Occupation demands needed? If so what kind of demands?
Posted by kasama on October 2, 2011
No demands for the Greek government -- just climb in a helicopter and flee.
by Mike Ely
I was asked about the debate over demands within the many General Assemblies. Here is my current view (which may change):
i have very mixed thoughts on this. And i suspect the moment such demands are formulated, they will feel less radical or unnecessarily exclusionary.
Badiou’s point of “politics at distance from the state” comes into play. (For Badiou the word “state” is not the state apparatus of previous marxism, but more the larger “state of affairs” — i.e. what we call “the system” in our revolutionary movement.)
The moment you make certain “concrete demands” of the state you are suddenly run the risk of becoming just a piece of that process, on that grid. And often a legitimizing piece.
Is that appropriate now? In this occupy movement?
In some ways, the whole feeling of “fuck them all we have no laundry list of demands for you. Go away!” is much better. Much more France 68. And that helicopter symbol from Greece was/is of course a blunt demand all its own!
There is a line in Dylan’s great song of revolution: “the hour the ship comes in” — as the mutiny on the ship takes hold….
“And they’ll raise their hands
Sayin’ ‘We’ll meet all your demands,’
And we’ll shout from the bow
‘Your days are numbered.’
We don’t desire momentary cooptation or symbolic concessions. We don’t want their patronizing pretense of “listening.”
We want this system of money and oppression gone, razed, and its symbols moved to this museums that now display slave chains and thumbscrews. And we want to raise that prospect of change to the level of the political stage.
The assumption that this moment NEEDs concrete demands is worth questioning. There may be demands we should raise. But better NO demands than conservatizing demands or bad demands, or demands that turn us into a pressure group for timid reforms. (Perhaps we should (to clarify things for ourselves) make our own list of “bad demands” (diversionary, legitimizing, slavishly tame, rightwing kooky, etc.) that we really don’t want to see raised as the face of this movement.)
Pull against the taming
The moment demands get petty, nailed down, specific, the whole thing can feel like a pressure group on the existing body politics… And one of the best things about this whole movement is that there is a rejection of the existing body politic, its main parties and politicians — i.e. a sense of a system that is broken, corrupt, alien and oppressive.
Let’s not be corralled. Let’s not allow a taming. Let’s not allow this to be inserted on the broken grid of their out-dated politics.
Sometimes people say:
“If you don’t have specific demands you aren’t being serious.”
But in some ways the moment you HAVE specific demands, you have granted concessions to their very power and existence. So we need demands that define us, but don’t legitimize them.
That’s my current view.
potok said
But badiou also says that prescribing the state is often at a level of reinforcement (I.e. public health care.) Therefore, prescription of the state is basically a demand made on it that rests not on statist principles like lobbying but will be implemented by any means necessary. The distinction between demand and perscription still confuses me.
Carl Davidson said
A set of demands has been issued, but they are not so much ‘demands’ as an indictment. i agree with Mike to a degree. The occupations have the current quality of a posing moral high road vs finance capital, simply asserting the need to end its domination, oppression and life-denying insane inequalities.
But in a way, they clear an open space for a range of unfolding platforms and demands that are bound to be raised independently by all the forces that join them. The unions this Wednesday are bound to bring demands for jobs and economic justice, the peace groups will demand an end to the wars, and groups like PDA will even feature candidates like Solomon, Elizabeth Warren (hated by Wall St) and Bernie Sanders. Other forces to the left will raise various visions of a new order, and so on.
From my own view, a popular front vs finance capital is the organizing principle of the current period–and all of this fits within its scope and a variety of views will contend. That’s if it remains healthy and grows.
We’ll see. In any case, this is the time for fanning the flames, not for throwing wet blankets.
lycophidion said
Mike’s concern that “we need demands that define us, but don’t legitimize them” is legit and ongoing for all those who hope to build a revolutionary socialist movement. But, here are some further concerns, in brief:
First, our need to take up demands that resonate with the perceived needs of working people in the given context.
Second, Trotskyists would call those demands that bridge the gulf between what is immediately realizable under capitalism and what can only be realized once workers take power, “transitional demands,” and would argue for raising both immediate and transitional demands. But, one almost trivial observation is that, over time, the nature of the same demand can change as the balance of class forces shifts. Things that would have been deemed reformist in the 60s, like universal health care, are now so unrealistic as to be “transitional” demands.
Third, it seems to me that the issue of the concrete demands one raises is not separate from the need for leadership and coordination, on the one hand, and the direction of movement of the masses, on the other. Wisconsin may have been a clear example of this. The demands raised by the Madison occupation were “reformist” (i.e., immediate, realizable), but the trajectory of the movement (independent, self-actuating, collective mobilization of working people, rejection of the capitalist State, etc.) pointed away from the rule of Capital. Not because of the demands, but because of the reformist trade union leadership, the movement ended up channeled into the dead end of electoral politics.
Ottawa Red said
I’ll draw the attention of comrades to the following letter, published in the January 21, 2010 issue of Weekly Worker, the organ of the Communist Party of Great Britain. It deals with demands and has formed the basis of our stance towards them (which we applied concretely to the ‘student movement’ in Ottawa). Here is that letter in full:
James Turley’s use of the term ‘demand’ rather than ‘policy’ is both an anachronism and infantilism (Letters, January 14).
Infants make demands for things that they are unable to get for themselves: they demand an ice-cream, an Xbox or a new Barbie. Adults go out and buy them for themselves. If a leftwing party puts forward a list of ‘demands’, they appear in a similar childish light.
There is also an anachronistic element to them in that they refer back to a time before universal suffrage or the establishment of parliamentary sovereignty – a time in 19th century Bismarckian Germany. In a period when the working class movement aimed to achieve full civil rights that they did not yet have, there appeared no alternative to demanding them.
But more than a century has passed since such formulations. Communist parties that gained power did not have ‘demands’ in their programmes: they had policies that they intended to carry out once in power. Gottwald and the Czech party did not demand the expropriation of the landlord class or the nationalisation of industry: they promised it. Mao and the Chinese party did not demand New Democracy: they organised an army to win it.
When socialists address economic problems, they should formulate policies that, when put into practice, would solve the problems. They have to break with the mentality of small campaigning groups and say what they would do if they had power. If they criticise government policies, it should be in terms of saying exactly what should be done instead.
This point is independent of how you think power is to be won. If you are an old Attlee or Benn-style social democrat, you are talking of what an elected government will do. If you are an advocate of direct democracy, you are talking about what policies you hope to put forward and argue for in citizens’ initiatives. But in either case concrete policies are needed.
balzac said
The notion of a ‘demand’ is in many ways the only way liberal democracies understand social change. To issue a demand or set of demands is fundamentally to comply (with the terms reserved for this being to lobby or to protest). The reason why there is a great degree of befuddlement at and derision directed towards these occupations is that they do not conform to the basic liberal democratic model and do not produce concrete demands. It is not so much that the making of demands is exclusionary (though they certainly can be), which would then ascribe the power of this movement to being ‘inclusionary’, but that the power comes from the lack of demands itself in that this forces a new way thinking and a new set of possibilities for social change. It essentially kicks open the confined space of the allowably political and reveals new sets of possibility. In this sense it is ‘offensive’, in that it creates the terms and models for the political-discursive battlefield, rather than ‘defensive’, which adheres (and thereby surrenders) to the terms of political possibility offered by liberal democracy.
If there is a ‘demand’ being made it is one that is not directed at the state or Wall Street or any bureaucratic or corporate apparatus, but really at everyone else – the 99%. The demand is that we all BECOME the 99%, and to do this by actively participating in rethinking and remaking of democracy. Even if one is poor as dirt, get shits on constantly, etc., that does not ‘make’ them automatically part of the 99% – just as the Black Panthers said, it is not about being black, but about becoming black (or to go back even earlier, not about being working class, but achieving class-consciousness) – what is required is that one joins in this process of democratic creativity. It is worth noting as well that the demand to become the 99% is not something voluntaristic, but is actually a compulsion, it something that must be done. We must become active participants in the radical experiment to create democracy.
Patrick Ayers said
This is an important discussion. I’m glad we are having this in the assemblies.
If capitalism could satisfy the demands of the masses without completely negating it’s own very nature, I would agree demands are pointless. But, real, powerful movements always begins with simple demands that bring the masses up against the logic of capitalism, it’s limits and it’s institutions. Every revolution in history has begun with a simple set of demands, gained a mass following, and later grew over into revolution.
It’s true that sometimes, in the past, the system has maneuvered and granted the demands of the masses, containing movements and derailing them from taking the road of genuine revolution. But, we would be fooling ourselves that this could go on endlessly – or that, once a mass movement scores a victory it will always be lulled back into complete submission. Even when the ruling class has granted concessions to derail movements in the past, this was only a temporary tactic on their part. Look at Europe today where the working class won enormous gains in the past – free healthcare, pensions, etc. Today, the ruling class demands those gains be reversed because their system is more important – and they only made those concessions in the past to save their system anyway.
The more important thing for us is that when the ruling class is *forced* to make a concession to a mass movement making demands, the masses learn about their power as a collective force. The working class demanded the 8 hour day. But, to win that demand they had to go on strike, they had to build unions, they had to organize internationally – and in Russia, they had to organize a revolution!
There’s a great quote from Marx, “Where the working class is not yet far enough advanced in its organization to undertake a decisive campaign against the collective power, i.e., the political power of the ruling classes, it must at any rate be trained for this by continual agitation against this power and by a hostile attitude toward the policies of the ruling classes. Otherwise it remains a plaything in their hands…” (Letter to Bolte, Novermber 23, 1871)
In other words, it’s through the struggle for specific demands – that organically arise out from the contradictions of capitalism, itself – AND from scoring victories – even small ones – that the masses form their organization, learn the lessons of how to struggle, and steel themselves for future struggles. They also learn about the very nature of the system itself, the limitations of the system, and the need for revolution and an alternative.
If we built a protest movement in this country that forced Congress and the ruling class to make small concessions – and people understood that it was because we organized and protested – that would lead to more struggles because it would prove that struggle can achieve victories. This would provide a HUGE platform to revolutionaries of every stripe, making our tasks a bit easier.
I wish I could say more… but I don’t have time. I would love to hear what others think later!
Carl Davidson said
Apart from the demand for all power to the working class, every demand and every reform contains a snare, a trap to move you in the wrong direction. That does not mean we don’t fight for them wholeheartedly anyway, only that we do so with eyes open, so we come out of the battles for them more organized than when we went into the fray. Even when we win certain demands, we can still see them corrupted or taken back later, with the battle needing to be waged again, under we win more fundamentally.
There is a general distinction between redistributionist demands, where the people try to get more for their immediate survival, and radical structural reforms that alter relations of power–but in any case, trying to find some kind of demand that is incorruptible or non-cooptable isn’t a path that bears much fruit, since our adversaries can, in times of crisis, cede many things in appearance, while holding to the essential aim of reversing things later.
It’s best to pose demands, then, that are clearly understood to everyone, appropriate to the times and conditions, and that the masses are willing to embrace as their own and fight for them. Things can change as conditions ripen. ‘Bread, Peace and Land!’ were key for the Bolsheviks at one point; ‘All Power to the Soviets’ at another.
chicanofuturet said
“I was asked about the debate over demands within the many General Assemblies…..
i have very mixed thoughts on this. And i suspect the moment such demands are formulated, they will feel less radical or unnecessarily exclusionary.”
How can one pass judgement on demands that haven’t even yet been formulated??
Wouldn’t it bet better to adopt a fair rational “wait and see” attitude until the debate has at least served up some specific concrete demands from which we can base our critiques upon?
Come on comrades,we spend so much time here criticizing RCP lack of creativity,rigidity,dogmatism which has led to it’s current condition of isolation and irrelevancy.
Let’s not make the same sectarian errors.
Let’s not be prejudiced with negative generalizations,we should instead be more optimistic,positive,not step on those tender “green shoots” with our boots before they even have a chance to grow.
Ghan Buri Ghan said
Carl Davidson is spot on…
Vern Gray said
In the Occupy Wall Street context (and others around the country) I believe it is right to raise certain demands, some of which are unavoidable (and that we should not seek to avoid), others of which are right, while the status of still others is not yet clear (and, of course, many are wrong). And then it will be right to support certain other demands that various forces may raise.
An example of one that already is crystal clear and clearly just, and a likely rallying point: “Free the Brooklyn Bridge 700!”
I agree with several of the comments above regarding an orientation toward fighting for and winning certain demands, as they can (or potentially can) strengthen rather than weaken the people’s ability to engage in the revolutionary struggle. See Marx’s point about the necessity of not letting the workers be reduced to a state of broken wretches. Further, demands should not be restricted to “negative demands”; “An end to police murders” is a negative demand, while the demand for the 8-hour day was a positive demand.
But we must also be alert to the downside of getting caught up in a struggle for reforms to the detriment of building a revolutionary movement—all too common, and fatal, a tendency among leftists historically, particularly in the home of reformism leading to immobilization, cynicism, or corruption—the USA, where the material basis for being pacified or bought off—and, in many cases, profoundly confused—is strongest.
Yet it is a good thing, not a bad thing, to win certain victories on the road to revolution, even if many of them will be reversed; so much can be learned even from that process!
Do we agree with the basic thrust of the Panthers’ Ten-Point program?—not every demand, but the overall thrust of it? Wasn’t it principally a revolutionary statement? I have always thought so.
I have also thought in terms of Stalin’s statement in “Foundations of Leninism“:
This is part of a longer discussion in which he cites Lenin’s views on the necessity for tactical flexibility, and so on.
Yet I think there is also a place for demands that are not winnable and not even transitional in any traditional sense, like some others from 40 years ago—we should “Demand the Impossible!” as the ’68ers in France said. Or as Jerry Rubin once put it:
bgspence said
Here is the proposed short list from:
https://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/
Congress pass HR 1489. This reinstates many provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act
Use Congressional authority and oversight to ensure appropriate federal agencies fully investigate and prosecute the Wall Street criminals
Congress enact legislation to protect our democracy by reversing the effects of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision
Re-establish the public airwaves in the U.S. so that political candidates are given equal time for free at reasonable intervals in daily programming during campaign season
Congress pass the Buffett rule on fair taxation so the rich and corporations pay their fair share & close corporate tax loop holes and enact a prohibition on hiding funds off shore
Congress completely revamp the Securities and Exchange Commission
Congress pass specific and effective laws limiting the influence of lobbyists and eliminating the practice of lobbyists writing legislation that ends up on the floor of Congress
Congress passing “Revolving Door Legislation” legislation eliminating the ability of former government regulators going to work for corporations that they once regulated.
Eliminate “Personhood” legal status for corporations
Tell No Lies said
Hilariously, Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times offers HIS thoughts on what the demands should be:
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2011/10/02/opinion/100000001084589/advice-for-the-wall-street-protesters.html
Mr. Jan Hearthstone said
We need to know what we want.
We need to design the world that we want.
Only then we can start striving for what we want.
Without knowing what we want we’ll end up getting nothing again.
Hearthstone – http://www.ModelEarth.Org .
Contrarian said
How about raising demands they can’t meet. Things like cancel all mortgages, cancel all credit card debt, cancel all tax debt, free health care for all (not “public option, with monthly premiums, but free public health care like there are free public schools), FINAL MARKET (i.e., close down Wall Street, criminalize the stock market along with private health insurance), end the wars, abolish the military. U.S. out of North America and off of humanity’s plane
PatrickSMcNally said
Some participants seem to share the idea that demands are to be shunned:
http://wsws.org/articles/2011/oct2011/nyin-o03.shtml
Xenia Ellenbogen, a student from the New School in New York City, spoke to the WSWS in Liberty Plaza shortly before Friday’s march at Police Headquarters at One Police Plaza…
“… I think it is good we don’t have a central demand. This adds to the fact that this could be a revolution. I think it could take a revolution to change things.”
Mike E said
advice on demands from the ruling class >>> how to put your demands firmly on the grid of this system. This is an example of what we definitely DON’T want to do.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/bcvideo/1.0/iframe/embed.html?videoId=100000001084589&playerType=embed
lycophidion said
Some things to consider with respect to demands and the dynamic of demands/strategy/leadership by Richard Seymour @ Lenin’s Blog:
lycophidion said
The site didn’t appear. It is: http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/10/first-we-take-manhattan.html
Carl Davidson said
While I found Kristov’s column and comments more than a bit snooty, his inclusion of the financial transaction tax is a very good demand, long fiercely resisted by Wall St as a direct re-confiscation of their confiscation of surplus value–and one whose cost is difficult to pass back to consumers. It’s being raised in the G20 to help with the crisis, but has long been declared ‘off the table’ by our neoliberals. The AFL-CIO pushes it, as does John Conyer’s Full Employment Bill, which is why their proposals are also declared ‘off the table.’ But we’ll see how far or consistently Kristov wants to go with this himself, let alone the NYT.
Tell No Lies said
Carl,
Talk about thinking inside the envelope. Do you realize how utterly impoverished a response that is to this moment? Thousands of mainly young people are taking to the street decrying the rule of Wall Street. It is spreading across the country. The spirit is defiant and rebellious. 700 were just arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge. Major unions are joining in and student walkouts are being planned everywhere. And you want to talk about merits of the Tobin Tax? The Tobin Tax is a potential element in a package of concessions that our rulers may eventually offer to chill all of this out, (which is precisely why Kristov is putting it forth), but its hardly a demand that revolutionaries should be raising in this movement.
Carl Davidson said
Don’t get me wrong, TNL. I’m all for fanning the flames and spreading this far and wide. The youth can formulate their own demands, or not, as they see fit. I’ll comment on them directly if I’m asked. I simply posted their entire ‘first official’ list to the CCDS discussion site without comment, but inviting comments.
For what it’s worth, I think their priority at the moment is not demands so much, but more along the lines of getting better organization in the face of the limitations of ‘leaderless resistance,’ which as we know can be rather problematic in tense situations.
But meanwhile, there will be major allies mobilizing for these events, such as the unions, that will raise these demands on their own, and it helps everyone to be aware of them, whether they consider these forces friend or foe or in between.
PDA yesterday sent out a message for its folks around the country to ‘go all all’ in support of Occupy Wall St and its spinoffs everywhere. They raise the ‘Tobin Tax’ as well as street heat vs. Wall St, as well as their main themes of Jobs Not War, Healthcare not Warfare and Medicare for All. But I’m sure they’ll talk about PDA’s favored local candidates for Congress, too. People can take it or leave it, as they choose.
Abbas Goya II said
Absolutely needed. Why are you there otherwise? Let’s have a quick flashback to the build up of this movement. On October 2008, the first $700bn business bailout was passed the congress while at the very moment there were 9.5 million unemployed in the US. These figures raised to $1.5 trillion in the capital bailout and 15 million in unemployed by September 2009. During this period we had Oakland riot , food-banks line-up, cases such as a woman committed suicide so that the husband can avoid eviction. Maybe this suffices as an snapshot to the social state of the 99% of the population in the US, which at the same time spells out the engine behind OccupyWallStreet protests and what the US 99% want:
1) Job for all – minimum wage set by the workers organizations
2) Sustainable Unemployment Benefit up to the time of employment
3) Affordable, up-to free, quality-Housing for all
4) Free, high quality Health Care for all
5) Free, limitless Education for all
6) Free, high quality Child Care
7) Free, high standard Elderly/Pensioner/Vulnerable Care
8) Abolishment of Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment
Item 8 is as vital as the rest because at the time of crisis specially, apart from the deplorable act of killing a person, the death penalty and life imprisonment are practically used against the poor exclusively
lycophidion said
@Abbas — Sounds good to me. BUT, it’s not me or us two that will be formulating demands (and there are demands, although folks are reluctant to call them such, and tonight another statement will be forthcoming), but rather OWS, so we’ll see what happens. I would also add demands related to the corporate role in climate change (even speaking of our 99%, Katrina and Irene, floods and droughts, all these and more affect us) and other looming environmental catastrophes, and the war machine (my son is of draft age, and worse, will face an economic climate that favors the economic draft, in four years).
Abbas Goya II said
@Lycophidion: The above list is just a suggestion. I think whoever comes up with a formulated list of demands s/he has made a favor to everyone. Because then, we have some base to start with and eventually come to the final draft.
Let me also give an input to what I read on this thread in general. I don’t believe that the world revolves around what “we think”. It all starts from the objective beings. Also, I have got the impression from this thread that there is an expression of anxiety over the consequences of a concise list of demands. Maybe because then the movement cools off and everyone goes home while we want to develop this movement into something more fundamental, such as ending the capitalism. I might be wrong about this impression, but if true, this view has first of all spelled out a concrete demand: The end of capitalism. BUT this ‘demand’ is disconnected from the masses on the streets.
How do we link our strategical ‘demand’ (rather goal, ie end of capitalism) to the immediate demands (such as above list) on the street? a) While the immediate demands need to be objectively reflecting the wants of the masses on the street, it need to be inline with our strategy as well. One doesn’t contradict the other b) we do not need to get involved with the establishment on HOW these immediate demands are to be met
If we ever get involved in the financing of our immediate demands within the current US capitalist economy, we’re going to be a looser. NONE of our business how the rulers are going to finance our demands, eg via taxes or cutback on profits, that’s not our business. All we know is this: “WE WANT A LIFE spelled out in our demands. If the establishment has difficulty to meet them, fine, step down and we take over the government body”
Re point a) By raising the expectation of the masses through the above mentioned list of demands, we have created the link between our immediate demands and our ultimate goal.
lycophidion said
@Abbas – agree
Carl Davidson said
Think this over again, Goya
Of course it’s our business. Otherwise they’ll put the entire burden on you, and everyone else at the base. If we want to take over EVERYTHING about how to govern society, this one and the next, how to be the masters of our own fate, is our business. Your arguement here comes from narrow business unionism, believe it or not.
modelearth said
@Abbas what is this “… “our ultimate goal”?; if you stated this somewhere already, would you, please repeat it again for clarity sake? (My clarity :-)
Thanks, Hearthstone.
Abbas Goya II said
@Carl. We’ll be “the masters of our own fate” without capital and profit. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, that’s how we run our system, and that’s why we take over the government for. Up until then, we don’t want to play the adviser or advocate role for a capitalist government we have no interest nor a say in it. Unless Michael Moore types or Democrats in general who see this system fit but needs modification, it is not our business HOW the rulers want to finance our demands.
@Modelearth: “end of capitalism”, which I also call socialism
Carl Davidson said
@Goya
It’s a long trek between the current order and the classless society of ‘each according to her needs,’ even with the working class in power. Workers will have to run their factories efficiently, measured by whether they are running in the red or the black, ie, whether they are sustainable–and if not, society will have to make measured decisions as to whether to subsidize them or not anyway.
Some capitalism will exist also for a while–social is transitional and a mixed economy by definition. Becoming the masters of society is not simply a matter of waving a magic wand or issuing a proclamation.
Best to start now, wrenching power over production where we can, establishing stronghold (as in Mondragon or similar efforts), building more power from their, contesting in the markets with the solidarity economy, and much more.
Read this from the Communist Party of South Africa, just out today, their ‘Red October’ campaign, to get a glimpse of what’s involved: http://www.solidarityeconomy.net/2011/10/03/solidarity-economy-and-south-africas-red-october-campaign/
Abbas Goya II said
@Carl. Now, we’re getting into a level of theoretical debate that I have my greatest doubts that we can ever agree on. I believe we said what was necessary pertaining to the topic of this thread.
I would rather focus on the objectives of the current movement. I believe that all of us on this thread, regardless of our particular perspective on the meaning of justice, could agree on a list of demands. I elaborated why I think it is necessary. We could act as “agents of change” or we could sit down, discuss theory and let Democrats hijack our movement. Your call folks.
Although I’ll be around for discussions and/or clarifications re the demands, the necessity of it or similar, I’m off otherwise.
All the best
Abbas
marion keane said
As US citizens we demand that government fulfill its duty to strive for liberty and justice for all citizens. Banks and global corporations have become parasites on national economies. They have skillfully infested the democratic election process and no longer just manipulate legislation but now control it. Financial markets and large corporations no longer have allegiance to their country, employees ( including its top management), or customers. We, as citizens, have stopped thinking and accept the ineptitude of government. This country was built by people who had a revolutionary vision and desire to become a more open and enabling nation.
Obesity is not just a physical epidemic in the US, it is also a financial epidemic. Today’s philosophy of business has financial profit of the organization as it’s primary goal. Success is only achieved when wealth becomes more concentrated in fewer institutions. Third level educational institutions have encouraged this thinking by implying that an education is an investment which will primarily return financial gain, especially in fields such as law, finance, management and medicine. This demeans everyone because the vast majority of human beings are placidly allowing their lives to be focused on the need for wealth but this wealth is being controlled by fewer and fewer organizations.
People have been hypnotized by this philosophy and think economic strength is measured in monetary or currency terms and equates to national wealth. Economic strength of a nation is measured by its ability to provide an atmosphere in which citizens decide the national goals, adopt a government model to achieve the goals and elect government representatives to set the process in motion. If the model selected or the representatives do not work, citizens must change it.
Financial markets & large corporations today use national wealth, particularly currencies, like horses at a racetrack. They buy, feed, train and race them. If they do not win, they are disposed. A nation’s wealth consists of its people, natural resources, money, government institutions and heritage. The US government is of the people, for the people and by the people. Unless elected representatives fulfill their obligation to strive for liberty and justice for all citizens, they need to be removed. Financial markets and big corporations must adapt the goals of the people or no longer operate in this country.
mlw said
“It’s a long trek between the current order and the classless society of ‘each according to her needs,’”
No it isn’t
Contrarian said
Any “demand” about taxes utterly ignores the reality that working people ultimately pay ALL the taxes collected–every penny of them. After all, where do the rich GET their wealth? By exploiting wage labor. A “financial transactions” tax and its cost will just be passed along one way or another to the backs of the workers.
Carl Davidson said
There a millions of relatively self-sustaining small businesses in the U.S. each employing a handful of workers, often family members. If you took power tomorrow, MLW, what would you do with them? Would you allow them to continue selling their goods and services, pay their workers a living wage and keep some profits after taxes? If so, you have a mixed economy. We won’t even get into cooperative ownership and social entrepreneurship in a new order. We know the disasters that happen if you just try to wipe them out administratively by decree at the point of a gun. I don’t think any of us want to go there. Crushing real reactionaries will be difficult enough, without handing them a wider base on a silver platter.
As for time, the country currently runs its economy mainly by burning carbon and uranium. We know how to do it clean and clean, but with the working class in power, how long do you think it will take to get rid of dirty energy and build the smart grid as well. Months? Years? Decades?
Eventually we can have an economy where the amount of living labor in any given commodity approaches zero and the working day approaches zero as well. That’s fully cybernated and automated high design green production, were markets and states whither away, and the working class, as a class, is abolished along with every other class, where meaningless toil is down away with and work is transformed into play.
That’s my vision, and what I’m working for. But what do you think it takes, timewise, to get to such a classless society on a global scale? A few years? Decades? A century?
When you seriously consider the organizing and construction tasks, the creative power of the people, and the concrete contradictions involved, a ‘long trek’ or a ‘long march’ to the classless society of communism is a rather reasonable way of putting things, don’t you think?
Patrick said
Someone on one of the occupy facebook pages suggested that the demand be an general demand for “change”. He went on the list more specific (and very reformist) things and argued that people voted for change in the last election but never got it. It got me thinking along with the discussion above. I feel that there should be a very vague and inclusive demand similar to change (I personally don’t like the association with Obama and the establishment). This demand would be acceptable to most people in the movement. The role of social revolutionaries would then be to start and lead discussions about what exactly should be the more specific demands, never trying to make those demands the demand of the overall movement. The forces within the movement, hopefully growing out of the discussions, would make the more specific demands. And that can act as a pole to draw more and more people into these more revolutionary forces. I hope I’m being clear enough.
Red Fly said
Ugh. Please don’t. Bringing these bourgeois politicians on the stage only legitimizes this system. “See?! Even you rebellious little lefties can have your representation too! The system really does work! You just need to work harder to elect more progressives!”
Bullshit. This system is fixed. You’ll never get a “progressive majority” because the people that actually run this shit won’t allow it. You can’t vote capitalism and imperialism out of existence.
This system is in crisis. We should not be seeking to prop it up. The strategic orientation should be towards delegitimization on every level.
PatrickD said
I noticed that there’s another patrick that posts on here. I’m not him. The above post is mine and I’ll change my moniker to PatrickD
redpines said
Strongly in agreement with Red Fly. This is a major opportunity for large numbers of people to develop a sense of the ‘political’ outside of the two-party framework. The prevailing hegemony that voting for one of two capitalist-imperialist options is ‘democracy’ in any meaningful sense, is slowly, but visibly, beginning to unravel.
Carl Davidson said
If you can’t get a progressive majority, Red Fly, how do you expect to make a revolution? With an isolated minority? It won’t ‘be allowed’ either. I’ll agree we don’t get socialism by elections. But in this country, I’ll argue that we still have to proceed THROUGH them to a degree. That’s the major way their limits become known, ie, delegitimized, on a mass scale. You want to leap to the top of the mountain without having to bother climbing it. The system is indeed in crisis, but it’s not yet a revolutionary one. Our task is still to make the most of it, uniting the many to defeat the few, gaining strength and counter-hegemony, for when the revolutionary crisis does emerge.
Abbas Goya II said
One more thought on demands and its function
Mike E “we need demands that define us, but don’t legitimize them.”
That’s a golden statement. What exactly does that mean? Let’s look at it through an example. Once we say we want “Free health care/education/housing/job/etc FOR ALL” would anyone, for even a fraction of a second, associate the demands with the rich/capitalists? Don’t get me wrong. None of these demands has hit the core of capitalism.
Now, how do you think the Obama admin react to these demands? “You must be joking” or if patronized “I share your DREAM but the REALITY is …”. In other words, just a few “lousy” demands would immediately polarizes the society even further. It depicts our side and at the same time exposes the illegitimacy of the rulers when it comes to its reluctance to meet the welfare of the majority
Class struggle creates these situations many times. In a more ambitious form, we want to create a state of * transitional period * where the establishment cannot/will not meet our demands and hence will be constantly on a defensive position. Meanwhile the non-stop demands of the deprived pushes the state of the class struggle to a point that demolition of capitalism in whole will appear as the natural path to achieving the demands
mlw said
there is no such thing a a majority or minority(50% is largely an ideological abstraction born in slave morality), and there is certainly no such thing as unity, give it up already carl, let things proceed in whatever emergent fashion they go.
lycophidion said
So, MLW, are you proposing that a minority in the U.S. can make a revolution? Would it even be a revolution if the majority (and let’s be concrete, the working class stands a chance precisely because it IS the majority) doesn’t protagonize the process? And only postmodernists think that unity between all of our disparate “identities” is impossible. But, every successful movement and revolution suggests otherwise.
Red Fly said
@Carl
Red Fly said
Abbas Goya II said
I couldn’t help but to reply to this
Carl: “are you proposing that a minority in the U.S. can make a revolution?” This is not a proposal, This is a FACT. Revolutionaries are always the minority, let’s list em: 1848 (France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Hungaria, Ireland), 1905 russia/Iran, 1910 Mexico, 1917 russia, 1919 egypt, 1949 China, 1959 Cuba, 1979 Iran, 1979 Nicaragua. It is only AFTER the overtake of the power that the majority acknowledges the new revolutionary state.
This is an OLD OLD anti-revolutionary trick in the capitalists’ book “hey, wait you socialists only have 20% of the people behind you. Too early to revolt!!!!”. Can someone tell that stupid bourgeois who invented this nonsense: IF I had even 40 percent of the people behind me at the time of revolution I WOULD VOTE YOU OUT FROM YOUR VERY OWN PARLIAMENT/GOVT AND RUN THE REVOLUTION FROM BOTH THE ABOVE AND THE BOTTOM. I’ll revolt if I have 3%, 2%, in case of the US 0.5% of people, ready to revolt, suffice
bezdomni said
I have always thought there was one demand worth making that is radical (and not legitimizing to the system): End the wars.
Carl Davidson said
Those actively engaged in a revolution are always a minority, even though a sizable one. But they don’t do to well without the wider acceptance and support, passive or active, of what then makes up a progressive majority. Still others are neutralized, isolating the main adversaries into a minority..
Communists are always in a minority, even after victory, but history is made by the masses in their millions, That’s why one of the three magic weapons is the united front, the other two being the armed forces and the revolutionary organization.
It’s certainly rather bizarre to consider making a revolution in this country against the wishes of an active majority opposing it. I’d reconsider than approach, to say the least. It’s usually call ‘putschism’ and comes to an ill end.
Abbas Goya II said
Revolution is an objective phenomena. No one can “make” a revolution without the existence of a revolutionary state in society when “the rulers can’t rule and the ruled don’t want to be ruled” [free wording]. Mass movement arises in this circumstances. YET [apart from some exceptions such as Algeria 1960s] the majority of the people won’t actively participate in the revolution.
Let’s not go back in history. Take Egypt 2011. At the peak of the uprising against Mubarak the opposition could mobilize 1 million in Tahrir square [according to Hossam from Egyptian Revolutionary Socialist Movement] in a nearly 7 million population of Cairo. The combined organized workers – which increased exponentially after the Feb 11 – might not be even in 10s of thousands. We hardly see masses in 100s of thousands marching against the Military govt YET the 1000s & 10s of thousands who do march regularly, and the non-stop small or mid size workers’ strikes that goes on on almost daily basis are good enough to call the Egyptian today as revolutionary as it was on Jan 25.
Abbas Goya II said
BTW – If the majority do not participate actively, it does not mean that they are against the revolution. And if minority is determined to get rid of dictators, totalitarians, capitalism, hey do you really think the inactive majority would do anything less than applauding the revolutionaries? In my opinion, the revolutionaries are the people who have decided to rise up and in the first step overthrow the governing body, that’s always the immediate target. It is man’s will or as Marx puts it: “History does nothing, it ‘possesses no immense wealth’, it ‘wages no battles’. It is man, real, living man who does all that, who possesses and fights; ‘history’ is not, as it were, a person apart, using man as a means to achieve its own aims; history is nothing but the activity of man pursuing his aims”. Those “men”, learning from history or from 2011 in various ME/N. Africa do not necessarily constitute the majority of the population.
Carl Davidson said
Indeed, take Egypt of 2011. The square masses and their actions saw the dictator deposed. Excellent. But revolution? The same class and military bureaucracy holds power. This was an important opening salvo, but the social revolution has yet to unfold more deeply, let alone achieve hegemonic power over the old order.
Abbas Goya II said
Re Egypt: If you’re interested to know a first-hand account and analyses of the ongoing revolution in Egypt, exposing myths and lies, you must-see this, specially if you’re an activist and revolutionary socialist
Also, maybe needless to say, wherever I talked about the Majority vs Minority in the above discussion, it was within the context of the revolution. Otherwise the participant of working class STRUGGLE are always the majority. Let’s not confuse the two. Revolution is a specific form of the class struggle under a given circumstances but not all working class struggles revolutionary. Second, a socialist revolution is not about a revolt for the interest of a certain class. Working class can only free itself by freeing ALL (members of society). This characteristic of working class is its magnet for the masses in general to hail/join/support the working class revolution.
Gary said
“Occupy Boston” has issued this press release:
http://occupyboston.com/
Thus what has emerged as the leadership of the Boston movement is committed to facilitating debate among “everyone – left, right and center” in order to overcome cynicism.
This is of course hardly revolutionary. Cynicism should be positively encouraged, and lines sharply drawn.
Carl Davidson said
Cynicism is not to be encouraged. It’s a major ideological prop of the bourgeoisie, telling us that nothing can change, they have all the power, and we can’t do anything about it because we’re powerless. It’s false on all counts, and the little cop of cynicism in our brains needs to be disarmed and dissolved.
Abbas Goya II said
Good to hear from Boston Gary. BUT
“We invite everyone – left, right and center – … It’s a horizontal, leaderless”
What’s the average of “Left, Right, Center”, center-right? Is leaderless such a proud? I’m not talking about the form of leadership but the political stand. Please drop this “all-together, leaderless” rubbish. We were not born yesterday. We all know where it ends, into the Democrats pockets, in the best case!!!
Abbas Goya II said
@Gary. Please note that if this press release is intended to mobilize more people, It would have the exact opposite effect. People will mobilize around radical tendencies, with concrete objectives and direction AND the projection of a leadership that could lead them to point B. This qualities applies to both right and left movement, eg Tea Party and Occupy Wall St..
But if you cut all these characteristically as this press release has done into this: “we are there for no particular point, have no particular reason, no particular leadership AND no particular political direction”. You would certainly get: “I have no particular reason to join” response from the potential participant.
Good Luck
Abbas Goya II said
@Gary. Please note that if this press release is intended to mobilize more people, I guarantee you that it would have the exact opposite effect. People will mobilize around radical tendencies, with concrete objectives and direction AND the projection of a leadership that could reach the objectives. This qualities applies to both right and left movement, eg Tea Party and Occupy Wall St..
But if you cut all these characteristically as this press release has into: “we are there for no particular point, have no particular reason, no particular leadership AND no particular political direction”. you would get: “I have no particular reason to join”
lycophidion said
Also, let us not confuse an action (demonstration) with a social movement. The massive demonstrations organized against Bush’s invasion of Iraq were nothing more than isolated actions. They passed into oblivion with nary a ripple. Social movements imply an ascendant collective consciousness and will, a shift in political culture and a shifting balance of social forces. An action can be small or large. A social movement must, as Carl said about revolution, be majoritarian. That doesn’t mean that everyone is everywhere engaged and active. There are differing levels of engagement (and a good organizer works with, welcomes, accepts this). At the height of the civil rights or antiwar movements, only a large minority were out in the streets. But, these movements eventually drew in an absolute majority who agreed with their aims and took other small actions — perhaps conversations in church or with neighbors — and a larger majority that accepted those aims. Most of all, what those movements did and what social movements do is to produce a shift in prevailing social and cultural norms, a paradigm shift, that encompasses the vast majority, society as a whole in a sense.
Carl Davidson said
@Lyco
…and after a point, the ‘paradigm shift’ becomes more than majoritarian; it becomes hegemonic. In the case of the civil rights movement, the majority of the country now uses ‘the N-word’ as a substitute when referring to its predecessor, and, apart from African-American youth, only a backward minority will use the original in causal conversation. And use of the word ‘Negro,’ the anti-racist term we used in my younger days prior to 1965 in opposition to a range of racial epithets, has now also almost disappeared, save for being in the title of some organizations.
Abbas Goya II said
Lycophidion: “Social movements imply an ascendant collective consciousness and will”. Social movements ARE specific forms of class struggle, aimed at a particular issue, such as Equal rights, Children’s rights, Anti death penalty, or various civil rights… There is no scientific law re the ratio of the participants to the inhabitants of a specific geography in a movement, an action or a revolution in order to call them a movement, an action or a revolution. In almost all major social events, the number of participants in the events in relation to the number of population has been a definite minority. At its peak, in Feb 2003, the anti-Iraq-war movement mobilized 100 million world-wide. Was it a majority movement, compared to the population of the participant countries? Nope. Does the minority status of the anti-Iraq-war movement illegitimate the TRUTH the movement was expressing? Absolutely not. Did anti-war movement, in terms of the number of its participants, forceful enough to make a change? Yes. Did it succeed? No. Why? it lacked a socialist vision.
A movement, a revolution, an action earns its legitimacy based on a) the truth it expresses and b) the number of its beneficiaries, not the number of the participants in it.
lycophidion said
@Abbas -
Seems you didn’t read my first sentence.
None of the following — “Social movements ARE specific forms of class struggle, aimed at a particular issue, such as Equal rights, Children’s rights, Anti death penalty, or various civil rights… There is no scientific law re the ratio of the participants to the inhabitants of a specific geography in a movement, an action or a revolution in order to call them a movement, an action or a revolution. In almost all major social events, the number of participants in the events in relation to the number of population has been a definite minority” — contradicts anything I said.
Nor does this: “At its peak, in Feb 2003, the anti-Iraq-war movement mobilized 100 million world-wide. Was it a majority movement, compared to the population of the participant countries? Nope.” Because, as I emphasized, the so-called “anti-Iraq-war movement” was never a movement, but a series of isolated actions. It didn’t succeed for any number of reasons, including the shifted balance of forces in our epoch as compared to the 60s, say. But, principally because it wasn’t a movement. To “succeed,” a social movement doesn’t require a socialist vision. The antiwar movement succeeded on its own terms. To become a revolutionary movement is another kettle of fish. Then I would agree that a “socialist vision” and a revolutionary leadership (among other factors) are needed.
Speaking of revolution:
I would disagree somewhat with your last, short paragraph. People’s consciousness becomes transformed by collective engagement in movement. I lived through the Sandinista Revolution, and saw this process happen (and, sadly, its reverse). The revolution IS that transformation in consciousness (yes, based on material reality, so you don’t think I’m going Hegelian). Passive beneficiaries do not a revolution make. Eventually, all must be engaged to one degree or another, although this may happen unevenly (summed up in Silvio Rodriguez’ song El Mayor). Now at the moment of insurrection (in such cases), perhaps not an absolute majority will participate actively (although, in Nicaragua, an absolute majority DID participate in the main urban areas). But, as I said, there are different levels of engagement, and the whole process is, well, a process. Looking at one action (such as the storming of the Winter Palace) would give a grossly distorted picture of the process, the movement. It represents merely a slice through time, a frame of a motion picture or taking the definite integral of an equation.
The legitimacy of a movement OR a revolution is ONLY measured by its success. Otherwise — pfffff! — it’s forgotten history.
PatrickSMcNally said
“The massive demonstrations organized against Bush’s invasion of Iraq were nothing more than isolated actions. They passed into oblivion with nary a ripple.”
I disagree with that. The antiwar protests of 2002-3, like the current OWS movement, form part of a long stream of middle-class disillusionment in the USA. Many who participated in those antiwar protests had been raised at school with the delusional notion that Martin Luther King had taught us all the correct way of achieving bourgeois reformism within the system, and now all we had to do was apply those lessons which King (and Ghandi) had taught us. The last decade has brought a steady stream of shocks to people who had been raised on such a faith in the efficacy of bourgeois reformism.
The expressions of such shock and disillusionment do not constitute a revolution, or even the beginnings of such. But they are nonetheless a fundamental prerequisite. As long as people retain such a strong sense of faith in bourgeois reformism, there can never be any talk of proletarian revolution. The cracking apart of that faith is essential, and the antiwar protests of 2002-3 (combined with the way that not only Bush but also the Democrats ignored them) were an important step in this cracking apart. If it seems to have merely “passed into oblivion with nary a ripple” this is because few people among the masses had any idea of what to do next when it became obvious that the Democrats & Republicans alike were ignoring these protests. But the deeper impact is long-term and significant.
Gary said
Abbas: I think you misunderstood me. I am not a spokesperson for Occupy Boston, and I agree with you that’s its all-inclusive self-definition is troubling. That’s why I posted my comment. Of course I feel generally supportive of what’s going on, and enthusiastic to see these “leaderless” actions break out throughout this imperialist country in crying need of revolution. But the language of the press release suggests that (some) leaders want to help youth recover hope in a system which should be overthrown.
Carl: By “cynicism” I didn’t mean cynicism in the abstract—a general attitude of scorn and negativeness—but scorn and distrust for a system which DESERVES it.
Carl Davidson said
Cynicism is a lot more than ‘scorn’ or ‘distrust.’ At it’s core, it contains the points i made above. It serves to undermine both hope and solidarity. If it were only scorn and distrust of our adversaries, it would be fine.
Read Sloterdijk’s ‘Critique of Cynical Reason’ or the easier read ‘Everybody Knows: Cynicism in America’ by William Chaloupka to get a handle on it, and how it works against revolutionary class consciousness.
Abbas Goya II said
@Lyco: Good points. There are different levels of social activities that take place in two different circumstances (revolutionary and not-revolutionary): Actions, Campaigns, and Movements. While a movement may include campaigns and certainly actions, a campaign is a case-based item of a movement. A movement is a concrete instance of the class struggle. Revolution is not the sum of movements, nor an abstraction from it, but movements will express themselves during the course of a revolution.
There are my assumptions. I’ll get back to this later.
Abbas Goya II said
Antiwar movement of 2003 can be understood within the context of the WAR OF TERRORISTS (US led militarism and Islamic terrorism) when people were intimidated, pushed aside by the two barbaric global poles of terror (the terrorist forces which ultimately were seeking their share of global market). Antiwar movement emerged as the third giant global pole demanding peace in the midst of terror actions of the other 2 forces. However, the pacifist peace demanding antiwar movement failed exactly because of its pacifist peace demanding vision. Although the movement was a working class in its base it had a reformist (ultimately capitalist) vision; rather than putting the war within context of the class struggle, it ignored the class war drive that had led to the war of terrorists and the Iraq war in particular. Therefor, that gigantic antiwar movement could only achieve success if the socialist vision had prevailed within the movement.
mlw said
Lyco I’m afraid the pomos are right and it hasn’t been just them that have said this, anyone who is enlightened enough not to be suckered into concepts that go back to Aristotle and his localized ideas of movement and the roman/christian state crafted appropriation of those terms which gave us such garbage as hegenomy is ahead of the curve, the anti-glob movement were the first within leftist rhetoric to get the basic idea of movement right, movement is movements, there is no separation from general and specific, this means no unity which is ultimately a christian idea. Giorgio Agamben has a good essay on movement which partly gets to what I’m talking about, he suggests that every ideology that tried to formalize the idea of human movement into a unifying identity took a reactionary turn, the red and brown shirts have that reactionary turn in common he argues, when you have a total enough critique of the aristotalian theories and roman based practices it becomes obvious enough.
As for successful revolutions what you will find when looking closely is that a historically powerful technological enframing device(the printing press being a great example) is usually in place to transcend the noise that humans make, the ideological noise of today is no different then the plebeian era equivalents. I’ll repeat the mantra of monsieur Elul, “there are no political solutions only technological ones, the rest is propaganda” He was right in 1964, he’s right today, propaganda maybe totalizing but never unifying.
SKS said
I do not think this germinal pole is still strong enough and structured enough to be getting into demands – demands need the ability to at least try to achieve it. What it can do is become a pole of grievances, and these grievances should and have been slowly and dynamically coalescing – apart from the first, original grievance about occupying wall st and the accompanying critique.
Today I read an article that stressed the origins of this protest in the online forums of Ad Busters – and this is an important consideration. It began a Situationist stunt, a situation. Like in May of ’68, it is up to those attracted to this situation to turn it into something else – but a lesson from May ’68 is that while celebrating the joyous spontaneity of the people is awesome, if we leave it at that both truly conservative forces, and truly irresponsible forces, will take the lead and destroy the ability to turn into something more powerful.
So the task, in my estimation, is to build this movement up – consciously and openly – to one that can build demands, but recognize that this would be premature, in the present conditions. The media can go to hell in the meantime.
Abbas Goya II said
SKS, ” demands need the ability to at least try to achieve it”. Don’t you think the ability to mobilize people for nearly 3 weeks, and have 700+ arrested is would indicate a try to pursue some demands? What exactly do we need to achieve our demands? A lobbyist in the White House or the pressure from the bottom, such as the worker organizations (unions) support & the support of the public? I agree with you that all imaginable political trends are now present in OWS protests, each attempts to pursue its own view because some believe that their trend is the best solution to the OWS and some other’s agenda is to tame and manipulate the events. That’s fine. That’s the history of class struggle. You can’t avoid it. The question is what does a worker socialist believe to be the best solution and hence should try to pursue?
I would say, for a Marxian worker socialist trend, the clarity is everything. Clear, objective analysis of the event, forces involved, tactics & strategies as per current evaluation and if necessary a list of the immediate demands.
If interested check the link below. I kinda wrapped, elaborated some of the discussion from this thread + my initial arguments at
“Immediate demands, why do we need them?”
http://www.facebook.com/notes/abbas-goya-ii/immediate-demands-why-do-we-need-them/10150321727627702
Abbas Goya II said
Movement, Organization structure, movement’s leadership, Demands: How do they meet and fit?
As a Marxist my ideal form of running a society IS the General Assembly, a direct involvement of the masses in decision making process of the society, this is what I call the most democratic form of running a society. ie Proletariat Dictatorship. In that case I’m not worried if a capitalist idea might pop up in the GA. The final decision is the result of collective mind that would incorporate the benefit of all in its decisions. That final decision is the outcome of a process. Concrete ideas confront and the GA makes the final decision. This is however AFTER the demolishing the capitalist apparatus. We don’t yet have that luxury.
Any mass movement organizational format — which objective is to oppose one of the aspects of the current system — is faced with a need to negate the way the system is currently running. We are not making decisions about how to run the society. We are making decisions on how to NEGATE the way society is run today. As a result, various theories and organizational formats are preferred based on how the NEGATING process will ultimately succeed. Marxism, thanks to both its solid theories AND the experiences, has the most concrete and clear form of the organizational structure: Political Party. We, Marxists also distinguish a direct class represtative organization whose aim is to overthrow the capitalism ( ie political party); that identifies itself in contrast ONLY to capitalism — regardless of the existence of any movement — and that of a movement whose objective might be achieved within the current system, Hence my rank of preferences for a movement organizational format are : Councils, General Assembly, and the least favorable is the pyramid structure (such as unions). Cont’d…
land said
As a demand what about It is RIght TO Rebel Against Resactionaries.
Red Fly said
Demand #1; debt cancellation — all student debt immediately dischargable in bankruptcy; all mortgages owned or serviced at any point by banks that received bail-out funds immediately made null and void; all credit card accounts charging over 10% interest immediately made null and void; cancellation of all third world debts.
Has the virtue of freeing the people from debt slavery and simultaneously collapsing the parasitic banking system that harvests human victims at home and abroad.
Abbas Goya II said
OWS protests was called by the most conscience layer of the society, that is the anti-capitalist organizations. No wonder it has chosen the most ideal form of decision making structure, the General Assembly. But is that a “leaderless” organization? Why shouldn’t we consider the GA as the leader? Furthermore, its decisions are the outcome of the confrontation of various ideas from within. A set of which finally agreed upon.
We, Marxists, are part of that body. As such, we don’t confuse a movement decision making body with that of a class-rep, political party structure we might belong to. Sure, ideally we want everyone join the Party in a full-scale battle against the capitalism, but that will be a reality IF the said Marxist do lead the movement to its success through expressing AND fighting for the movement’s demands. Therefore B) The specific political leadership has the potential to emerge from within the GA.
@Red Fly, I second your Demand #1 with a minor mod. Education, limitless and high standard, must be free for all. As such all student debts must be wiped out.
Red Fly said
Agreed.
I think the kind of massive debt cancellation that I put forth is a more concrete version of the May ’68 slogan that so many are citing: “Demand the impossible.” Were this concrete impossibility enacted it would blow up the world banking system, and with it, world capitalism (at least temporarily) and open up insurrectionary possibilities. Since that won’t happen (or won’t happen so long as the bourgeoisie has its way), the purpose of the demand is to unite a broad section of the people around a truly radical concrete proposal. Debt peonage is an issue that both the majority of people in this country and around the world are very familiar with, having to live it every day of their lives. In the context of the times, I think a discussion around debt peonage works as an excellent “in” towards the discussion of the more abstract notion of “the capitalist-imperialist system.” Certainly it’s not the only angle to attack capitalism from, but in this era of neoliberalism, an era of universalized debt peonage, it’s an important one.
Abbas Goya II said
Handshake Red Fly.
I certainly don’t oppose the debts wipe out business but from a different angle than “the capitalist-imperialist system”. After all, the US is the most debt carrying country in the world! If “debts” of a capitalist govt gives that govt an underdog status, the US govt’s ca 15 trillion debt would definitely entitles it as the most underdog country of the world!
The debts, whether in the US or elsewhere acts like the fictitious capital. It is an investment of future profits, and as such the workers living standard for a foreseeable future is already set, as far as the capitalists THINK. As we already see it in the Greece, Ireland and elsewhere. Workers are expected to ‘tighten their belt’ because the capital expects to reach this level of profit.
Otherwise I’m a staunch opponent to the notion of “anti-imperialism” movement. The Anti-imperialism movement is a reactionary, nationalist, local govt-preferred over foreign govt movement. It is an anti-US for good reason within its own framework. The US is the biggest single state capitalist economy and hence the biggest threat to the reactionary anti-imperialist movement. I’m an anti-capitalist, period.
Red Fly said
Thanks for the handshake, Abbas Goya.
I have a different take on this question.
Anti-imperialism, at its best, is at the core of communist internationalism. While anti-imperialism can take crudely local and/or reactionary nationalist forms, its communist form has been one of the great principles and key organizing concepts in our movement’s past and present. And I think it should continue to be until it is no longer necessary, i.e. until the total triumph of world socialism over world capitalism.
Moreover, I think I speak for most U.S.-based Kasama participants in saying that, as revolutionaries in the U.S., the world’s Imperialist-in-Chief, we have a sacred internationalist obligation to the world’s peoples to be staunch anti-imperialists. To not be an anti-imperialist would mean to be directly complicit (as opposed to being merely relatively privileged subjects) in the death and destruction visited upon nearly every part of the globe by the U.S. Empire.
Abbas Goya II said
Let’s not talk in abstraction. We have imperialism as a given fact, since the 1890s. [Capitalist theorists came up with this term. Lenin rightly used the same term to describe the state of capitalism AT THE TIME ]. The existence of capitalism however do not explain the objective anti-imperialism movement that opposes the “monopoly” of capitalism. This “monopoly” business has been the core criticism that all branches of anti-imperialist movement share. It was NOT Lenin’s understanding. Lenin was an anti-capitalist (btw when I use the uppercase letters it is to emphasis, not yelling!)
I understand that there are different trends within the anti-imperialist movement, from Chomsky to various Trotskysts, to various anarchists, to the RCP tendencies, the ex-pro-soviet reformists (aka “communist parties”), AND to the right out nationalist in ME, south american, and Africa. The common denominator to all these trends is the “MONOPOLY” character of capitalism, not the capitalism simply because when it boils down to capitalism itself there are as many different interpretations, and the level of antagonism as listed above.
This common denominator, “monopoly”, is a nationalist, reactionary character that glues anti-imperialist movement together. I’m not using reactionary just to put this movement down. Anti-imperialist movement is literally reactionary because what it opposes is the MONOPOLY of corporations, the MONOPOLIST US intervention. However, this movement supports the small and local business, it is blind or apologist to the “underdog” savagery govts of let’s say the IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) against the working class in Iran ONLY because the IRI stands up to the US!!! Not to mention that it just so happens that local and small business have an exponentially higher rate of exploration to that of corporations.
Anyhow, I’m not trying to convince you for anything. I’m sure you take it for granted that I know what you mean with anti-imperialism. And you’re right. I’ve seen and heard it all,um, I think. However, my perspective might not be as heard. So I tried to present it. I understand that we are stating our positions in relation to the anti-imperialist movement. I remain an exclusively Marxian anti-capitalist and an staunch opponent to anti-imperialist movement and you stay as an staunch supporter of it. That’s fine to me. IF and when our road crosses at that particular intersection we deal with it then. Cheers
Abbas Goya II said
Abit of housekeeping
@Gary: “Abbas; I think you misunderstood me. I am not a spokesperson for Occupy Boston”.
Sorry about that Gary
@Lyco: Some of your points I meant to bring up were kinda lost in transition but I’m impressed to hear that you “lived through the Sandinista Revolution”. I guess that’s something we have in common. In the same period, I lived through the 1979 Revolution in Iran.
@Carl: Sorry if I gave the impression that I was brushing off your reply in earlier posts of this thread. My connection to this site, starting a few days ago, was through a friend on Facebook. I wasn’t even sure what type of socialism this site promotes. Without checking properly, I assumed that this site belonged to the activists of OWS. So, I just meant to focus on activism rather than getting into some in-dept theoretical debate. But hey, after all I ended up to yaking the most here :) cheers