Forum Post: Occupy Democratic Headquarters!!!
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 18, 2011, 1:53 a.m. EST by GypsyKing
(8708)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Please read Puff, on "A promise to the American People." He's right! If this movement is to grow beyond the parks and streets that are unconstitutionally being closed to us, one by one, than Puff's plan this is the only swift and practical way to go in the limited time we have to START CHANGING THIS WORLD!!!
A movement like this must remain flexible enough to take changing circumstances into account. I have advocated a leaderless movement, but only as far as that can produce concerted action. At the moment action seems scattered rather that concerted. There's a lot of untapped power in this movement right now it seems to me that must somehow get focused to be effective. This is our main obsticle at the moment. we need to talk it out.
OWS is not open to the idea of having leaders or of trying to fix the current government by promoting new laws. Talking about it won't change a thing. They have been very clear from the very beginning. They want a revolution lead by an anarchist coup.
Well, anarchy is out. Even if it was nothing but a pipe dream, it still isn't a good idea, and you'll never get enough people to rally to the anarchist cause to do anything but spin your wheels and wast a lot of time with impotent chatter. That is obvious. Furthermore, anarchists and communists only give this movement a bad name with 95% of the 99%. It looks like what we have here is a failure to communicate. I'm not with anarchy, so if OWS is about anarchy then I'm out. Only I know far more people in this movement are for restoring representative, or direct democracy than are for anarchist revolution. The idea of it is so divissive that I can only think it is being pushed to destroy this movement intentionally.
Are you sure anarchy and communism is out? Occupy still writes on this very website that their main goal is a revolution and that they don't want to talk with politicians. They're certainly not interested in getting involved in politics to try to change the system from within. They haven't changed the rhetoric on their posters, nor their imagery. Their tactics are still the same as before. They still opt for direct action, and don't want to make demands or have identifiable leaders. It still seems like it's anarcho-communism to me, and I don't see this changing in the near future.
What gives you the idea that Occupy has changed? Perhaps I'm missing something.
I never had the impression that Occupy was anarchist/communist, in fact I believe that is the impression that the trolls have been trying to foster to discredit this movement.
Oh! I had the impression that David Graeber was one of the founding members of Occupy and that the protest was largely structured with his ideas of anarcho-sydicalism which came from 1936 Spanish anarchies in which is father took part; hence the leaderless movement and the idea of using direct action to create mounting tensions towards a revolution. I was also basing this idea on the fact that many of the important OWS people are anarchists, like jart the programmer of this forum, and all the forum moderators. In addition, there's the communist and anarchist imagery like the recurring black and red design themes. A funny info tidbit, this site is open software, and when you install it for the first time, the default password is "anarchy".
Please note, I don't think anarchy is necessarily bad.
Since you support Occupy, I assume you support the idea that a revolution is needed like in the Arab spring protests which serve as an inspiration for OWS?
[Removed]
Good idea: http://occupywallst.org/forum/puff-onthe-butterfly-effect-and-a-clear-method-for/
Here is a similar idea by a sociologist (from a few years back): http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_egalitarians.html "So what should egalitarian activists do in terms of future elections if and when the issues, circumstances, and candidates seem right? First, they should form Egalitarian Democratic Clubs. That gives them an organizational base as well as a distinctive new social identity within the structural pathway to government that is labeled "the Democratic Party." Forming such clubs makes it possible for activists to maintain their sense of separatism and purity while at the same time allowing them to compete within the Democratic Party. There are numerous precedents for such clubs within the party, including liberal and reform clubs in the past, and the conservative Democratic Leadership Council at the present time. This strategy of forging a separate social identity is also followed by members of the right wing within the Republican Party. By joining organizations like the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition, they can define themselves as Christians who have to work out of necessity within the debased confines of the Republican Party. That is, they think of themselves as Christians first and Republicans second, and that is what egalitarians should do: identify themselves primarily as egalitarians and only secondarily as Democrats. After forming Egalitarian Democrat Clubs, egalitarian activists should find people to run in selected Democratic primaries from precinct to president. They should not simply support eager candidates who come to them with the hope of turning them into campaign workers. They have to create candidates of their own who already are committed to the egalitarian movement and to its alternative economic vision of planning through the market. The candidates have to be responsible to the clubs, or else the candidates naturally will look out for their own self interest and careers. They should focus on winning on the basis of the program, and make no personal criticisms of their Democratic rivals. Personal attacks on mainstream politicians are a mistake, a self-made trap, for egalitarian insurgents. In talking about the program, the candidates actually do much more than explain what egalitarians stand for. By discussing such issues as increasing inequality and the abandonment of fairness, and then placing the blame for these conditions on the corporate-conservative coalition and the Republican Party, they help to explain to fellow members of the movement who is "us" and who is "them." They help to create a sense of "we-ness," a new collective identity. As candidates who present a positive program and attack those who oppose it, they are serving as "entrepreneurs of identity," an important part of the job description for any spokesperson in a new social movement."
Sounds a lot like the TEA Party. They've already changed the dialogue in Washington from "How much can we get away with spending?" to "How much are we going to cut?"
I think revolution without a leader may be practically impossible. Working within the present system is the only practical road to change. Neither will happen overnight, but the latter has a much better chance of working. As I showed above, one election cycle and we're already looking at a different paradigm.
Thanks for this link post! I think we all need to realize that we must find effective means of creating change, and in the near rather than the far future. This strategy seems the most likely to yeld actual results than any other to me at the moment. I think a lot in this movement are already leaning in this direction.
First you get the power, then you get the change.