Re: Why the "Occupy Wall Street" Initiative is Failing

by GF Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:32 pm

The main reason the initiative, though admirable it may be, is failing is because although the protestors have become disillusioned with the economic system, they have not yet become disillusioned with the political system. That is, they understand the economic system is failing them, but they will still place their trust in whichever candidate the Democratic Party is behind. Once they realize the republican system can't help them either, we may see some real change begin to unfold.

by Coach Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:41 am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/occupy-wall-street-protesters-predict-confrontation-others-civil-disobedience/2011/10/14/gIQAusX5iL_story.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44880648/ns/us_news-life/?google_editors_picks=true#.TpfVqJtO_GQ
On the above article, as touching as it might be that old activists are getting involved with OWS, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that, in their younger activist days, they were activists for Democratic Party dominated/co-opted causes and groups, and that obviously colors their politics.
Have they learned anything since, or will they still be deluded Democrat apologists and pawns today?

By the way, just read word that the AFL-CIO is sending out mass emails to get everyone to occupy the park near Wall Street tonight and ostensibly to resist eviction (justified the "cleaning" excuse) set for this Friday morning at sunrise. Frankly, I expect this to be a sneaky co-optation manuver, where the union bureaucrats deliberately allow this to fail but create the appearance of 'civil disobedience'. This positions them and the Dems authoritatively to then 'continue OWS' on their terms, while looking like the good guys really fighting for the little guys. In other words, this resistance at sunrise will be political street theater designed to make the Dems and union bosses look good to the general populace, while at the same time will not prevent the actual eviction of protestors from the park (though it may be delayed a little while, and during the meantime the union bureaucrats will be negotiating the concessionary transplanting of the OWS movement to other areas).
This sets up the decisive co-opting of OWS into the Dems' "Tea Party", or OWS 2.0.

Comrades, the AFL-CIO doesn't really care about the continued occupation of this particular park near Wall Street. What they want is a Dem's "Tea Party", within which the union bureaucrats hold more sway than they have held inside the Democratic Party machine in a while. This is their potentially golden ticket to a bigger piece of the cappie pie FOR THEMSELVES. They just have to pretend to be champions of the little people for a moment, deliberately fail to hold the occupation, transplant the protest movement into their own control in 'safe' places, then act like what the movement needs to do at this time is exert itself to elect more Democrats in 2012 who are 'sympathetic' to OWS 2.0! Remember Wisconsin?!

Friday sunrise in NYC is just a few hours from now. By the time you read these words, the Wall Street park occupation phase of OWS may already be over, or soon will be. The mass media will be buzzing about symbolic civil disobedience perhaps, probably with some big-time union bureaucrats also getting (gently) arresting in 'resistance'. This street theater will look convincing, and it will probably take in even the far Left participants in OWS. I expect some of the anarcho fringe types will squabble with the cops in substitutionist martyrdom adventures until they are put down and dragged off before the mass media camera lens. And of course the new 'official' Dem/union co-opter representatives of the OWS movement will denounce this "violence", and then use it as a Red-baiting card to shove out all anti-capitalist dissidents hereafter (and NOT just in NYC's OWS).
From this point, Dems and union bureaucrats will purge everyone from OWS 2.0 that don't toe the popular frontist "elect Dems in 2012" line, and don't limit themselves to crusading against "corruption" within this system while NOT opposing capitalism.

by Isakenaz Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:10 pm

Occupy Wall Street Protesters Clean Up Park

Protesters from the Occupy Wall Street movement spent the night cleaning up a New York park to avoid having to leave their stations.

The demonstrators have been camped in lower Manhattan for nearly a month but New York mayor Michael Bloomberg demanded that the park be cleared temporarily so that city officials could clean it on Friday.

To avoid this, protestors came together and took the cleaning into their own hands.

According to volunteer organisers, around 600 people sleep in Zuccotti Park each night, even in the chilly autumn rain.

They are determined to stay and register their anger at myriad issues - the 2008 banking bailout, and most of all, the stubbornly high 9.1% unemployment rate.

Their rallying cry is "We are the 99%", a reference to the wealth gap between the small number of rich people and the vast majority of ordinary Americans.

Christopher Reid joined the protest because he lost his job and cannot find another one.

The New Yorker feels let down by the government.

He told Sky News Online: "If I go broke, they don't bail me out. If I'm in foreclosure, you know I lost my home, they don't say 'Hey Chris! We don't want you to lose your home, we want to keep you going, so we're going to bail you out', so my house is gone."

Occupy Wall Street does not have clearly defined goals or formal leadership but it is becoming increasingly hard to ignore.

The group has gained some union support, holds regular marches against millionaires and the banking industry, and has inspired protests across the US in cities like Los Angeles, Seattle, Boston, Washington DC and Chicago.

A day of global action, including protests in London, has been planned for Saturday.

New York volunteer organiser Daniel Zetah is encouraged by this.

He told Sky News Online: "Right know I feel I need to remind people that democracy needs informed and engaged people and right now most Americans are neither.

"I believe this is creating that dialogue in America that's been so sorely missing for so long, that dialogue of 'what is wrong with this system?'.

"Then, after you figure that out, then you can figure out solutions."

Although the protests have been mainly peaceful, there have been hundreds of arrests across the US.

700 were arrested in one afternoon in New York after a large march across Brooklyn Bridge.

Tension is high in the city in anticipation of a police effort to move the protesters off the park so that the company that manages it can clean the space.

Although both the protesters and the police have agreed that the crowds can move in sections rather than be forced to leave all at once, there is a worry that tempers could flare.

If there is conflict, it will be instantly broadcast around the world, not just from the television crews based there, but on the live stream and Twitter feed the protest's media volunteers have set up. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/occupy-wall-street-protesters-clean-park-133720463.html

"A day of global action, including protests in London, has been planned for Saturday." London, I wonder how many will be there?

by Isakenaz Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:14 pm

Cleanup of OWS base in NY’s Zuccotti Park postponed

The deputy mayor of New York City, Cas Holloway, has announced that the cleanup of Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan has been postponed, the Associated Press said on Friday. The announcement was welcomed by hundreds of Occupy Wall Street protesters, who considered the cleanup as a pretext to disperse them. “We received notice from the owners of Zuccotti Park - Brookfield Properties - that they are postponing their scheduled cleaning of the park, and for the time being withdrawing their request from earlier in the week for police assistance during their cleaning operation," the deputy mayor's statement said. The cleanup was scheduled for early morning, when hundreds of demonstrators and their supporters streamed into the park. The protesters reportedly vowed to use civil disobedience if necessary in a bid to stay put. Zuccotti Park has been the base of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations since mid-September. http://rt.com/news/line/2011-10-14/

by Isakenaz Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:19 pm

Clashes follow OWS victory at Zuccotti Park

At least 14 people have been arrested in Lower Manhattan after police clashed with protesters as hundreds marched towards Wall Street. The incident came after demonstrators had cheered a decision allowing them to stay in Zuccotti Park.

Earlier, New York’s authorities announced that a clean-up of Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan, where Occupy Wall Street protesters have been camping for about a month, had been postponed.

Deputy Mayor Cas Holloway said the owners of the Zuccotti park had informed him on Thursday night that they had put off the clean-up which had been scheduled for 7 am EDT on Friday, AP news agency reports.

“Late last night, we received notice from the owners of Zuccotti Park, Brookfield Office Properties, that they are postponing their scheduled cleaning of the park, and for the time being withdrawing their request from earlier in the week for police assistance during their cleaning operation,” the deputy mayor’s statement said.

Mayor Cas Holloway added that Brookfield hope they can reach some agreement with protesters to ensure that the park remained clean, safe and available for public use. The official promised to further monitor the situation.

According to Brookfield, conditions in the park were “unsanitary” as there was a shortage of rubbish bins and no toilets. According to the park owner, neighbors were complaining of offensive odors from the protesters, as well as harassment and drug abuse.

However, OWS organizers warned their supporters on Facebook that that the city’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg had used the ‘cleaning-up’ tactic to disband protests before. They also said that a similar ploy was used to dissolve protests in Europe.

At about 6 am some thousand protesters gathered at the park. Many stayed up all night cleaning the area themselves.

The Occupy Wall Street protests have been ongoing in the US since mid-September, with numerous complaints of police violence being lodged. Hundreds of protesters were arrested in New York alone and dozens in solidarity rallies across the United States, including the cities of Boston, Washington DC, Chicago, Austin and San Francisco.

Most of the New York protesters who spoke to RT said they were determined to stay no matter what the police do.

The protesters also plan to converge on Times Square, a move that has given rise to fears of clashes which have tended to break out each time the occupiers leave the park, giving the police an excuse to use force.
Occupy Denver protesters forced to leave

At the same time in Denver, police have started to clear up the park near the state Capitol where the Occupy Denver movement defied a call to leave by the 11 pm Thursday deadline set by authorities.

More than two dozens of protesters who resisted the attempts of police to move them on were restrained with plastic ties and then arrested.

The operation started there in the early hours of Friday morning. Protesters chanted "Freedom does not have a curfew." The arrests were not made until after 6 am.

The Denver encampment has about 70 tents, a kitchen with free food, a library, school, worship tent, security detail and nurses’ station. Members say they are planning a march at noon on Saturday, Denverpost.com reported.

Arrests have also been reportedly made in San Diego.
Nationalize to capitalize

Despite rumors about the forces supposedly behind the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, the protesters have helped turn a spotlight on the source of the problem in the world economy, says author and economic researcher F. William Engdahl.

He said the real source is a “handful of gigantic banks that have simply hijacked the economy and the populations of the world for their own interest.”

According to the researcher, the solution to the current crisis is for governments to “nationalize major banks and draw a fence around the problematic institutions until they can be sorted out.”

He elaborated that “to nationalize” is not necessarily a socialist concept, but a “true capitalist solution” to the failure of capitalist institutions.

Engdahl said that should the “Occupy Wall Street” movement be hijacked by anarchists, he would suspect a police or FBI provocation.

“That’s their favorite tactic, to try to discredit a peaceful and well-meaning opposition,” he claimed. http://rt.com/news/ows-zuccotti-park-cleaning-863/

by Coach Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:58 pm

Alright, by now, you know that the park eviction was temporarily averted.
You also probably heard that perhaps 200 OWS protestors marched on the streets and sidewalks, culminating in around 14 arrests.
Now, who do you think did this marching? Hint: it wasn't the main body of the OWS protestors. Apparently some 10000+ people came out to oppose a park eviction of OWS last night and early this morning, via civil disobedience methods. Many of those folks left after it was clear that Bloomberg & Co. backed down on the eviction.

In other related news, OWS occupations in several cities were confronted:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2011-10-14/occupy-wall-street-protests-usa/50770082/1

by **Celtiberian** Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:57 pm

I had actually been contemplating going to New York City to participate in the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations recently, so I could have a firsthand perspective of the manner in which the protest has evolved over the past few weeks. As I was organizing the trip, a family emergency arose which required my immediate attention, so it appears as though I'll have to trust other accounts of the demonstration and simply confine my participation to the Occupy (blank) protests in Florida for the time being.

Seeing how the European demonstrations last week drew together such enormous crowds has been very encouraging. More importantly, unlike Occupy Wall Street, many of the international protests have taken a decidedly anti-capitalist direction and the participants have been much more militant than we've been in the United States thus far.

With that said, I'm going to take this opportunity to express my main criticisms of specifically Occupy Wall Street:

1.) We are not the "99%"

Occupy Wall Street began as a spontaneous, populist/social democratic uprising against the injustices produced by "unbridled capitalism" and "greed." As such, the movement (if you can call it that) is inherently class collaborationist in nature—as is evidenced in their "we are the 99%" slogan.

But just what does this 99% consist of? Without a doubt, the overwhelming majority of the nation are proletarians, but the 99% also consists of many bourgeois and petit-bourgeois individuals as well. These capitalists' economic interests lie squarely with the 1%—they don't want to raise tax levels on businesses or high-income "earners," nor are they particularly interested in developing a robust welfare state. Their aspirations, however unrealistic they happen to be, are to become members of the 1% (the percentage of the most successful members of their social class.) To entertain the notion of advancing meaningful social change with the bourgeoisie is pure idealism. Within the 99% are also senior managers, doctors, lawyers, etc. whose tax interests are also indistinguishable from the 1%

If we apply a materialist analysis to the situation, we find that many of the policies which the Occupy Wall Street attendees advocate on behalf of would really appeal to around 75% of the population, and they should therefore change their slogan accordingly (or, better yet, abandon percentages altogether and instead adopt the slogan: "we are the working-class!") The movement would also do well to finally leave behind class collaborationism and realize that the change they seek can only be achieved by the proletariat, even if it may have a few sympathizers in other social classes.

2.) Welfare State Fetishism

Like most liberals, many of the Occupy Wall Street participants are under the delusion that justice will be achieved when the United States becomes more reminiscent of the Scandinavian social democracies. Unbeknown to them, however, Scandinavia itself is slowly losing its cherished social programs for a number of reasons (all of which are related to capitalism in some capacity). People have to come to terms with the fact that the middle class/social democratic era was a historical fluke, that capitalism cannot sustain a decent standard of living for a significant percentage of a population for any appreciable amount of time. Furthermore, while the welfare state can certainly aid in making life under capitalism more bearable for the working-class, it does absolutely nothing to solve the central injustice of capitalism, namely: wage slavery.

The struggle, therefore, shouldn't be to attempt to revive a moribund welfare state, but rather to fundamentally abolish exploitation by ending bourgeois social relations and ushering in an era of justice characterized by worker control of the means of production and distribution—the benefits the welfare state used to provide can only be sustained within a socialist mode of production.

3.) The Politics of Expression

As I've stressed throughout this thread, hippies (young and old alike) are alienating working people who would otherwise be sympathetic to the Occupy Wall Street movement. The mere presence of these degenerates allows the bourgeois media to caricature the protests as being manifestations of the 'weirdos' of society, thereby giving the impression that the 'respectable' members of society are actually the very people the activists are protesting against!

Drum circles, absurd clothing, etc. are unfortunate relics of the New Left. While many of these people's motives are respectable, they do themselves and the causes they advocate on behalf of a disservice when they make a mockery of protests by walking around nude, holding effigies of the world being sodomized by plutocrats, and so forth.

What is needed now are well disciplined, socialist organizations capable of guiding these protests in a more coherent direction, while articulating radical demands which not only resonate with the working masses, but inspire them to get involved in those groups. We shouldn't expect American working people to suddenly pour onto the streets at this point (things are going to have to deteriorate further in the economy before that can happen), so, for the foreseeable future, Occupy Wall Street and similar protest will primarily consist of students and unemployed people; however, what's vital in the short-term is increasing popular support for these movements.

4.) Overemphasis on Finance Capital

It's actually rather amusing how much in common Occupy Wall Street has with early fascism. If its class collaborationism wasn't enough, the various screeds against "greedy banksters" remind me of something out of Gottfried Feder's writings. In a way, it is perfectly understandable: financiers have always been an easy target since they merely shuffle capital around, producing absolutely nothing tangible in the process but profiting enormously nonetheless—this is what allowed fascists to create the "parasitical"/"productive" capitalist dichotomy (demonizing the former while presenting the latter in an almost heroic fashion).

While finance capital is clearly contemptible for a variety of reasons, it's ridiculous to rage endlessly about it while ignoring the very exploitative mode of production which inevitably gives rise to it. Our economic woes are not a result of "Wall Street vs. Main Street," they're due to the entire system.

by Altair Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:11 am

Godfaesten wrote:The main reason the initiative, though admirable it may be, is failing is because although the protestors have become disillusioned with the economic system, they have not yet become disillusioned with the political system. That is, they understand the economic system is failing them, but they will still place their trust in whichever candidate the Democratic Party is behind. Once they realize the republican system can't help them either, we may see some real change begin to unfold.

While it is true that many are upset with the way our economic system is run, I can say with great certainty that a large number of the Occupy "______" protestors are indeed still purveyors of a Capitalist economic system, no pun intended. I have been following a number of OWS blogs and have been talking to numerous people from different forums who have attended and fully support the "protests". What I am finding is that many, if not most of these people remain in favor of Capitalism, only they wish it to be run "correctly" and in its "pure" form, free from corrupt politicians. They do not realize the fault of the system, but only recognize the fault of those running the system.

I believe this stems from their linear views on humanity, among other things, which cause them to remain oblivious or perhaps even scared of any major change. They have been disillusioned insofar that they are protesting injustice, but not enough so that they protest the system as a whole. They still believe reforms are a viable solution, and I can say that those I have debated with think that ideas such as ours are too "far fetched" to ever become a reality.

If they can be convinced otherwise, I believe that a great many of the protestors would be more understanding of our side of the argument. There are older people in their movement, who have in all honesty given up on any radical change, and instead resigned themselves to a lesser "solution" that they believe can finally give them tangible results. The others, many of them directionless hippies with few real objectives, have no place in any movement of our own, at least until they have been enlightened and understand that what they are doing is no revolution at all. There are quite a few in the OWS movement who are against Capitalism, but not nearly enough, though the media would like you to think the opposite. In fact, I read yet another article yesterday, written by some Conservative you-know-what about how the "socialist OWS movement" is "inherently anti Capitalist."

Smile

If the conservatives think OWS is completely anti Capitalist, I can't wait to see their reaction during a true proletarian revolution!

by WorkersDontBackDown Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:00 am

I think you have nailed it on the head. No one has really stood up yet to say that the speak for the movement. This isn't a liberal version of the Tea Party. This isn't a planned non-organized event. The OWS protests were started by well organized and well intentioned people, however they have unfortunately quickly resorted to an "anyone that wants to join us is on our side". These young, White, suburbanite hippies from "upper middle class" homes don't have a clue what a day's work is like. They're making a travesty of the OWS. And they're allowing in the exact criminals that the right wing predicted they would do. It's not helping the cause at all. I also have a problem with the complete lack diversity among them. Even the Tea Party has the common sense to grab a few token minorities to speak. This is all just one big clusterf*ck (to use Jon Stewart's words) for attention. The only Black people in these crowds are the ones that are selling drugs to the pampered White boiz and grrlz. It's worse than watching Vanilla Ice pretending to be a home-boy rapper. And now the anarchists are coming in and causing violence. WORKERS don't have time to fight one another like a skinheads at an MMA fight or engage in self-defeating vandalism. The great majority of the OWS believe in their convictions and are peaceful. Unfortunately, as is often the case, peacefulness has led to passivism and that has led to apathy. We need real leaders to come down and organize (and clean up the human feces, urine and semen from the muddy open sewers where people are living) our motely group of anti big business (and I would hope big government) people that truly believe in what we're standing for.

by **Celtiberian** Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:39 am

First off, welcome to the forum.

WorkersDontBackDown wrote:These young, White, suburbanite hippies from "upper middle class" homes don't have a clue what a day's work is like.

I agree, and it's probable that this fact alone may serve to have proletarians regard the entire OWS movement as being out of touch with their concerns. However, we have to bear in mind that working class people can't exactly quit their jobs and partake in this sort of activism. Demonstrations like Occupy Wall Street are necessarily going to disproportionately consist of students, unemployed workers, and a few older activists. What's absolutely vital, however, is that the activists involved in these protests understand that the proletariat are the revolutionary class; that whatever demands these students wish to make (state subsidized higher education, for instance) can only be achieved by a mass movement, which will have to include a program representing the interests of the working class. They should also attempt to reach out to the working class by way of forming neighborhood assemblies, establishing mutual aid societies to assist struggling workers and families in need, etc. These sort of things require radical institutions with members dedicated to long-term social change, which I doubt many of the liberal participants in OWS are interested in—thus, this work must be carried out by serious socialist or communist organizations.

And they're allowing in the exact criminals that the right wing predicted they would do. It's not helping the cause at all.

To be fair, even if they refrained from allowing in criminals, the bourgeois media would simply claim there is a visible criminal element at the protest anyway.

I also have a problem with the complete lack diversity among them. Even the Tea Party has the common sense to grab a few token minorities to speak. This is all just one big clusterf*ck (to use Jon Stewart's words) for attention. The only Black people in these crowds are the ones that are selling drugs to the pampered White boiz and grrlz. It's worse than watching Vanilla Ice pretending to be a home-boy rapper.

Perhaps some efforts to establish proportional representation at the general assemblies should be considered. Frankly, I don't think this is that problematic, though. If we view working class demographics from a macro perspective, we find that, even in the United States, the proletariat remains Caucasian in majority. Therefore, if the objective is to have OWS resonate more with working people (as it should be), pushing minority groups to the fore will do very little to advance that aim.

The great majority of the OWS believe in their convictions and are peaceful. Unfortunately, as is often the case, peacefulness has led to passivism and that has led to apathy. We need real leaders to come down and organize (and clean up the human feces, urine and semen from the muddy open sewers where people are living) our motely group of anti big business (and I would hope big government) people that truly believe in what we're standing for.

Definitely. Leon Trotsky's complaints about a crisis of leadership on the Left is just as relevant today as it was when he initially wrote on the subject, if not more so.

by Nationaal-Syndicalist Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:28 pm

Admin wrote:One could argue that there are a multitude of reasons for this. However, I would say that the most decisive factor is the composition of the protesters themselves. Far from being a quintessential representation of a discontented working class, a majority of the protestors appear to be part of the usual assemblage of middle class and upper class university students, hipsters, aging hippies, etc. In other words, the archetypal 'left-wing' scenesters and professional protesters.

As many of us know, the subcultural character of this body is only capable of galvanizing those who already fall into the aforementioned demographics — which just so happen to be quantitatively and qualitatively inconsequential. Ordinary working people see this group and are instinctively repulsed by its superficial quality.

We visited some of the Occuppy protests in the Netherlands. Here we've exactly the same problem, the protesters do not represent the 99%. The 99% can't be there protesting because they have to work to make a living, so most of the protesters are unemployed squatters, local hobo's/junkies and attention seeking narcissists. Most "normal" citizens look down on this circus. All the trade unions and "left wing" organisations tried to steal this initiative and are very present with their Marxist and Anarchist symbols. One could say they are trying to hijack this protest for their own agenda. Although in Rotterdam they accomplished to change this picture because of a "part time" camp, which attracts a bit more representive crowd.

On the other hand because of the grassroots philosofy we must say that much of the protesters are still open for discussion and democratic decision making. That offers perspective for alternative visions.

The only salvageable element of this effort may be its populist foundation. However, even that may be too vague to generate anything more than idle support.

The vague political goal is probably the biggest problem of the Occupy movement. Every protester tries to push his own agenda (from immigration, "(neo)fascism" to nuclear power) and tries to hijack this protest for themselves.

The unyfing factor seems only to be anger; despite democratic discussions there seems to be offered no solution to this anger. As long as the protesters are there to shoud that there is fire, but don't give any firm solution to extinguish it, these protest are more or less useless in my opinion. In the Netherlands it certainly looks more a camping trip than a serious protest against the status quo.

by **Celtiberian** Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:25 pm

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:All the trade unions and "left wing" organisations tried to steal this initiative and are very present with their Marxist and Anarchist symbols. One could say they are trying to hijack this protest for their own agenda.

I don't consider that development to be especially problematic. Being a Marxist myself (albeit of a somewhat heterodox variety), the symbols associated with the tradition obviously don't trouble me. More importantly, I see no reason to criticize labor organizations and radical political parties for attempting to provide some ideological coherence to the Occupy movement—we should all be involved in such work.

by Nationaal-Syndicalist Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:17 am

Celtiberian wrote:I don't consider that development to be especially problematic. Being a Marxist myself (albeit of a somewhat heterodox variety), the symbols associated with the tradition obviously don't trouble me.

The problem is more that they push their own agenda and try to give a grassroots protest against the financial system a pronounced "red colour" and "political correct" image. This will scare of many people who have the same anger, but don't want to be affiliated with that kind of groups.

More importantly, I see no reason to criticize labor organizations and radical political parties for attempting to provide some ideological coherence to the Occupy movement—we should all be involved in such work.

Some of the social-democrats and labour unions are part of the problem, they don't have any place on this kind of protest. Hippies and "artists" make a freakshow of the protest and push all kinds of bullshit that has nothing to do with the core problem. On the other hand Orthodox Marxists and Dogmatic Anarchists try to function as some kind of "security" to make shure that no "Fascist" or "alternative vision" is made possible. Nothing wrong with this kind of work, as long as it's open for all and truly grassroot; else it's just another leftwing protest. In some parts in the Netherlands they pull it of and in other parts of the country it's a pure dogmatist meeting for "proffesional protesters" that doesn't have much to do anymore with the original theme.

by **Celtiberian** Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:11 pm

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:The problem is more that they push their own agenda and try to give a grassroots protest against the financial system a pronounced "red colour" and "political correct" image.

Are you suggesting that grassroots movements are fundamentally incapable of being decidedly red in their orientation? If so, socialism doesn't stand much of a chance at success, does it? I agree that political correctness is detrimental for a number of reasons, so that definitely should be actively discouraged.

This will scare of many people who have the same anger, but don't want to be affiliated with that kind of groups.

I understand.

Some of the social-democrats and labour unions are part of the problem, they don't have any place on this kind of protest. Hippies and "artists" make a freakshow of the protest and push all kinds of bullshit that has nothing to do with the core problem.

Agreed.

On the other hand Orthodox Marxists and Dogmatic Anarchists try to function as some kind of "security" to make shure that no "Fascist" or "alternative vision" is made possible. Nothing wrong with this kind of work, as long as it's open for all and truly grassroot; else it's just another leftwing protest.

There's nothing wrong with providing security for the protestors, but it's obviously wrong to shutout alternative opinions. As for it being "just another left-wing protest," are you not a man of the Left as well? I would certainly dislike if these demonstrations began shifting rightward, as it were.

by Nationaal-Syndicalist Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:58 pm

Celtiberian wrote:Are you suggesting that grassroots movements are fundamentally incapable of being decidedly red in their orientation? If so, socialism doesn't stand much of a chance at success, does it? I agree that political correctness is detrimental for a number of reasons, so that definitely should be actively discouraged.

The problem is that if the protest only exists out of the proffesional protesters of the orthodox Communist organisations and dogmatic Anarchist collectives, then it's no grassroots protest that should consists out of the "99%": students, workers, and so on. They don't agitate the masses but simply hijack a protest by scaring people off and by being much to present. That's a very narcist and wrong strategy in my personal opinion. If you see some of the "Occupy protests" in our country (and if i read here also in your country) most people probably agree.

There's nothing wrong with providing security for the protestors, but it's obviously wrong to shutout alternative opinions.

Indeed.

As for it being "just another left-wing protest," are you not a man of the Left as well? I would certainly dislike if these demonstrations began shifting rightward, as it were.

I consider myself in some ways as a man on the left. But i think these days terms like "left" and "right" have become completely useless for objective analasys. I don't identify myself with the mainstream left, because most of them are even more reactionary and dogmatic than some on the "rightside". I rather consider myself as part of the "Dritte front": not left, not right, but revolutionairy and against every form of mindless dogmatism and conformism.

by **Celtiberian** Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:33 pm

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:The problem is that if the protest only exists out of the proffesional protesters of the orthodox Communist organisations and dogmatic Anarchist collectives, then it's no grassroots protest that should consists out of the "99%": students, workers, and so on.

I understand. I only meant to defend the legitimacy of radical organizations bringing their platforms forth to the people partaking in these demonstrations. As things currently stand, Occupy Wall Street and its various offshoots are suffering from a complete lack of direction, which could be remedied if serious groups which appealed to the people became involved. Fragmentation isn't a virtue for a movement which wishes to be relevant.

They don't agitate the masses but simply hijack a protest by scaring people off and by being much to present. That's a very narcist and wrong strategy in my personal opinion.

It's not only wrong for strategical reasons, but it's ethically wrong as well. The people themselves should decide if they wish to follow a particular ideological direction, and their choices shouldn't be artificially restricted due to the efforts of certain groups.

I consider myself in some ways as a man on the left. But i think these days terms like "left" and "right" have become completely useless for objective analasys. I don't identify myself with the mainstream left, because most of them are even more reactionary and dogmatic than some on the "rightside". I rather consider myself as part of the "Dritte front": not left, not right, but revolutionairy and against every form of mindless dogmatism and conformism.

In my opinion, claiming to be 'neither Left nor Right' is far too vague, and leaves open the possibility of being misinterpreted or misrepresented. For example, fascists of various persuasions claim(ed) to represent a "Third Position," allegedly transcending Left and Right distinctions, and I wouldn't like my views to be wrongly associated with theirs. The Left/Right continuum is perfectly useful insofar as determining where one stands with respect to economic matters; for issues pertaining to governance, the libertarian/authoritarian scale is more appropriate.

by Nationaal-Syndicalist Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:32 am

Celtiberian wrote:I understand. I only meant to defend the legitimacy of radical organizations bringing their platforms forth to the people partaking in these demonstrations. As things currently stand, Occupy Wall Street and its various offshoots are suffering from a complete lack of direction, which could be remedied if serious groups which appealed to the people became involved. Fragmentation isn't a virtue for a movement which wishes to be relevant.

Ofcourse, like i stated before there is a big problem because this movement is purely based on dissatifaction but doesn't give concrete solutions; there is no clear direction. Nothing wrong with agitating the people, my problem is with the hijacking of a grassroots movement by people who want to push their own agenda instead of doing something constructive that benefits all.

In my opinion, claiming to be 'neither Left nor Right' is far too vague, and leaves open the possibility of being misinterpreted or misrepresented.

In my opnion the abolishment of iconic and stereotype "boxes" opens the door for a more substansive ideological discussion.

For example, fascists of various persuasions claim(ed) to represent a "Third Position," allegedly transcending Left and Right distinctions, and I wouldn't like my views to be wrongly associated with theirs.

I also wouldn't like to that see people associate my views with that of the modern mainstream left. In my opinion terms like "left" of "right" are pretty much useless these days. I think it would be better to bring it back to "reactionairy" (who want to keep the status quo) and revolutionary (who wish a complete new order), because you can find both on the extremes in the left and right of the political spectrum. I must say that this situation is probably very different in the US than in Europe. Europe knows a long leftwing and socialist tradition and on the far right there is more a left orientated fascist and national socialist/national revolutionairy tradition than a "white supremacist" tradition.

by Metal Gear Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:16 am

Aside from the fact that they are promoting too much liberalism (homosexual activism, etc.) I think they are doing a very good job.

by Metal Gear Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:17 am

You talk about a lack of diversity. That may be true in the Manhattan one, but the Philly one is largely black.

by Balkan Beast Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:13 am

It's a bit hard to take them seriously when they are using memes, and Masks from V for Vendetta...
Other than the fact that most of them are either just angry at their current economic situation or just doing this because it is the new hipster trend, what exactly does their protest accomplish at all?

If anything it is little more than a nuisance, college students that picked worthless degrees or have no experience at a real job or trade aren't exactly a good example of the working class.

by **Celtiberian** Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:03 pm

Balkan Beast wrote:Other than the fact that most of them are either just angry at their current economic situation or just doing this because it is the new hipster trend

Why the "Occupy Wall Street" Initiative is Failing - Page 3 354exe

what exactly does their protest accomplish at all?

The same thing the Peace Corps does: it enables them to have a little adventure they can chat with their friends about at some point in the future. (We mustn't forget the fun pictures participants in the demonstrations have the ability to take and subsequently post on their Facebook profiles.)

Seriously though, I don't mean to paint all the protestors with the same brush. Many of them are genuinely concerned with the economic injustice observed under capitalism, even if they're incapable of articulating a coherent alternative to the status quo.

If anything it is little more than a nuisance, college students that picked worthless degrees or have no experience at a real job or trade aren't exactly a good example of the working class.

Occupy Wall Street definitely isn't a proletarian movement, but I've explained why I feel that's the case earlier in the thread.

by Jim Profit Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:27 pm

Why the "Occupy Wall Street" Initiative is Failing - Page 3 Default

I know this topic is somewhat old and has been inactive... but I think it needs to be said, that I talk to Occupiers a lot, and from what I've found, their problem is they're not angry enough, nor feel the plight of the disenfranchised worker.

As you said, they are mostly middle-class bozos, but there a few key points as to what makes their movement worthless.

--Acceptance of class traitors as fellow men. Cops are not our friends. Cops were never our friends. If someone is willing to spray mace in your fucking eye, they are not an ally. I don't care if it's "their job". If you find that deplorable, you find another job, or take the risks of someone fighting back. This notion that we have to tip toe around police and treat them like they mean well is absurd. Come to the protests as equals, not with your badge on.

--The unhealthy obsession with agent provocateurs. Conspiracy theorists do this. Everytime someone disagrees or is belligerent, they MUST BE an agent. Apparently no one rationalizes how an agent operates... an agent is not there to have an unpopular stance or "troll". An agent is there to destroy the group internally, piting it against each other, distracting it from accomplishing anything, or most importantly... arrest people within on bogus charges. Agents try to entrap you into something illegal, not insult your mother.

--No direction. I don't like to bluntly say that, as all too often right-wing, middle America says the same thing, but it's true. Occupy might know what it wants, but it doesn't have the slightest clue on how to get it. They want to just stand around like morons, in mass quantities, hoping that will do something. NO... you have to pressure congress by cutting the funding, you have to make it economically and morally unacceptable to not listen to your demands, if you're that organized, do something with it. A good example was during the Christmas time... Occupy said they were going to slow down commerce and fill up WAL-MART stores and not shop. It made sense, wasting WAL-MART's time=wasting WAL-MART's money. What happened to that?

They had a good opportunity on new years to do a mic check during the ball countdown, could have ruined the new year for everyone. That would send a clear message... why didn't they do it?

Why the "Occupy Wall Street" Initiative is Failing - Page 3 Default

This is a symptom to a greater problem. Their inactivity is do to an unclear enemy. Eat the rich, no shit... but which rich, and for what reason? They may be the one percent, but there are still many guys behind that one percent, and you have to prioritize which one you want to go after. Occupy has refused to pinpoint a target, and stick to it. Unlike myself, who is choosing to focus on the video game industry, and all of it's corruption, extortion, monopoly, and bullshit.

I'm not saying Occupy has to be violent, I'm not saying Occupy's goals and views are morally wrong... I'd rather Occupy be non-violent and avoid imprisonment if it's at all possible. (Not that getting battered by the cops is much better.) But what I am saying is that they have a duty to themselves and their cause to give it some forethought of what their next move will be. They need to make it more clear what they're mad about, who they're mad at, and what can be done about it.

If Occupy cannot come to a conclusion, then they need to split-up and follow someone with a clearer motive. I could use the extra hands against the video game industry...

by Balkan Beast Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:47 pm

Acceptance of class traitors as fellow men. Cops are not our friends. Cops were never our friends. If someone is willing to spray mace in your fucking eye, they are not an ally. I don't care if it's "their job". If you find that deplorable, you find another job, or take the risks of someone fighting back. This notion that we have to tip toe around police and treat them like they mean well is absurd. Come to the protests as equals, not with your badge on.

They do mean well actually. And that is exactly what it is a job, police are just as uninformed about this cause just like any other citizen, but no one says anything deplorable about those who have other professions do they? No I think not, whether you like it or not it's a job that is needed.
How about not generalizing every officer the same way people generalize socialism?
What's next you're going to insult our militaries next? Call them all evil imperialists dogs that abuse authority?
If that's the case we're all traitors to our class since we abide by this system that is in place. I'm fairly certain no one has taken up armed struggle since I assume that the list of people here who have military experience or even experience as an officer is limited to more than likely under 10 members.

The problem is the same as the general populace, misinformation about socialism as well as nationalism.

As for occupy wall street, what comes after that in a protest which is dominated by those who are just unsatisfied with the current state of affairs in their capitalist economy? They don't want to change the system in place, they want their stocks, and businesses to be successful. Nothing else, pure selfishness if anything.

by slavicsocialist Tue May 27, 2014 3:13 am

The masses need to be organised and educated by a vanguard party. Other wise they will not accomplish anything.

by Sponsored content