Forum Post: Long Term Strategy
Posted 12 years ago on Sept. 25, 2011, 2:33 a.m. EST by FHampton
(309)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Good article on the historical context of the crisis, broad goals for the Left:
"The revolutionary strategy rests on a different analysis. It judges capitalism by standards immanent to it, and raises socialism not as an abstract, supra-historical project, but as one situated within a specific historical moment - a technologically advanced, complex socialism has become possible because capitalism has created the material preconditions for it. Its universalism is not abstract, but class-anchored; rather than the sane, adult citizenry being the repository of universal values, it is the working class that is the 'universal' class, since it has a direct interest in the abolition of capitalism and an historically produced capacity to bring it about. Finally, it sees parliament not as an ideal democratic space in which socialist values can be elaborated and implemented with the authority of the executive at its back, but as a component of the capitalist state that is hostile to socialism. It follows that the aim is to create alternative, working class centres of sovereignty capable of implementing democratic decisions made at the level of the rank and file. Whether such a counter-power was to call itself a soviet, a commune or a Committee of Public Safety (as envisioned in News from Nowhere), its purpose would be to work as a rising alternative form of legitimate authority that would eventually be in a position to challenge the capitalist state. Through a period of dual power, the working class would learn to govern itself, acquiring the skills and self-confidence it would need, resisting attempts by the state to suppress it, until it was in a position to win a majority for taking power. This counter-power would logically centre on the process of production, but extend well beyond the workplace. It would have its own media, its own budget, its own leisure, and its own pedagogy. It would be the material infrastructure of the socialist order it sought to create. This doesn't preclude parliamentary strategies, as a means of helping legitimise and even attempting to legalise extra-parliamentary power."
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/10/first-we-take-manhattan.html
Hi, thanks for the article I am lefty born in a "righty" family. Personally I dont' think this revolution should be taken under this left vs right approach. This would harm the whole movement (it is a global revolution). I am participating of Occupy Wall Street all the way from Spain. We are already having troubles because of people trying to use the assemblies as an instrument for the left to take revenge and "Triumph" over the right. That is certainly not the spirit. In order to create a new world, archaic concepts should be deleted from our minds and our souls, we have to take the best out of everything. The same way that right now I couldn't be communicating this if I wasn't using a laptop (MSwindows OS, coltan chips inside) and the wifi provided by the city council of my town governed by a party of the right.
I agree, we should focus on freedom instead.
I understand where you are coming from but I don't think the concept of the Left has anything to do with revenge or not using laptops. In fact, the Left means something similar to "the 99 percent" historically. There is a long tradition of thinking like this, and I believe this movement will benefit from drawing on it.
Hi I understand your point, of course the left would represent the 99% or the 99% represents the left.Just warning: we are having the very same discussion in Spain and it is leading to downfall, be careful please. This is a movement that has no ideology. If we have the real intention to create a new world we shall take words and concepts out of the "syllabus" of this revolution and out of out mindset as well. We need a BRAND NEW MINDSET please help us to to this, thanks!
"If we’re trying to learn how to have each other’s backs, how to trust and depend on each other moving forward, then we need to put ourselves in situations that demand that kind of strength and solidarity. And I don’t mean taking people’s sides in arguments over assembly process."
http://occupyca.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/occupied-wall-street-some-tactical-thoughts/
For all this you do not need to mention "the left", right? If we ever want to success (the ideal society that you and me share) "the right" has a more important role, a longer way to walk towards where we are right now. My POW is: if we keep using those terms, this will cause division (the same one that we already suffer). It would be great if this time round we try to reject "labels" unite feelings, ideologies, affiliations, etc.
Thanks for your reply. I totally agree that divisions within any prospective movement should be minimized. However, isn't it true that real divisions in society at large--between rich and poor, for example--already exist?
Just pretending that there are no divisions will not be effective. Using terms like left (or, if you like, "the 99%") and right (the "1%") is useful for articulating an ideology that identifies the problem correctly. Hopefully we can chart a course to overcome those divisions.
Specifically, I think this requires outreach to the working class, who are best positioned to effect a radical transformation.
Hi Again, my point is that the movement does not need (or should not at all) articulate any ideology. Political parties already exist to do that, that is an old recipe, things never improve for the working class.We are having this very same discussion with some members of the movement here in Spain.If this movement wants to include every body who pretends to be part of the change it should not acquire a "divisory perspective". The problem for every body is the same, here and also in China, we do not need to identify it any more, what you seem to be seeking is "identifying" the mindset of the 99% and that is not possible, that is what brought us down where we are now. Diversity is the answer :)
A modest proposal for full employment, outlined by economist Dean Baker: http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/07/04/making-short-work-of-the-economy/