The Occupation movement

A thought has just occured to me whilst reading the Occupy London webpage regarding the "occupy" camps we have recently seen in the UK and it was this are these forms of protest redolent of the peace camps of the 1980's? A form of petite bourgeoise/left intellectual moral protest at the injustices of a socio economic system capitalism that is so obviously in crisis. Or the harbringer of a form of class organisation similiar to workers councils?

For me the prior seems to be the case for the occupied spaces do not facilitate a collective working class identity rather they seem to focus on individual attatchments to a variety of causes. While some hope that the confusion of this movement will be overcome I'm not so hopefull.

The positive thing though is that it does highlight the spirit of rebellion is still active. The task of Marxists is to articulate an alternative which focuses on the importance of a communist programme.


The OCCUPY movement has potential.


The political establishment’s hostility to the occupation in Melbourne is driven by fear that it could develop into a focal point for broader working-class resistance—potentially involving the occupation of not just city streets but of workplaces targeted for major job losses or outright closure. Like the protests internationally, Occupy Melbourne has resonated widely because the demonstrations are directed against social inequality and corporate power.

“But the critical question is how to take this movement forward. We say the question of politics is central to this—making conscious the impulses that have given rise to the Occupy movement. The fight that faces the working class and oppressed will require a worked-out political perspective of revolutionary social change on an international scale. It is essential that a thorough discussion take place on the question of political program, strategy and tactics.”The demand for “no politics” by sections of the Occupy movement and the claim that the protest movement can continue only by excluding any discussion of politics, parties and programmes is a dead end, he continued. “It is obvious to any serious person that a struggle against the capitalist ‘one percent’ poses critical political issues. Every social movement in history has been compelled to adopt a standpoint on the basic question of politics—which class should rule.”

Also, the likely failure of the OCCUPY....... movement may be the catalyst for the radicalisation of a minority.

Class consciousness is not dependent on victories.

Marx, who drew up this programme to the satisfaction of all parties, entirely trusted to the intellectual development of the working class, which was sure to result from combined action and mutual discussion. The very events and vicissitudes in the struggle against capital, the defeats even more than the victories, could not help bringing home to men’ s minds the insufficiency of their various favorite nostrums, and preparing the way for a more complete insight into the true conditions for working-class emancipation.


I like very much the way most left communist and even some trotskyist groups have been treating the potentials and deficiencies of the content of the actual mass movementthrough which the people are reacting to the economic and social crisis in the world. But it seems to me that the formal aspects have not been treated very much. Of course, unlike the content, the forms cannot be intrinsicly revolutionary, but I think that some forms are intrinsicly non-conducive to any revolutionary radicalisation of the protests. In that sense, an important distinction should be made between neighbourhood assemblies and city assemblies. Unlike the former, the latter are not representative of anybody or anything, since they are simple gatherings of people who constantly come and go, whose presence and intervention is pretty fortuitous and who by no means engage their responsability by discussing or voting therein. Moreover, the gatherings of a huge number of people offer no real opportunity for debate or programmatical confrontation. In my modest opinion, there can hardly be any way forward for the movement save by trying to connect the existing or nascent neibourhood assemblies in larger decision making bodies which do not imply the physical presence in one place of every one who's interested in participating in the making of decisions. Such participation is objectively impossible, and any attempt to attain it could offer but a thoroughly distorted result. I am aware of the fact that, since I live in a country where there is no mass movement of any sort, I'm not the most competent person for giving a serious answer to the question I posed. However, I think that the question deserves a serious discussion, and I shall be glad to see more competent answers thereto.

Athough I do not think we will see this transform and escalate into the terrritorial councils we want, I wouldn't say it was impossible, nor can we say out of what exact circumstance such a territorial network can arise.

Numbers are important. Whatever its outcome, there have already been signs of mass participation, though I think its still tiny compared to what I think is required.

Numbers are important. Whatever its outcome, there have already been signs of mass participation, though I think its still tiny compared to what I think is required.

I can but agree with this. Indeed, I don't think that a network of councils ready for revolution could easily arise out of the present neighbourhood assemblies, but a more coordinated (and hopefully more centralised) network of such assemblies could certainly serve as an inspiring example for future struggles. What I was trying to say is that it seems to me that, on the other hand, these central assemblies could hardly be to any extent imitated in a really revolutionary situation, for such a situation will require efficient models of exercise of political power, not an anti-historical imitation of the ancient greek agoras.

Somewhat relevant, but Italian-

Infine, la perla più lucente. Leggiamo sempre nel documento che: “solo trasformando il nostro disagio in un problema sociale, obbligheremo il sistema a offrirci delle soluzioni per lui compatibili (a noi di accettarle o meno) o, più probabilmente, a dichiarare che non può venirci incontro, dimostrando così il suo fallimento.” Qui non solo viene completamente abbandonata la piattaforma politica di Battaglia Comunista che dava, come indicazione strategica per il rivoluzionamento della società, la costruzione del partito ed insieme ad esso i gruppi di fabbrica e i gruppi territoriali ma, ipotizzando che il capitalismo possa offrire soluzioni e i lavoratori accettarle, si approda direttamente sulle spiagge del riformismo più deteriore. D’altronde, quando si abbandona il marxismo rivoluzionario per aderire a pratiche parasindacali, anche le briciole che il capitalismo, in alcune situazioni storiche, concede alla classe lavoratrice appaiono come delle grandi vittorie. Ma tant’è: questa è la logica conseguenza della errata premessa secondo cui lo sfruttamento del proletariato è la conseguenza dell’insorgere della crisi e non la condizione d’esistenza dello stesso modo di produzione capitalistico. Infatti sostenendo che è la crisi a determinare lo sfruttamento si arriva anche a sostenere, come fanno i compagni di Battaglia Comunista, che basta superare la crisi economica e il capitalismo può benissimo offrire soluzioni compatibili con le esigenze dei lavoratori.

However, despite the anti BC spin, (I don't see the validity of the accusation that BC has abandoned revolutionary terrain) I think this illustrates the point that the OCCUPY......... experience will by its failure be a powerful boost to the class conscious revolutionary movement. Masses will see that the response of the system will go in a diametrically opposite direction, police brutality, the widening of the class divide etc. The 'baby' solution has to grow up. The real solution to a problem which has been thrust into the limelight and can only intensify has to emerge.

...I think this illustrates the point that the OCCUPY...

Actually, there is no such illustration in the quoted article and I've read it very carefully in its entirety (not only the paragraph quoted). The article is entirely dedicated to attacking Battaglia Comunista. As far as it criticises the document endorsed by the Labour Commission of the so called Rome assembly, it seems irreproachable to me. But it goes further to ascribe the entire content of the document to Battaglia Comunista, which is unfair for the latter doesn't have a majority inside the said commission and thus cannot determine the content of the documents the commission releases. Of course, the question of the opportunity of Battaglia's participation in the Commission's work is a serious one and should be discussed. Finally, I should like to pose a question to the CWO: Have you discussed the expulsion of the catanzarese militants of Battaglia Comunista, who formed the Onorato Damen Institute or do you regard it as an internal affair of BC?

Re: "the OCCUPY……… experience will by its failure be a powerful boost to the class conscious revolutionary movement."

Undoubtedly, the inability of the bourgeoisie to solve even temporarily any of the steadily more acute problems with which the working class is confronted will certainly lead to a further radicalisation of the masses, but a revolutionary class consciousness is all but guareteed. In that sense, I hope that the Communist Left (except the latterday bordiguists who, in my opinion, could but harm) will demonstrate enough maturity to attain a considerable influence in future more radicalised movements.

Perhaps I have not grasped the Italian but I thought

“solo trasformando il nostro disagio in un problema sociale, obbligheremo il sistema a offrirci delle soluzioni per lui compatibili (a noi di accettarle o meno) o, più probabilmente, a dichiarare che non può venirci incontro, dimostrando così il suo fallimento.”

meant that he system would be exposed by its opposition to the movement and its inability to solve the issues. This would mean that the movement, as a reformist one, would have demonstrated that it was unable to resolve the issue without confronting the system, which would require the tools of revolution.

This could be a rough translation of the quotation: "it's only by transforming our unease into a social problem that we can force the system to offer us solutions compatible with it (it's up to us to accept them or not), or more probably, to declare its own inability to meet our demands, which would demonstrate its bankruptcy."

Thus, your translation is not incorrect at all, but the problem consists in the fact that the content of this quotation is not attributable at all to the Onorato Damen Institute, because the author of the article is actually quoting from the aforementioned document endorsed by the Labour Commission ( in order to prove the alleged reformist turn of BC. Their criticism seems to concentrate on the expressed readiness of the Commission to consider accepting some solutions compatible with the system ("a noi di accettare o meno (it's up to us to accept them or not)").

As well as yours, my translating efforts were useless. I've just found the english translation of the quoted document:

I think we translated OK, we worked out BC were not advocating reformism and that the ISTITUTO is trying to make BC look like it has nothing beyond what the Labour Commission offers.

I need to get more information about BCs intervention, but I am satisfied that they remain as faithful as ever to the revolutionary cause.

more info on BC and Instituto, pity about the language barrier.

The translation is well done. When I said your translating efforts were useless, I was referring to the fact that you apparently had not realised that the quoted sentence had been taken from the already translated document of the Labour Commission, since you attributed that sentence to the Istituto.

Regarding the participation of BC in the LC's work, you certainly know more on the subject than I do, so I do not pretend to criticise BC for that reason. Moreover, I think that the allegations brought forward by the ISTITUTO against BC are mostly preposterous and false. However, I think that the expulsion of the catanzarese militants is perhaps too harsh a measure. That's why I asked you if the cwo had ever discussed this expulsion or if it's considered by you as an internal affair of BC.


Not only did we discuss the appalling behaviour of the Catanzaro section with the BC comrades, not only did we go to Catanzaro in person to persuade the comrades of their errors (I say comrades but really we mean ONE comrade) but we were also present at the BC Annual General Meeting which the Catanzaro comrades had called but refused to attend. This meeting discussed in full for two days every accusation (there were 5) made by Catanzaro, despite their absence, with what I found to be a dignity and seriousness I have rarely witnessed in my 40 years in political activity. In very case comrades confessed to having written a mistaken sentence in this or that article but this did not amount to a "drift towards activism or movementism" as they say in Italy. The irony is that 3 of the mistaken sentences criticised by Catanzaro were allowed to pass when CZ edited the paper! The long treatment of these issues in my mind gave to CZ a respect they did not deserve (and remember that Giorgio Paolucci has been a personal friend for 30 years). The whole dispute arose over the fact that the younger members criticised the tone of Battaglia which was dominated by economic analysis. Giorgio Paolucci the editor at the time refused to listen. After 2 years the AGM of BC voted to move the paper to Parma from Catanzaro. GP did not accept this (he told me "I am the Party") and began a campaign of hysterical denunciation of everyone as well as a whispering campaign within the organisation to make one comrade criticise another. He even tried to involve his English comrades in it. For two years the comrades put up with this (partly on account of his health - he has had two triple heart bypasses) but in the end it became unbearable. However the comrades did not expel CZ - CZ walked out on BC (the Institute Onorato Damen had been formed months before the final meeting which voted by a two thirds majority to expel them whe they failed to turn up). The expusion ws just a formal recognition that they had broken every statute we had. At the bottom they refused to accept democratic centralism.

Taking the name of Onorato Damen is just an insult to his memory. In the great split of 1952 with the Bordigist Damen argued for the permanent need for a party or rev organisation whilst Bordiga wanted a study circle. And what is the ODI? I could write more but don't try to put our comrades in Italy on the same ground as the people in Catanzaro.

Thank you Cleishbotham for the exhaustive explanation. I was just curious to know if and how the CWO was involved in the debate preceding the expulsion. As I have already said, the accusations made by the ODI were thoroughly false in my opinion. Yet I don't think that democratic centralism is incompatible with the existence of minority factions within the concerned organisation/party. Perhaps, if these people had been allowed to have a minority newspaper and still remain in BC or a minority column in an official BC paper, there would have been no split at all. A totally different question is posed when a minority faction tries to impose its views on the whole organisation by pretending to controle its official means of communication as the mensheviks did in 1903. On the other hand, if it's really all about one single comrade, then probably you are right, but what I'm trying to say is that, on the principle, there is no historically demonstrated need to ban the internal factions in order to have a strong organisation or even faction or tendency of a future organisation. Still, such a ban is a de facto rule in the present day Communist Left.

Un osso

I quoted from an Istituto document.

Un osu wrote:

Yet I don’t think that democratic centralism is incompatible with the existence of minority factions within the concerned organisation/party. Perhaps, if these people had been allowed to have a minority newspaper and still remain in BC or a minority column in an official BC paper, there would have been no split at all.

I wholeheartly agree with this. In fact when I first started discussing with Cleishbotham this was one of the first questions we discussed if I remember correctly. Although I don't know for sure, I think ICT statutes allow for the existence of temporary and permanent factions within the organisation - or am I mistaken on that? Obviously it would have been preferrable if the CZ section of BC had published a minority newspaper or had a a column in BC, but that was not how it worked since as far I can tell there was an unwillingness to accept the decision of the organisation as a whole. Such an acceptance shouldn't mean that the CZ minority couldn't continue to argue their case.

On the other hand, if it’s really all about one single comrade, then probably you are right, but what I’m trying to say is that, on the principle, there is no historically demonstrated need to ban the internal factions in order to have a strong organisation or even faction or tendency of a future organisation. Still, such a ban is a de facto rule in the present day Communist Left.

I agree. Organisation are strengthened not weakened by the free exchange of views within an organisation. I think your concluding line is more a generaisation of the bureaucratic practice of the ICC to the whole of the Communist Left, e.g. I can not think of an internal grouping/opposition within the ICC that survived.

Let's clear up some more. First of all the ICT statutes are between affiliated organisations. They don't deal with individuals. This is done in the statutes of the individual affiliates (which are not dissimilar but which respect certain historic traditions in each area). The CWO statutes allow for factions and tendencies (the first are single issue the second is over a number of points). In practice we have had factions for years although they are not always articulated as such. We don't beleive you can have a healthy organisation if you don't allow for them. Tendencies are different in that over time they may give rise to a separate organisation (or the issues on which they are based are no longer important so the tendencies remerge).

But none of this applies to the CZ institute. They wanted control of all or nothing. I think the way was open for them to continue editing Prometeo but not BC. I personally urged Giorgio to accept this as we need the young to take over and develop. They can only do this if they are allowed to do things and make mistakes as they do them (as we did). It was not that he was articulating a different politics - he was just making up petty criticisms of the young comrades in order to insist that without him at the helm BC was going to the dogs. The comrades of BC were very patient and spent 2 or more years putting up with his vicious temper trying to meet him halfway. They did not take steps to get rid of him. They were prepared to carry on trying to hold the show together. The first step was the setting up of the Institute without telling BC (they only found out about it after CZ failed to show up at the AGM they had called). The expulsion was simply a formal recognition that these comrades had broken the statutes of the organisation. It is a great personal tragedy for the CZ people and for us but when you get someone thinking they are the organisation and no-one else's opinion counts then the outcome was inevitable.

There is a text on our Italian site called Two Years of Calumny which I think is again very dignified in dealing with them. You can try google translate on it. I did not think it was a priority for English language readers.

I would like to thank Un ossu for his recognition that the criticisms made by the Institute are just ridiculous. And following Android's last point remember too that it is the first split in 67 years of BC since the split with Bordiga in 1952!

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know that you permitted factions and tendencies. Perhaps you could publish the statutes in the web site, if its divulgation is not a security issue.

It seems to me that the greatest weakness of the Occupy movement is similiar to the anti capitalist movement that developed post Seattle at the end of the 1990's which is that the ideology at the centre of the movement focuses on individual protest which is artculated in an ethical way. There is no recognition that class is the central division of all societies and that the slogan we are 99% while being heartwarming to the bourgeoise is in fact a gross mystification of power relations in capitalist society. For me the role of the communist left in the current situation is to intervene where we can by putting a clear Marxist critique which includes a critique of the weaknesses of the occupy movement. On the question of whether the occupy movement can develop into a form of workers councils I very much doubt that this is possible. After all workers councils have as their focus both the running of basic provisions in mass strike situations while also being the bodies that challenge the running of the capitalist state. This is not in the remit of the occupy movement and in fact can be seen as a direct challenge to it's whole ideology. This is not to say that individuals from within the occupy movement cant be won to a communist programme and can be the nucleus of a movement towards a network of workers councils when the class struggle begins to intensify and class power is put on the political agenda. Finally on the question of factions I think this is necessary to ensure that internal democracy within the organisation is kept alive. We need to ensure that there is a healthy relationship between the party/organisation and the working class however small and weak the links may presently be.

Spot on Dave

About three thousand people gathered in Oscar Grant Park Wednesday night for the largest Occupy Wall Street demonstration in California since the movement began on September 17th.After hours of discussion, about 97 percent of participants in the general assembly voted for a citywide general strike on November 2. Protestors also called for the strike to include the Port of Oakland, the West Coast’s second largest sea-trade center.

So, how does this work?

Do they have the ability and support?

Good question Stevein7. I think that we need to be able to seperate rhetoric from class reality when it comes to the occupty movement. The General Strike is one of the Trotskyists of all persuasions favourite rhetorical devices and one which relies on the willingness of trade unions to deliver a General Strike. I think that this approach of relying on trade unions is also the approach of the Occupy movement as can be seen from a report in the local newspaper

Today's protesters say the next step is to involve as many local and national unions, community organizations, churches and student movements in the shortest time possible.

As Marxists we need to see that while we need a General Strike the level of consciousness within the class is not yet at the necessary level of development and that the role of Marxists should be to intervene within the movement with the argument of the necessity of a communist programme. At the same time we need to point out the counter revolutionary role of the trade unions. This won't make us popular but needs to be done.

Do you see any parallels between this occupy movement and the French 68 student movement which helped to catalyse a bigger workers strike?

I think students went to the factories and called for strikes.

I could imagine that the occupy movement could do the same.

Of course this would depend on a lining up of various factors, and at the moment the occupy movement is going to be preyed upon by the left who would not want to see any autonomous link up with workplaces , and of course, the workers themselves would be unlikely to respond positively, but as things develop, there are slim possibilities.

It began as a long series of student strikes that broke out at a number of universities and lycées in Paris, following confrontations with university administrators and the police. The de Gaulle administration's attempts to quell those strikes by police action only inflamed the situation further, leading to street battles with the police in the Latin Quarter, followed by a general strike by students and strikes throughout France by eleven million French workers, roughly two-thirds of the French workforce. The protests reached such a point that government leaders feared civil war or revolution

A study released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that the richest 1 percent of US households nearly tripled their income between 1979 and 2007 and doubled their share of the national income.The report also concludes that the top 20 percent of US households increased its share of national income while every other quintile saw its share decline. The top 20 percent received 53 percent of income in 2007—that is, its income surpassed the income of the other 80 percent of Americans.

To answer Steveins7 question

Do you see any parallels between this occupy movement and the French 68 student movement which helped to catalyse a bigger workers strike?

In my opinion I don't think that it is likely that such an occurence will happen again for one important reason which is that the ideology which enthuses the Occupy movement does not as far as i can see any conception of workers as an autonomous class capable of acting in our own interests. During the upheavels of the mid to late sixties there was still however confused a beleif that workers as a class could act in our own interests. This is one of the motivating factors which allowed the students to approach young workers in the Renault plants and win them to the necessity of taking action which could lead to a revolutionary situation.

The tragedy of the sixties was the widespread confusion within the student movement which led to a whole range of conflicting ideologies from Maoism, Trotskyism,Anarchism,Situationism,Exestentialism,Third Worldism to name but a few. These confusions arose from the refusal of all these groups to see the extent of the counter revolution which still meant that the influence of the left of capital predominated as can be seen in France through the counter revolutionary actions of the PCF. What this period also allowed was the bourgeoise could make a series of reforms such as wage rises, improvements in working conditions and concessions to the student movement. This of course was backed by the armed might of each capitalist state which allowed the counter revolutionary organisations to persuade the movement to accept the reforms and to ensure that the struggle remained on the terrain of the bourgeoise.

Today the situation is totally different. The crisis is much deeper as can be seen by the euro zone crisis combined with the astronomical high levels of USA debt ficticious capital. The space of reforms is much less. On the political side however is the success of the bourgeoise at least in the UK to politically disarm the working class by breaking down any idea of a political alternative to the capitalist system. This missing element has been replaced by an even more confused ideology which is more of an ethical religious opposition which opposes the effects of capitalism rather than opposing capitalism by a communist alternative.

While there are signs of what Stevein7 mentions of the occupy movement for instance in Oakland in the USA whose calling for a general strike the difference is that the call is contained within the move for calling on the strike to be initiated by the trade unions as well as voluntary organisations as well as religious organisations. In the sixties there was a desire however confused of going to the workers directly. The movement today reminds me of Marx's dictum of first time as tragedy second time as farce.

I found this interesting.

On Saturday October 29, Occupy Albany protestors, who have been encamped in downtown Albany’s Academy Park across from the State Capitol for over a week, held a number of activities, including a “People’s Speak Out,” during which anyone who wished to could address the gathering..........

A Socialist Equality Party supporter spoke to the gathering. He emphasized that the Democrats are just as responsible as the Republicans for the economic disaster and the attacks on the working class, and that the recent attack on protestors in Oakland and others across the country are the real face of the capitalist system. The SEP supporter warned that without a perspective and program the Occupy movement, while reflecting the outrage of millions, would not be able to advance.He stated that the economic crisis of capitalism, which is still only in its initial stages, will plunge the world back into the conditions that characterized the first half of the twentieth century—two world wars and the Great Depression. What is happening in Greece now is the future for the working class unless it builds its own political party based on socialist principles to overthrow the capitalist system, he explained. These remarks drew a positive response from a broad section of the audience.


Apart from stating the bleeding obvious all this article says is vote SEP! In other words accept SEP mystification passing off as socialism and the capitalist mystification that elections can change anything.

Not what I was looking at, I was looking at the open mike, the fact that a revolutionary could stand up and address maybe a lot of people. I'd have been on that mike if I'd have been there.

However, re SEP, yes, they will say silly things like public work programmes, tax the rich etc which simply create the belief that capitalism can be pressured to offer such things, even if they themselve s go on to say the system is incapable of what they demand.

Agree that an open mic is useful to put across a Marxist message however this should not overshadow the hard work of putting out revolutionary leaflets, material etc which calls for the overthrow of capitalism by an iindependent working class. At the moment this call will only be relevant to a few workers yet the attempt to win workers to a Marxist message and revolutionary programme needs to be a daily occurence. Also not certain whether in the UK the occupation movement is anything more than an activist movement rather than one which involves workers at their workplace.

Agree with Cleishbotham regarding the SEP they are a recycled Trotskyist organisation whoo still regards the Stalinist states as somehow being progressive. Their recent election material in Germany shows how contradictory their current ideas are on the surface they appear to be revolutionary yet their actions belie this reality.

I posted here.

Wouldn't let me put a link, but I did put

Apart from stating the bleeding obvious all this article says is vote SEP!


Does it say that?

Not that it makes any difference, the SEP are not abstentionist.

The speech as reported sounds good.

Thats not to say the Trotskyist traps dont appear elsewhere.

I dont much like their repeated habit of reporting what members of the public say Even if its genuine I bet 90% would say something dumb if asked. It seems manipulative, presents an over optimistic scenario.

Their articles have some solid data, facts and figures.

''We as fellow occupiers of Oscar Grant Plaza propose that on Wednesday November 2, 2011, we liberate Oakland and shut down the 1%.

We propose a city wide general strike and we propose we invite all students to walk out of school. Instead of workers going to work and students going to school, the people will converge on downtown Oakland to shut down the city.

All banks and corporations should close down for the day or we will march on them.

While we are calling for a general strike, we are also calling for much more. People who organize out of their neighborhoods, schools, community organizations, affinity groups, workplaces and families are encouraged to self organize in a way that allows them to participate in shutting down the city in whatever manner they are comfortable with and capable of.

The whole world is watching Oakland. Let’s show them what is possible.''

Well, we wont have to wait long...

If an organisation is seriously calling for a general strike then what preparatory work is being done for it? Simply to call for a general stike does not necessarily mean that the working class will respond. Why should workers risk having their heads bashed in by the police when the leaders of the strike, and this is what they are, do not appear to have taken any steps to prepare the workers for a cofrontation with the capitalist state. Unless of course all they intend is to have a march from a to b with a little diversion to allegedly close down the banks.

To call for a general strike is either empty rhetoric or a serious challenge for political power. I suspect in this case it's the former.

The Strike Coordinating Council will begin meeting everyday at 5pm in Oscar Grant Plaza before the daily General Assembly at 7pm. All strike participants are invited. Stay tuned for much more information and see you next Wednesday.

While a demo around the financial district may let of steam it doesn't constitute a general strike especially when the following example is taken into account from mercury news.

City employees who plan to take the day off must clear it with their supervisor and take some form of furlough leave other than sick time.

While I don't want to be seen to be decrying the activity of people who do sincerely care about doing something to protest against the current economic crisis and the continuing wealth appropiation by the bourgeoise I do think we need to be critical of the weaknesses of the movement. Just as the protest movements such as the social forums during the late 1990's didn't generate much long lasting resistance due to the inabilty of the social forums to generate a clear sense of working class identity and resistance rather the forms of opposition remained very much on the terrain of the concerned citizen. The concerned citizen has no political power.

Only when the self ttransformation into a clear class identity occurs will we see a forward movement which will begin to challenge the political power of the bourgeoise. Until then all we can do is to try to reach out to those involved in struggles and try to win some of them to a communist perspective. Marching around cities will not do this.

I agree, the Oakland affair was no general strike.

The working class has to look to its own struggle.

But with the conditions as they are and set to worsen, will all this theatre serve to wake up a real movement on the industrial terrain?


Oakland, California (CNN)-- Demonstrators in Oakland, California, appeared to carry out a successful strike of downtown businesses Wednesday, as most merchants and retailers shuttered their doors during a largely peaceful protest...netPrior to the strike's kickoff, organizer Tim Simons called the move a "warning shot to the 1%."... "We can take this into the streets and into the work places," he said.

But yes, Dave, as it is, the real class perspective has not got much of an influence, if any.

ICC seem fairly enthused.

Now that the USA capitalist state has moved to neutralise the occupy movement we can see the weaknesses of the occupy movement being played out. Firstly the ethical approach to influence society into putting pressure on legislators can be seen to be truly ineffective. When tear gas and police clubs come crashing down on unarmed demonstrators then we can see that ethical imploring will not stop the repression.

Secondly the role of the concerned citizen again proves useless when faced with real political violence. When the bourgeoise decides to move then no amount of capitalist democracy will stop them. Unfortunately both of these lessons will be played out again and again but with no willing pupils to learn from them. In the near future the occupy movement will set up another camp which will be tolerated for a short while before the capitalist state moves in again. Like a bad groundhog day.

The lesson to be learnt from the occupy movement is that there is a crying need for a nucleus of class conscious workers that can build networks of supporters who will form the basis of a revolutionary party. This organisation will be an integral part of the global working class and will assist the working class in overthrowing capitalism and laying the foundations of a global communist society.

The problem is if and how we relate to this and other similar movements.

It is eay to enthuse about certain aspects, but we are not going to get a leading role in this situation until the crisis gets much worse.

I think we may as well take a hammer to them, sharply criticise and hold no greater ambition than attracting a few individuals to our politics.

Intervention trying to be super popular and pretending we are going to change the mass of participants is only going to

Splitting off (tiny) minorities is as good as it gets.

Our task is not to be part of the mish mash but a beacon of clarity.

Perhaps a bit more negative than my previous pespectives, but in the long run, as long as we are advocating the revolutionary Party, the reolutionary programme,nuances and assessment of these struggles are not too important.

Regolamento per l'utilizzo del forum

Anche se la partecipazione al forum è aperta a tutti, una minima conoscenza delle posizioni della TCI è comunque necessaria. Prima di inviare una domanda, quindi, è consigliata almeno una lettura delle domande frequenti.

Nel partecipare a discussioni nell’ambito del forum, gli utenti sono inoltre tenuti a mantenere un comportamento corretto e conforme alla netiquette. In particolare non è consentito:

  1. diffondere dati personali di terzi, ivi inclusi numeri di cellulari ed e-mail, comunque in contrasto con le previsioni normative del dlgs 196/03 s.m.i.;
  2. includere messaggi od utilizzare nickname dal contenuto osceno, blasfemo, diffamatorio, o comunque illegale;
  3. includere messaggi di carattere esclusivamente polemico, minacciare, molestare od ingiuriare terzi od altri partecipanti al forum;
  4. pubblicare materiale coperto da copyright o comunque in violazione delle leggi sul diritto d’autore;
  5. promuovere attività commerciali, offrire in vendita qualsiasi prodotto o servizio, propagandare o sponsorizzare la partecipazione ad iniziative con fini commerciali;
  6. inserire pubblicità, catene di S.Antonio (multi-level marketing), o materiale informativo attinente a servizi di altra natura o comunque di altre societa;
  7. attribuirsi l’identità di altro utente o soggetto, ivi inclusi gestori e moderatori del forum;
  8. inserire in ogni caso messaggi atti ad alterare il corretto funzionamento dei servizi in oggetto o ad impedirne la corretta fruizione da parte degli altri utenti;
  9. inserire ripetutamente lo stesso messaggio, anche a distanza di alcuni giorni, in più copie identiche;
  10. pubblicare messaggi palesemente estranei al contesto ed alla specifica tematica in oggetto del canale;
  11. pubblicare messaggi di carattere personale e/o comunicazioni indirizzate esclusivamente ad un determinato interlocutore, più propriamente gestibili mediante email o chat;
  12. pubblicare interi articoli o comunque messaggi eccedenti le 15-20 righe (circa 2000 caratteri).

Messaggi ricompresi nelle suddette tipologie saranno considerati non graditi e contestualmente rimossi senza ulteriore preavviso. In ogni caso, dato che i messaggi vengono pubblicati in tempo reale, la TCI non puo’ essere ritenuta responsabile per il loro contenuto. L’autore rimane l’unico responsabile del contenuto del messaggio.

Gravi o ripetuti abusi potranno comportare, ad insindacabile giudizio della TCI, l’esclusione dell’utente dal forum. La TCI si riserva il diritto di rivelare l’identità dell’autore e relativo indirizzo IP sorgente di un messaggio in caso di richiesta da parte delle autorità competenti, nell’ambito di indagini od accertamenti giudiziari. Le segnalazioni di presunti abusi possono essere inoltrate all’indirizzo email, indicando gli estremi atti ad individuare il messaggio ritenuto in contrasto con il regolamento.

L’utilizzazione del forum sottintende la presa visione del presente regolamento e la sua integrale accettazione.