or in anything the party ever says or does that it has anything to learn. That’s what I mean when I say that there is more delusion and ignorance inside the party than outside it. Most of its members are essentially fundamentalist. The good news is that socialist consciousness is also more prevalent outside the party than inside it, which is what we’ve all always wanted.All the best to you allStuart
PS Check out this tiny bunch of middle-class anarchists, wasting their time with pointless reformism. What concrete thing do they think they’re going to achieve? It’s not as if the right to peacefully assemble and deliberate democratically without being brutally broken up by the police matters from the point of view of socialism,does it? If only they had some kind of correct theory to work by instead. And I bet some of them were Christians. Losers. Ho hum.http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/3/video_report_from_streets_of_oakland
I for one won’t be the slightest bit sorry not to hear the name of Chomsky and his nebulous ramblings referred to on the SPGB/WSM forums again. Precariat indeed; what a pretentious poser!
Look I apologise for being a pure asshole earlier. I am frustrated but somehow I am confident that the Occupy protestors are so clever and resourceful that they may possibly come to the same conclusions as us without even ever hearing of us. i mean let’s face it what is the likelihood of the party ever gaining a major foothold in the public consciousness? I wish to fuck it was happening for the party but it ain’t. (Yet?) I mean the way things are going down on this forum with this bickering (which could be a microcosm of the position of the party at large?) then what chance have we got of influencing anyone? The party is like rumpole of the bailey whilst the protestors are blasting away like buzz lightyear. Normally I could never even entertain the idea of how workers could come towards a truly post capitalist understanding without the SPGB…but now I don’t know so much. I mean is this possible? Normally I think “how the fuck will workers ever acheive anything beyond trades unions consciousness without the SPGB” but now I am beginning to think that through a process of logical elimination they may come very close…on their own anyway? Are they working things out for themselves…despite our existence? I mean is this possible? Is it even a possibility that the WSM will be swept away in the hurly burly…and that World Socialism/RBE/Post Capitalism/Whatever It’s Called will be established anyway? Am I talking pure shite here?
Btw I keep saying “us” “ours” and “we” as if I am still a member even though I left the party in 1998! I am still a Socialist and impervious to eveything else even though I’m no longer a member…
Also may I say something else? Most of the comments on here about this occupy issue are totally at odds with this month’s truly excellent article in the Standard. I mean what does that mean? Btw despite all my criticisms I still think the party is fuckin excellent and the Standard is about the finest piece of available literature in the history of the world…it’s just a shame that so many members attitudes are at variance with this… Fuck I have a real cheek saying this and i’m not even a member anymore! Forgive me but I can’t help it. I’m stuck…in between the WSM, TZM and now Occupy Wall Street. I see faults…and great things in all of them!
Ozymandias wrote:Normally I think “how the fuck will workers ever acheive anything beyond trades unions consciousness without the SPGB” but now I am beginning to think that through a process of logical elimination they may come very close…on their own anyway? Are they working things out for themselves…despite our existence? I mean is this possible? Is it even a possibility that the WSM will be swept away in the hurly burly…and that World Socialism/RBE/Post Capitalism/Whatever It’s Called will be established anyway? Am I talking pure shite here?No, you’re not. You’re expressing what the SPGB has always said.We’re not so presumptuous as to think that the whole future of the world depends on us. What we do say is that people will come to a realisation that capitalism needs to be replaced by Whatever It’s Called quicker if there’s already an organised group arguing for this (on the basis of past experience).
Then you may have a house-point Naniperri!! Seriously, Stuart, I was expecting but nonetheless still dissapointed to read your post claiming you think you’re in the wrong party – why? You have drawn the right conclusions from capitalism in that it sucks and need replacing with socialism, so what really is the difference? If you’re not happy with individual Party members views on the Occupy Movement, you are right in discussing this and trying to convince them otherwise. That aside, your views expressed in the Standard and here are not at odds with the Party’s, so perhaps it is me but I cannot see why there is ‘bickering’ over this issue, other than over perhaps practical approaches to the Occupy movement?Personally, I have misgivings about Chomsky although I admit to not reading much of his outpourings. He strikes me as a professional theorist, someone to avoid IMO. Party’s are made from individuals working towards a common goal. Unless that goal or yours has changed, you are in the right place….to make a difference. Ozy – ditto. And re-join!
DaveOne of the good things about the Occupy movement is that it doesn’t come with a load of baggage. They are free to discuss and debate issues and think about problems from any possible angle.
The Socialist Party of Great Britain seems to have an enormous amount of superfluous baggage. We have all kinds of conference resolutions of a pious (not practical, organisational or activity led) nature. ‘Is socialism ethical or scientific? – discuss’ And, of course, you can only vote for or against. You can’t vote ‘there is no need for us to have an official policy on this’, so whatever happens you end up with more baggage. Our position on parliament is forever in danger of becoming the realisation of the anarchist’s parody which says that we think that socialism can be voted in or brought in through legislation. Why? Because we feel compelled to bang on about parliament because that is what makes us different. And in the process we neglect to emphasise the real revolutionary movement which will be the working class organising and planning democratically in workplaces and communities to take hold of the means of production and run them for the benefit of society.
Perhaps we need to think about what the socialist party would look like and what it would be doing if we were starting it up right now. Brand new. No baggage. What would it be like? Would it better reflect the thoughts and conversations that members have which each other or would it be like it is now with its reputation for hostility?freetimes3x wrote:One of the good things about the Occupy movement is that it doesn’t come with a load of baggage. They are free to discuss and debate issues and think about problems from any possible angle.The Occupy movement does come with a load of baggage; the same old baggage of capitalism. Consider just a few of the comments being made by some involved in the U.S. movement; not markedly different I suspect from comments being made by some involved in the movement over here.”The movement should have one simple message — stop using the top-tier banks: Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Chase, Citigroup, Wachovia, and US.; move money to credit unions, small banks, and stop purchasing on credit.””I don’t think we need to abolish money or banks though. They simplify the old bartering process. But banks shouldn’t be able to loan out money that they print, that isn’t backed by real assets. That’s how they inflate these credit bubbles that hurt the many and profit the few.””Anti-capitalists are not at all necessarily socialist. I am anti-capitalist and would love to see free markets work, but it’s a theory, and a hegemonic one, at that.”
freetimes3x wrote:Our position on parliament is forever in danger of becoming the realisation of the anarchist’s parody which says that we think that socialism can be voted in or brought in through legislation. Why? Because we feel compelled to bang on about parliament because that is what makes us different.There’s a very good reason why we “bang on about parliament”.What distinguishes us, amongst those who want a classless, stateless, wageless, moneyless society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of life, is our view that parliament can, and should, be used in the course of establishing such a socialist society. This position is based on our understanding that before socialism can be established there has to be a majority actively in favour of this, and that it is essential for this majority to win control over the machinery of government (political power, the state) before trying to establish socialism. In developed capitalist countries, it is control of the law-making assembly (parliament) that is the way to the control of the machinery of government. Since control of parliament is obtained via elections based on universal suffrage, a socialist majority can win control of the machinery of government through winning a parliamentary majority via the ballot box.[quote-freetimes3x] Perhaps we need to think about what the socialist party would look like and what it would be doing if we were starting it up right now. Brand new. No baggage. What would it be like? Would it better reflect the thoughts and conversations that members have which each other or would it be like it is now with its reputation for hostility? [/quote]Why would or should it be different given a similar set of circumstances? The party has a “reputation for hostility” as you put it for very good reasons. There’s a clue in one of its principles I seem to recall. It is not, however, hostile to individuals as such but to erroneous ideas and the mistaken view that there is some ‘short-cut’ to socialism. A comment made earlier in this thread “that socialist consciousness is……more prevalent outside the party than inside it” is just another bald assertion without, unfortunately, a single shred of evidence advanced to support it.
stuartw2112 wrote:And I bet some of them were Christians.No doubt some of the Oakland Occupiers were, but according to this report some were not:
Quote:On a main cathedral, someone spray painted along the protection wall “No Gods, No Masters.”Does it matter if some are christians? I mean will religion be a major impediment on the road to the establishment of socialism in the future? I don’t think so. I know that at 5pm every day there is an interfaith service at the New York site. I actually think this is a good thing. All you can do is humour these people because waiting around for the whole world to become athiest is crazy. I think in the long term it will be to the protestors advantage to include these idiots. To alienate them would be a mistake.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.