The ‘Occupy’ movement
- This topic has 355 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
With reference to street selling. As I understand it, most of this is controlled via by-laws which can be many and vague. However, ANY publication registered with the Post Office as a new-paper or news-journal can be sold on the streets without licence providing the seller does not have a stall and is not breaking other by-laws usually concerned with harassing people, etc. Is the Standard registered as such? If it is, they cannot move you on or take any action unless you have committed another offence.
In the 1940s and right up until 1950 the Socialist Standard carried on the front page “Registered for transmission to Canada and Newfoundland”. Maybe we still are, but since the “printed paper” rate for postage within the UK was abolished a few years ago now, there is no advantage in any newspaper being registered. And the Post Office no longer delivers mail. Still, the old bye-law might still be in operation. We will see what happens today from 12 noon on.
A Keynesian at Occupy Wall Street before they were cleared from Zuccotti Park.Keynesians aren’t the only people asking for capitalist governments to try to spend the way out of the crisis. The Trotskyists and other vanguardists are for this too, though they express this in pre-Keynes terms by demanding Public Works. Unfortunately they call themselves Marxists even though Marx specifically said that this wouldn’t work and in any event was not interested in devising policies to run capitalism.As an example of the tactics of such groups look at this thread on another forum and the request to push the same form of wording at other Occupy sites in accordance with the well-known vanguardist tactic of proposing “model resolutions”.
Five of us were at St Paul’s again yesterday. There seemed to be less people around including tents. We saw one big tent being dismantled and carried away. It’s getting colder. Even so, we still gave away leaflets and got into the usual discussions, even two video interviews.Checking their websites they might not be all that useful. One of them proclaims that “scientific materialism” can’t explain the world; read on and you find “creationism” defended. The other promises to get you of of debt free. Arguing that because “banks create money out of thin air – they have no money to lend you” so there’s nothing for you to pay them back except thin air. Logical enough if banks really did create money out on thin air. Only they don’t, so following their advice is not likely to get you very far except onto a blacklist of bad borrowers.Unfortunately these type of ideas seem to have some credibility amongst some Occupiers. But we can deal with them. We’ve got our pamphlet How The Gods Were Made and, when you think of it, the only way to get out of debt free is to establish socialism where all debts will be extinguished along with the disappearance of money and banks.There was no trouble from the police, but we were asked by someone to move out of the shelter of the aracade as it was private property (he didn’t say whose). That didn’t worry us as it made our stall more prominent.
A comrade from the US has drawn our attention to this article on the Reform or Revolution question in relation to the Occupy movement.
Some may find this David Graeber article of interest.http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011112872835904508.html” Most Marxists insisted that it was necessary first to seize state power, and all the mechanisms of bureaucratic violence that come with it, and use them to transform society – to the point where, they argued such mechanisms would, ultimately, become redundant and fade away. Even back in the 19th century, anarchists argued that this was a pipe dream. One cannot, they argued, create peace by training for war, equality by creating top-down chains of command, or, for that matter, human happiness by becoming grim joyless revolutionaries who sacrifice all personal self-realisation or self-fulfillment to the cause.”We perhaps can take issue with this in that we wish to use the State to abolish the State rather than what i think is envisaged by Graeber, to institute a transitional workers State.We can also possibly comradely debate Graeber on democratic practice and the rights of minorities when he explains that in Occupy Wall St. “From the very beginning, too, organisers made the audacious decision to operate not only by direct democracy, without leaders, but by consensus.The first decision ensured that there would be no formal leadership structure that could be co-opted or coerced; the second, that no majority could bend a minority to its will, but that all crucial decisions had to be made by general consent”
alanjjohnstone wrote:We can also possibly comradely debate Graeber on democratic practice and the rights of minorities when he explains that in Occupy Wall St. “From the very beginning, too, organisers made the audacious decision to operate not only by direct democracy, without leaders, but by consensus.The first decision ensured that there would be no formal leadership structure that could be co-opted or coerced; the second, that no majority could bend a minority to its will, but that all crucial decisions had to be made by general consent”Nothing wrong with no leaders of course but this talk about a majority bending a minority to its will is the old individualist anarchist nonsense about “the tyranny of the majority”. It’s what made William Morris say that he wasn’t an anarchist and that an (individualist) anarchist society was impossible.This is what he wrote about decision-making in the chapter “How Matters Are Managed” of News from Nowhere:
Quote:Said I: “And you settle these differences, great and small, by the will of the majority, I suppose?””Certainly,” said he; “how else could we settle them? You see in matters which are merely personal which do not affect the welfare of the community – how a man shall dress, what he shall eat and drink, what he shall write and read, and so forth – there can be no difference of opinion, and everybody does as he pleases. But when the matter is of common interest to the whole community, and the doing or not doing something affects everybody, the majority must have their way; unless the minority were to take up arms and show by force that they were the effective or real majority; which, however, in a society of men who are free and equal is little likely to happen; because in such a community the apparent majority is the real majority, and the others, as I have hinted before, know that too well to obstruct from mere pigheadedness; especially as they have had plenty of opportunity of putting forward their side of the question.”No doubt consensus decision-making can be useful in small groups and in committees but it is not practicable everywhere or at all times (sometimes consensus just cannot be reached) and the decisions reached will tend to be the lowest common denominator.As it happens, the working class movement in England developed procedures for democratic decision-making, as incorporated in Citrine’s ABC of Chairmanship. Perhaps not as quaint as the hand signals involved in consensus decision-making but much more practicable and safer (avoiding the “tyranny of structurelessness”).
I’ve just read an article by Badruddin Umar, Bangladeshi Marxist politician and historian, about a ‘Finish Capitalism’ movement within the Occupy Wall Street mvt.He makes a number of interesting points including one about US imperialism being responsible for many disgruntled people/workers around the world, and links it to chinks in the armour that activists can use to hasten the demise of capitalism. Several times he iterates that socialism can only be global.I’m passing it on (not having explained it too well) because there is space for comments and some of you may choose to :www.countercurrents.org/umar301111.html
J Surman wrote:Try this link instead :)http://www.countercurrents.org/umar301111.htm
J Surman wrote:I’ve just read an article by Badruddin Umar, Bangladeshi Marxist politician and historian, about a ‘Finish Capitalism’ movement within the Occupy Wall Street mvt.Just checked who he is. Unfortunately he turns out to be a “Marxist-Leninist”, ie Maoist, nationalist and advocate of state capitalism.
From the December Socialist Party of Canada Newsletter on this forum here (under World Socialist Movement):
Quote:The November meeting took place at Occupy Toronto. The experience was really good. The camp was extremely well organized along socialist type lines – no leaders, elected committees to run everything, discussions and education all over the place, a speakers corner every night where anyone can get up and speak and voluntary labour. I urge anyone in a community with an Occupy movement to make contact and put forward our socialist ideas and show an alternative to the reformist ideas that some hold.Scroll down the December Newsletter for more on Occupy Toronto and its fate.
Six of us there again today. Despite the cold the usual discussions, leafletting, video interviews, etc. A young Irishman, who said he’d taken part in the occupation of Panton House in the Haymarket after the unions strike march on Wednesday, told us that while occupiers in Glasgow and other places were into banking reform and funny money theories a lot of the people at Occupy London were New Age mystics who were awaiting the Great Awakening next year. We have no way of knowing whether or not this is the case. It could well be, but would be disappointing. As an occupier himself, he’s in a better position than us to know. Be that as it may, some of the visitors have come because they are attracted by the camp’s anti-capitalist image and we’ve had more discussions with them than with those in the tents. We’ll be back next Sunday.
Here’s the London Occupy LondonSX official statement on their meeting yesterday with the head of the Financial Services Authority.Looks as if they being drawn into making suggestions as to how to run capitalism and are setting off down the reformist road.
I wonder why all those the money/credit out of thin air proponents never turned up to quiz the banker or managed to have an input in the statement.As for the statement its simply what any self-respecting NGO has been demanding for decades. Scarcely ground-breaking and hardly revolutionary.Why declare in 3 that the system in unsustainable for reasons [“The climate crisis and dwindling energy and mineral resources, land to build and produce food on, and the growing population, are incompatible with the prevailing economic strategy.”] that are then not addressed by the statement and the suggested changes to the rules.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.