What went wrong?

What went wrong? Is this proof that roo was right?
This sorry excuse of a fart movment is representative of the revolution potential in the us?
There is a chance for a sequel?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qVGHrEtkFIc
thecharnelhouse.org/2011/11/08/the-vision-goals-working-group-from-occupy-wall-street-its-wretched-prehistory-followed-by-an-insiders-harrowing-account/
thecharnelhouse.org/2011/10/26/internal-tensions-within-occupy-wall-street-the-demands-working-group-and-the-drummers-working-group/

Its america the most class cucked nation on earth. The movement was swarming with agents because strong anti communism in american goverment.

Don't you feel a bit of a fucking hypocrite?
No offense

...

Found your problem.

...

Didn't someone lose their virginity there.

*derails your movment*

I was just thinking about her yesterday. What's her name again?

Oh please, you people need to get with the times

V A G I N A

This unoriginal ML cunt has never said anything of value

No, seriously, you retard. I'm requestin a namedrop.

Great! So why don't you start a thread thoroughly "debunking" her main points, and contrasting her with previous "original" thinkers?

Oh, w8! Is this another case of ?!

Jodi Dean isn't worth the effort. You gonna put her up there with Marx and Nietzsche?

right, of course you are.

Ketchup

Read David Graeber: The Democracy Project

TLDR it was mainly the liberal press selling out and the loss of their tacit consent, which I wouldn't necessarily call support, police breaking/changing laws in order to shut it down(and general police subversion), with the loss of the liberal press came a fracture between the disillusioned liberals who were essentially reformist and the organisers who were a mix of the radical left, police deliberately attacked the less radical sections in order to scare them and escalated violence for this purpose. Also police conducted all their negotiations etc through the liberal sections, while the liberal sections would co-operate, the others would not, this create a certain power dynamic, widening the void.

Read the whole book, its a good read and you also get a brief history of democracy which says a lot of interesting stuff, such as democracy used to be a show of arms, like "600 of the armed men say this, but 200 of the armed men say that, so obviously, we go with the 600" which saved a lot of bloodshed, basically a peaceful show of force.

COINTELPRO.

I also forget to mention, Graeber also mentions idpol but only as a sort of aggravating factor rather than the cause of anything

shit ain't historically accurate. The folkmotes of the German barbarian tribes were consensus based, indeed, the majority of early forms of democracy were consensus based, face to face affairs. And its not even just as a political tool, when your girlfriend says "i want to get pizza" and you're like "nah I want chinese" and shes like "i hate chinese" and you're like, "well i hate pizza" so shes like "what about indian?" and you're like, "yeh indian works" you just done a consensus.

Me thinks if you don't like consensus you are annoying to be around.

Because that's not really a topic he covers generally

i think there is only a sentence or two about it from what I can remember, its more like a comment in passing that when class struggle is crushed people fall back on identity politics, but (i think, read it like a year ago now) he says something about that being the case at occupy only when things started going badly and it lost its revolutionary character.

daytripping idpol warriors enforcing a """progressive""" stack
everyone who wasn't a ipol moron thought yeah nah fuck these cunts and left
idpolers got bored and went home to write blog posts

...

People there were under the illusion protests and asking nicely but in a slightly louder voice makes a fucking difference.
At least fascists understand the value of force.

Complete capture of the media by the bourgeois. Media constantly downplayed the demonstration of numbers and state violence (which are the things that make a protest movement snowball into a revolution).
In the past capture of the media didn't work, people will catch on and find or create alternative channels of information. But now we have a two man con, where if you catch on to the fact the the media you're watching is untrustworthy there's a completely different set of bougie media wearing the other team's colors.

Consensus is nice and all, but there are myriad ways in which our currently existing complex society works and needs to work that don't allow for that. Sometimes you have to crush underfoot (the objections) of certain groups of peoples. Emergencies and situations where one groups is simply wrong on the empirical facts come to mind.

we're talking about burgerstan here
it's a move in the right direction, it shows there was SOME anti-capitalist sentiment

Leaf here. I recall asking at the Occupy Toronto library for suggestions for books about anarchism, and was given some phonebook of classcuckery. That said, OWS was where I started to radicalize. Prior to that I'd been drifting rightwards and am grateful that Occupy came along when it did.

Leftism in the US is almost entirely a philosophical hobby and little else. Both of our parties have spent the last 70+ years making sure that leftism never takes hold here. Occupy Wall St happened at a time when democrats held power. Yet despite that they did their best to completely ignore the movement if not outright attack it.

several did.


the police suppressed it. if occupy was armed things would proabably be better. occupy virginia wasn't fuked with because they open carried, whereas occupy DC was fucked with whereas they didnt have guns

Americans.

Let's set down some presuppositions.

American politics is dominated by liberalism.

On the right you have economic and familial liberalism, the protection of the family and private economy.

On the left you have cultural and identitarian liberalism.

Left liberalism departs from economic liberalism and so can be dealt with in the direction of socialism, but only within certain limits, usually demarked by the focus on the opportunities of groups, which retains the false, formal and external opposition between state power and civil liberties.

America is also a security state, being the homeland of empire. Not only was OWS entirely infiltrated from its first signs of emergence, the ideological operation of nullifying its existence and extinguishing the traces of its existence was accomplished.

There can be little socialism in America, outside of pressing at tactical joints of public ideology, putting pressure on the crucial points of the US ideological skeleton. The US, as the international superpower, is a system which can function even without a leader (as effectively has happened under Trump). It's the ideological factory for the entire world, but it's also inconsistent. The strike work of minority and also white workers should be of interest to Americans. Especially, the white working class, should be especially appealed to in the ideological battles. Look at the American public battles which are so often reported despite much more action happening elsewhere all over the world: all of these groups are essentially groups of superstructure, they are ideological oppositions, and the fight for America is the fight for the American, and so the international ideology. Press, for instance, is very important, and it's being corroded all the time by the impact of the Internet, for instance, and on the whole the impotence of the liberal establishment, focused on facts alone, to live up to the ideological demand of the people, their sense of existence in the most naive sense.

In Europe, the situation is different. Europe has become one of the world powers among many and so is facing a crisis of investiture. A similar ideological battle is going on here, where yet again the liberal establishment - the technocrats whose chief ideologist is Jürgen Habermas - has lost its legitimacy.

The situation in Europe is unique for the simple reason that the European political sphere is not entirely subject to the hegemon of liberalism. Look at Germany, which despite capitalist symptoms, has enacted social reforms which are impossible in America. Healthcare, in fact any benefit, is impossible to the American ideology, mired in liberalism.

Yet into the hole opened up by the retreat of communicative reason, we find the right-wing movements, usually unorganised at a party level, organised only around figureheads who 'were brave enough to say what everyone was thinking'. A left alternative is necessary to save Europe from sinking further and further into moral irrelevance, losing the moral worth for which thousands trudge towards Europe with their black or Syrian children on their backs.

Noxious anarchist influence.
Their idea was literally just to sit there until enough people noticed and somebody else made something happen, I guess.
It wasn't that long ago, but I'm soooo glad Marxism is making a comeback in the US these days. People don't remember how worthless the anarchists of the 90s/00s were.

idpol went wrong. it was supposed to be about wall street and criminal bankers but it got hijacked by every identity group grievance in existence and collapsed under the weight.

youtube.com/watch?v=qVGHrEtkFIc

Parties and organizations trying to take over and/or recruit are the death of any social movement.

It would never have been able to achieve anything from the start with it's rejection of clear goals and leadership.

The fact remains of all the leaderless mass protests that have happened in the past decade none of them brought any success other than Tunisia and Egypt. Both of which had very clear simple goals in a broad sense, resignation of the president and free and fair elections. Tunisia is the only one that actually achieved anything of lasting value in the end as well because of the support of Labor Unions.

Occupy should have been the start of entryism and insurgent candidates in Dem primaries.

If this was your conclusion you might be fucking braindead.

The only thing even remotely close to a party/organization destroying OWS was, predictably, an anarchist, horizontalist, dude-fuck-parties-lmao clique. That was the clique of Ketchup and at al, who also did OWS a favor of embarassing everyone involved on Colbert.

thecharnelhouse.org/2011/11/08/the-vision-goals-working-group-from-occupy-wall-street-its-wretched-prehistory-followed-by-an-insiders-harrowing-account/

This is something that happens every fucking time we give in to anarchoids' preferences of organization. Their childish nonsense of having no structure, no hierarchy and no organization is only a way to make sure they'll remain de facto leaders through personal influence and scheming. They never approve the implementation of more efficient organizational methods because that usually comes with mechanisms through which the people can reject them and their bullshit.

Anybody who followed OWS knew what most people wanted: people political demands, people wanted leadership, people wanted proper procedures, people wanted to see the movement take it further than the occupation and people wanted organized communication through which they could fight back at the media. Instead they had petty individualism, pointless arguments over shit no one cared about, no goals, no strategy, dozens of cops among them, etc. It was a textbook of how to not organize a social movement.

But horizontalists are like cultists, and every time they're proven wrong they just grow more zealous.

Don't be too happy, because people have no idea what "Marxism" is and they often use it to describe practices that Marx himself hated. I see pseudo-Marxist arguments in favor of abstentionism, of horizontalism, of lifestylism and so on all the damn time.

this is a complete and utter crock of shit. The people who tried to gain control were the MLs and socdems who wanted everyone to be holding the same signs that they were handing out and would get autistic everytime the actual will of the people outweighed their ridiculous and outdated dogma. Nobody wanted them there and they were told repeatedly to stop doing the things they were doing, trying to centralise etc. It was organised by anarchists and these idiots, in typical Marxist fashion, (think, Marx subverting the international against the wishes of the majority of its members just so he could claim a win) decided to turn up and attempt to claim ownership like the crypto capitalists they are and make eveyrbody do things their way

are you implying there was non horizonalist groups there with any kind of support that had any of these things? because there fucking wasn't and you know it.

this entire article is

it sure is a mystery…

1. Police beating the shit out of people
big gap
2. muh consensus
big gap
3. annoying SJW progressive stack stuff

...

...

...

stop spamming retard

idpol

"we are the 99%" can't be true, if men not allowed, whites not allowed, cis not allowed, centrists not allowed and so on.

From the 99 to the most special 1

This is a bad thought and you should feel bad.

Anarchism in practice:


It's all horizontal and consensus-based unless you challenge them. ;-^)

thecharnelhouse.org/2011/10/26/internal-tensions-within-occupy-wall-street-the-demands-working-group-and-the-drummers-working-group/

Found the problem

...

And this is how we get a movement where webm related is A-OK, smashies are A-OK, but working to get out a concise message about worker demands from OWS to the media is considered authoritarian.

Enjoy your shit show, anarchists.

i love that clip.
Really shows the intellectual prowess of the alt-left

Hillary pls go.

Would it be too much praxis (=opportunism) if you actually read the comments you reply to?

Anarchists can be retarded but Occupy fizzling out wasn't their fault. There was a concerted effort from Obama on down to disrupt and undermine it. It wasn't the anarchists that stormed the camp at Boston and beat unarmed campers and veterans. It wasn't anarchists that outlawed umbrellas at Occupy Seattle. It was anarchists that helped spark Occupy and spread it everywhere though.

The Anarcho theory behind it wasn't bad or wrong either. It worked in some ways, but not in others, and what's more important than laughing at anarkiddies is examining what went wrong, why, and how to avoid it in the future.

I don't care if it's an anarchist standing next to me or a Leninist or whatever. I'm more concerned with keeping the FBI out and their shitty cop minions than having a giggle at other leftists just because I think their theory is stupid.

there were no solutions presented, were there? you can be against something, but if you have no vision for the future, a movement will eventually wither away

There were. You just wouldn't know it if all you watched was the news because they were too busy trying to make occupy look retarded than to actually ask.

I actually think the movement didn't disappear, just shifted a bit right. the same economic discontentment together with the autistic identity politics from the left was garnered by Trump to get himself elected

It was general backlash against the fact that fucking zero people (who were directly involved in the 2008 crash) were held accountable for their actions. Ten months later and the police broke down everything and no one was held accountable. So yes, general failure all around. They had one job and couldn't even do it.

My local chapter was too interested in getting their vegan meals delivered to them for free rather than anything else worth mentioning. The only reason it lasted so long was that the bank that owned the little park they were in let them crash there for over a year.

This.

The Democrats were hoping OWS would be their Tea Party, but instead found it a gaggle of narcissistic whiners and thus left it to die.

What is this based on? Besides the words of Jodi Dean the butthurt Trot annoyed nobody wanted to to listen to her shitey outdated useless ideas that haven't done ANYTHING at all for the left in America. Seriously what white ML group has done anything ever in America? The left in America is black MLS or white anarchists.

Did you even read what I said? There are extremely numerous examples of consensus systems working even over large populations, indeed, this is how must communities used to function, even numbering hundreds of thousands of large and diverse geographical areas. I like that I point out actual historical facts AND the thought experiment but you IGRNORE the historical facts and just focus on the experiment. Funny I thought dialectical materialists were supposed to know about history and analyse it.

Of course, what you fail to mention is that consise demands that represented the whole group simple did not exist. What you really mean is "why didn't they just go along with the (highly unpopular) leninist ideas against the wishes of most of the attendants of the event ….for reasons" Because your tribe made their statement and nobody wanted it. Deal with it

ML's in the united states and the rest of the west live in a fantasy world where muh trade unions and muh revolution are going to get the workers the gains they need. Ludicrous. I have a whole load of sympathy for Leninism historically but its modern day practitioners are generally completely wank. Actual good ML's are rarely accepted by the general ML vibe