Daily reminder that the failure of Occupy Wall Street is inevitably the result of letting the masses "emancipate...

The lack of class consciousness, and therefore the falling quickly to identity politics, happened because there was no leadership to prevent it. People en masse are liable to fall into these traps if the correct ideas aren't presented to them instead.

A self proclaimed vanguard is not a vanguard. You're not a workers' party unless the workers are behind you, around you, and making you. A vanguard arises from the movement itself, contains its best layers, and leads the rest in an almost symbiotic relationship.

Hey, it's the other side that got triggered over words and decided to bring it up.

No. The contradictions of power within society have to be pronounced enough, thus why every Marxist circle is a college-kid cringefest.

Daily reminder that "Fuck Wall Street and the rich" is not fully developed class consciousness.
Daily reminder that OWS collapsed precisely because of lack of leadership.
Hell, there's hundreds of videos of people going around interviewing OWS protesters. Half the time they didn't even know what they were advocating, and half the time they were contradicting each other.

That sounds unrealistic. That even sounds something advocates of capitalist states would say. The people are too stupid, thus they must be controlled? How about we all go against the obstructionist bullshit that is identity politics?

More importantly, you are implying that a leadership has the power to affect the framework of class struggle.

Does this sound like idealism to anyone else?

Well, that's a shame because that was every vanguard ever (yes, even the bolsheviks, who got caught off guard by the revolution they largely positioned themselves against).

And such a vanguard failed to arise from the movement. So vanguardism failed.

fix'd

You probably think that class consciousness is spouting all the right party rhetoric, instead of, you know, the awareness that different classes have different interest and knowledge of where one stands in that conflict.

Nah, OWS collapsed because it failed to properly respond to state repression.

Vanguard members challenge each other (even conspire against each other) all the time. The fact that they follow an organizational model that forces them to lie and pretend this isn't the case doesn't sublate the contradiction, only obscures it and prevents it from ever being sublated.

No, they haven't been pronounced enough to drive people to revolt. OWS did a good job of raising awareness about capitalism's social antagonisms, but it lacked any kind of methodology to build socialism, or any theory more sophisticated than "bankers suck!"

not the guy you're replying to
Leadership is part of the framework of class struggle. No successful revolutionary movement did't have some form of leadership.

No vanguard movement arose from OWS because it never had any clear goals or demands that could be achieved with a vanguard.

Everything is part of the framework of class struggle. That says nothing. What I'm saying is, it cannot affect the framework.

Lelninist myth, again, look no further than the bolsheviks: they were the self-appointed vanguard of a revolution they never saw coming and in fact strongly argued against.

Fucking flawless.

Agreed. the difference a revolt and a rabble is leadership.

Not necessarily a specific party rhetoric, but I think exploring concrete solutions to class conflict is an inherent part of class consciousness.

In what way?

To an extent I agree. The contradictions in OWS weren't in themselves a problem, it's that they never confronted the contradictions or tried to find common ground and build a platform.

Really? Another one of these threads?

Leadership doesn't affect class struggle the same way the wind doesn't affect nature.

Source?

What I'm saying is that there has to be at least some sort of basic consensus on on issue in a movement for a vanguard to be even possible. Everyone in OWS agreed that the big corporations, banks in particular, were pursuing massive profit at the expense of the masses. But they had no concrete method of dealing with this problem. They had a vast array of competing ideologues from Marxist-Leninists to Anarcho-Primitivists to people who thought Wall Street just needed more regulation. A revolutionary movement doesn't function without at least a rudimentary set of goals to achieve.

Marxist organizations have leadership.
Why are they dogshit too? How come they never accomplish anything either?

To be fair anarchists haven't accomplished all that much either. At least Marxist movements have actually won a few revolutions.

All of this endless squabbling is just making me sad.

A few counter-revolutions you mean.
None of those implemented socialism and cracked down on it when they encountered it.

Poor analogy, but let's roll with it: if you are looking to migrate an entire population to another continent, wind won't help. You need fucking tectonic movements.

anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech512
Yes, Anarchist FAQ, it's the quickest source in english I can find right now

You are citing this as the reason they didn't have a vanguard while simultaneously claiming that the vanguard would have solved this and then made OWS win?
You have dug yourself a neat circle, comrade.

Anarchists have also won a few revolutions, Satan. And their revolutions actually resemble socialism in a meaningful manner.

Leadership can make a huge difference. This is not the same thing as saying leadership is magic.

People are often easily bought by ideology. It is not idealist to recognise that fact.

The argument seems to be "wait for the right material conditions and spontaneous people's revolution will occur". This is utopian.

That no Vanguard arose out of OWS does not mean that vanguards don't work. No socialism had arisen out of capitalism in the USA, does that mean it never will? No.

Not all movements create vanguards, but successful ones do. That is how they go on to succeed at all

tippity top kek

Comr8 pls

What were even the exact objectives of the OWS movement?

Yeah because the entire platform of the First and Second International was "dude just let the ppl figure it out" right you cunt?

It famously did not have any.

There's an incredible pathology going on with Left-wing movements today where people can destroy them by just asking "so, what do you want?" – the result is never good.

Really if you want honest perspectives on OWS by someone who was actually seriously and crucially involved in the movement from its inception, David Graeber is your best bet.
The guy has some pretty interesting things to say too.

It absolutely is utopian to conceive of all history as being removed from ideology. That ideology is itself grounded in material reality is not the same as saying it is reducible to it. Marx would be rolling in his grave that people could misunderstand historical materialism so obtusely, it is not some kind of absolutist denial of human agency.

Yep. And this is why a leadership is needed.

People don't seem to realise that when movements are horizontalists, their level sink to the level of the lowest participant.

If the rhetoric, antics and narrative of Civil Rights movement was defined not by MLK, King, Carmichael and so on but by uneducated black people from the worst regions of the country, segregation would still be alive and well. And people like King would be the first ones to say "fuck it" and desert it.

If ideas are irrelevant to the success or failure of movements then what are you even moving for, where are you moving, and what the fuck are you doing nigger

You know, you can have people who are influential and well-spoken without them also having positions of power.
I don't know why we must conflate the two.

libcom.org/library/occupy-anarchisms-gift-democracy-david-graeber
Based Graeber

Holy fuck you are retarded. An unofficial position of power is still a position of power.

One I'd based on voluntary association and merit, though. The other is not.

Isn't that exactly how one of the above posters said a vanguard should arise?

If ten people lost in the jungle chose someone with a map to lead the way you retards would call that position of power and oppose that hierarchy

Might was well quote it

Think of the fact that lelninist metaphors routinely fail because they don't make the slightest effort to find a solution that isn't what the capitalist establishment tells them it must be. That is a good reflection on the entirety of your theoretical corpus, or, indeed, your capacity to approach and solve practical problems.

...

...

You keep using that word, even though we're talking about techniques here that almost every pre-war socialist organization would agree to.

lol yep, because we want some leadership we're just mirroring the establishment, maaaaaan

Not even fucking close kid. It was our generation's May 68.

The First International was infamously destroyed by the marxist side because the International largely rejected their party approach.
For fuck's sake, you don't even know basic history.

Oh okay then, I guess that means I the argument is over?

The body of this discussion leads me to conclude that we all have very different definitions of, and understandings of the role of, "vanguards". You are arguing over each other's heads mostly. Define your terms

...

May '68 was our parents' German Revolution.
Though I agree it might have been more immediately relatable.

No, mostly just wannabe journalists on youtube

OWS failed because the only thing they accomplished was camping out and yelling loudly. Lots of people were angry, but the majority of them were liberal students who thought there problem was that the rich had too much money and not the inherent contradictions of capitalism.

In other words, zero class-consciousness.

It's been almost five years, time to move on folks. Things like OWS are doomed to fail until the masses understand that the root of the problem is the capitalist system itself.

No no, don't you see? All they needed there philosopher kings to command them what to think.

Jesus, I always suspected that you guys weren't doing any reading, but this confirms it; if you going to mock an idea at least attempt to understand it.

This. Everybody tried to sneak their shit in, drama ensued, Porky watched with glee.

(checked)
This also. As your pic mentions, idpol shit. Idiots would hijack everything with that and rambling run-on bullshit that said and conveyed nothing. But lol no guise we haf to let them haf a voice lel XDXDDD XD we r so progressiv for our gridlock. tbf there were decent college kids too

The failure of the Occupy movement can be linked directly to its idiotic premise. No other explanation is necessary. When your idea is to "occupy" the streets outside of corporate offices to somehow magically put pressure on them instead of getting laughed in your face before they go upstairs to make more money, you've gone terribly wrong.

Outside government offices is the place for protest, not Wall Street.

Talk about never giving up

The premise isn't the problem: the premise was vague anti capitalist sentiment, misdirected due to a lack of understanding. I hate to come back to an old point in this thread, but this is a problem that would have been solved had proper leadership existed in the movement; it would have been properly directed, with clear goals and revolutionary theory

ML here. OP faggot has no idea what Leninism is, and if there is some non ML that knows his shit and implies that this is ML at all, you are being deceiving and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Yes, the masses need direction, intelectual direction, not executive orders from a secret club of revolutionaries. In fact thats what the Bakuninites did.

The vanguard is not a secret club, the vanguard is us, the most concious working class people, willing to sacrifice and to lead.

Finally someone who understands what the vanguard is.

People like us

I'm not an anarchist but I will say that anarchists are certainly correct about Marxism. With that said, National-Syndicalism is our best bet going into the future.

It failed because the people involved were stupid enough to believe that society's owners/rulers would just surrender their power because they were asked to.

Bring guns next time, retards. And "occupy" the capitol building, instead of sitting in a park and playing drums.

This. I can remember news footage of goldman-sachs employees standing around in their business suits, openly laughing at the protesters, as they chatted away on their cell phones. OWS was a joke to them.

>If I claim really really hard that my Great Leaders of Virtue and Wisdom are not philosopher kings in everything but name, it will magically become true :')

Like this shit. Why are we under the assumption that we and only have theory and agitation if it is forced down upon us through a hierarchy?
Can those who are charismatic and well-spoken not propagate their theory freely and the masses choose to follow it voluntarily if they want?

Why do Marxists regard the masses as an unwashed herd that must be subjugated?

Daily reminder that OWS failed because of CIA/COINTELPRO and the identitarian psyop.

Occupy failed because of classic cointelpro tactics from the government and idpol failures coming in and crying about all the evil white men instead of wall street and bank bailouts.

...

FBI infiltrated Black Bloc and instigated violence in the camps.

Finally, someone gets the right answer. The Big Tent approach that saw every complaint against Wall Street bankers allowed the entire thing to become a directionless mess. Anarkiddies protested along with Ron Paul libertarians and feminists spouting irrelevant gender theory. Together, it all became sound and fury signifying nothing. It needed a coherant aim that it never established.

Keep in mind though that when people are critiquing vanguardism that they aren't critiquing intellectual guidance, but rather the democratic centralist model.

One would hope that were the case, anyway. You never really know around here.

One is a strawman that only exists within the heads of Marxists because they cannot imagine that good ideas will spread themselves if they're not given as orders.

...

Meh, their critiques of Marxism have just made me more sympathetic to anarchists, even if I don't agree with anarchism myself.

Why are you under the impression that leadership necessitates force and subjugation? Leadership that arises voluntarily from the masses is exactly the kind of leadership we're talking about here

Doesn't seem like it tbh, occupy wall-street already had plenty of room for that.
What you want is a structure that dictates who gets to speak and when.
That's different.

Hierarchy isn't necessary. You can have leardership without rulership. Stalinists don't know the difference, but I'd expect any intelligent anarchist to know. Quit being a stupid faggot.

Yeah OWS did have plenty of room for it, and yet it didn't arise. If it had arisen, things would have been different

Helping that leadership to arise is what will make revolutionary mood into actual revolution. We do this by building an educated and organized movement of people engaged in class struggle who can rise to those leadership roles naturally when the right time comes, in the right place.

This is the concept of a vanguard party.

Soooo…
How is that not hierarchy? How is that spontaneous and voluntary if it does not rise on its own?

Are you drunk?

How has it not risen on its own? Are you saying that only ideas generated by OWS should be engaged in OWS? What do you even understand by the idea of being part of a movement?

...

…no. Some features of the modern capitalist state can be performed by a body which is not a state.

No. I'm saying, why should we have a structure of hierarchy that determines who gets to speak, rather than just have people speak their mind and then have others agree with and propagate such ideas if they like them?

Ok, I've spent a lot of time in both anarchist and Marxist IRL groups, and I've got to tell you: for all the anarchist braying about avoiding hierarchy, their refusal to implement structures of leadership actually leads to the worst hierarchical structures forming. They are unwritten, unchallenged leaders, leaders by virtue of having a monopoly on information, the most pals, or the loudest voice. They are often SJW idiots. Leaders always exist. Without a formal structure for leadership, its undemocratic. The worst crust of hierarchy I've ever seen are in places that refuse to acknowledge the necessary reality of hierarchy, and thus plan structures for its democratization.

Kek

As I say to anarkids, it's still a state.

In capitalism, if a corporation does like a stage, it is a state.

+1

Well you can choose to call it a state if you like, but you're the one being flagrant with definitions. Historically, except only in recent history, the state hasn't engaged in any of the distributive or administrational roles that communists generally perceive a governing body to be required to perform under socialism. Those features of the modern state are not integral to its state-dom, and could be performed by something that is not a state, and thus doesn't perform all the other roles that are integral to what makes a state a state

Bamp

But that's the point.
It doesn't do like a state.

There are factories in socialism and factories in capitalism.
Does that mean that socialism is capitalism?

Right? Its 2016!

… You have no idea what a state does, do you?
It did it during feualism. Antiquity. Capitalism. Hell.. That's the role of the fucking state!!!!

And if MicroCorp has it's own laws, cannot be touched by "the state" and has it's own private police/army IT IS A STATE!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)

It may have laws like a state, enforce them like a state, make diplomacy like a state, but don't let that fool you. It realy is a state!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

Bump

…do you know what a state is?

The state in feudalism did not provide public services, organize distribution, have a police force of any kind, or even engage in much tax collection. The state was simply the sovereign body (the monarch) that people understood themselves as in bondage to. Its roles were not the roles that socialists want from a state-like body in socialism. Then, as today, the state serves to act as a tool by which one class dominates the others, usually via a monopoly of legitmate violence. This is its defining role, as it is the only role it has ever always played. In a classless society, there is no state by definition.

where did all the anarchist go? Holla Forums is a tankie shithole. Are all the anarchists just out doing stuff irl?

They're still here.
Marxists just get triggered really easily.

… do you know what feudalism is?

Are you claiming all that was true of even most feudal societies, because if you are I call bullshit.

Wut?
WUT???

…

WHAT HAVE THE ROMANS EVER DONE FOR US?
youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

The state, since the begining of Civilization, was about how to organize society.

If a corporation becomes a society in itself, it's a state.
If a group of anarkids, decide how to organize the larger group, (even if everyone has a say, the best demagoges thinkers will have more value), it's a STATE!

Sorry, but it is.

The Roman state was not the feudal state, firstly.

Secondly, no; neither the Roman nor feudal state provided public services in the way we conceive of the role of the state today. The Roman state had more involvement than most feudal statedoms in economic affairs, and had a police force of some kind (a civil militia) but still operated in characteristically different ways to the modern nation-state. Read Engels, origin of the family, private property, and the state for more on this question comrades.

Having seen reddit "anarchists", I will concede that you have a point.

Then what is maintenence of armies for the protection of the population from raids?

Yes, I see what you say, but the bases of a state has existed thoughout history.
Now, if you want the Nation-State, yes it is completely different than, say, the City-State.
Just like the Copropration-State will be different from the Nation-State.

And like the "Commune-State" will "not be a state".

:^)

Medieval lords didn't have the economic capacity to maintain standing armies. The English king for example, in effect "the state," had to maintain his entire government of what wealth could be extracted from his own lands. Alfred the Great could only afford to maintain six ships and a few hundred personal bodyguards, but aside from this small force the "army" of Wessex was whatever levy was at hand when invaders struck or they relied on the walled burghs for protection. Beyond that they were on their own.

And if anything, what armies there were were certainly not there to protect the peasants, at least not as some sort of service. In many parts of Europe they were property themselves tied to the land they worked and raided as often as not by "their" side as anyone elses.

What was the population of England, France, etc back then in the 7th-9th centuries? How large were armies, really?

After the Severans, Rome was looking pretty feudal, and by the time the Constantinian Dynasty collapsed they absolutely fit the Marxist definition of feudalism. Between the Antonine Constitution and the reforms of Diocletian, the empire had become more an association of lords than a cohesive state.

I don't know about England or France (insofar as they existed at the time), but by the 12th century the Byzantine Empire had a population of about ten million people and was the richest realm in Christendom. They were able to field an army for short campaigns of about 20-40k men.

Back in the ninth century, the "Great Heathen Army" that invaded England was probably in the neighborhood of 6-10 thousand, but it really depends on who and what is counting. Migratory peoples in the medieval period often traveled with women and children along with the "army" since they were planning on settling whenever and wherever they finished fighting.

But why some states did keep small professional forces on the pay roll, the general rule was that fighting was part-time employment given either out of duty to one's liege or as or in lieu of tax, ie. peasants giving so many weeks of labor or military service per year to the king or duke or whatever.

You have some really big armies where the Mongols and Muslims are concerned, sometimes in the neighborhood of 100k, but these tend to be coalitions drawn up from various places in their respective empires.

That is not what a state is, despite what Louis XIV may have thought.

They would be damned fools if they didn't try. Peasants were the primary source of income, and labor was not always in abundance.

Yes, ok. This doesn't refute my point on State.
The army was there to protect the king, sure, but an authoritarian state, is still a state.

The point is not "wether or not the armies were to provide service to the people". Sure they weren't. Unless the "people" were inside the castle AKA bourgies and nobles.

The point is, that states have existed since the begining of Civilization.

And even if you don't call it a state, as long as it is a community and it is seperated by other communities, it is a state.

And that is how a corporation can become (if not already) a state.

When it comes to Anarchism, if it's not global, it's a state.

Well, labor was in abundance, but then Rome fell, and people forgot how to sanitation and then the plague came, and this is how the rich had to reconsider the poor's living conditions.

And this is why Warhammer Fantasy is better than 40K. BRETTONIA!

I've done the same as a uni student. Anarchists did 'consensus' process which worked pretty well. It was Marxists who were worse, but both groups were plagued by such little problems.

Let's be real, both sides get triggered easily.
(Marxist here)

When and where? Abundances of labor were always temporary conditions.

The Mediterranean had been getting waves of devastating plagues since the Antonine Plague (likely smallpox) in A.D. 165 killed five or so million people. The entire "barbarization" of Rome was just Roman landowners anxiously coaxing every germanic tribe on the wrong side of the Danube or the Rhine that they could to join the empire and work the farms.

Yes. But they were present during early middle ages. Because Pax Romana before.

Sure.
You can go as far as Peloponnesian war.
And the eastern empire had it during Justinian. And guess what.. They had to make social reforms because of it!
Like after the black plague in western europa.

If it wasn't for that, we would have .. .. warhammer fantasy, bretonia.

The thread seems to have devolved into a generalized dispute over terminology, historical theory and so on, so I'll go straight to the point

The failure of OWS reads to me (as a completely far away onlooker, if you doubt how far I am, check out where Uruguay is on the map to see how far out I am) as something similar to the 1848 revolutions

They are both a failure and a success, for they are the harbinger of progress. But in order for lasting progress to be made, there must be organization

Those who don't want organization, should as well continue disorganized and just stop flailing their arms altogether and leave the conversation

Those who want to organize, should pick a bunch of delegates, arrange a meeting and have them pick the points of a program

At least that's what the Uruguayan left did after decades of disorganization and anarchy

Well… Syriza tried that.
Didn't work out that well.

Then again, it took too much SocDem in it…

I don't get it, what would you prefer?

Complete inaction and watching the right just rule the world forever while everyone languishes

Or some degree of action, no matter how little that progresses things slowly, even if a little, towards a better future or at least towards a revolution out of it?

Yes, to the point that the empire itself became feudal. The Antonine Constitution signified the end of the old mode of production.

SocDems will fuck your shit up every time.

Sure, if by civilization you mean agricultural class society. The state was s structure born out of necessity by class society, and will dissolve when class does. If the individuals that make up the organizing body of a society are one and the same as the civilians, then there is no distinction between state and society, thus no state - in the sense in which all other states have existed.

Bump

daily reminder that OWS failed due to lack of class consciousness and idpol.

Daily reminder that OWS was shit and will always be shit.

College liberals who have no experience, no knowledge and no firearms amount to jackshit.

this. everyone need's more militancy in general.

I don't get it, why is socialdemocracy bad?
And by socdem I don't mean the 'modern' liberal one, I mean traditional semi-marxist compliant socialdemocracy

Does it have to be compliant with revolutionary struggle always or be bound to fail?

Aren't socialists supposed to push the state to the brink and then launch a revolution once the state is at its last ropes through reform? Or did I get the idea wrong?

Read Luxembourg, Reform or Revolution comrade

Social Democracy does nothing but temporarily patch some of the contradictions built into capitalism. It is unsustainable and, like other forms of capitalism, requires an impoverished periphery to feed it with resources.

Will read throughly when am back home

Isn't the role of marxism to try to implement reform until the system becomes unsustainable and revolution is necessary? Or am I failing the subject

Mind you, all my 'instruction' is taken from wikipedia for the best part

...

>>>/fringe/

No, marxists aim to change conditions in order to facilitate revolution. It follows the concept that quantitative changes ultimately produce qualitative changes. They do attempt to enact reforms, but those reforms are material in nature. They involve things like the elimination of absentee ownership and collective ownership of critical resources. SocDem reforms are immaterial in nature. They involve things like declarations of rights and bureaucratic regulation.

The marxist criticism of Social Democracy is that it functions like an asprin–it masks the pain and ignores the injury. SocDems defend their position by pointing out that their changes produce immediately recognizable results.

Wouldn't things like letting people have militias and bear arms the way it happens in the USA pave the way towards a revolution?

I am citing the Erfurt Program here

American already can carry guns and form militias, and it accomplishes nothing. While an armed proletariat is necessary for revolution, it is important to consider how that might be effectively accomplished. The "right" to bear arms is just a muh privilege granted by the current state.

youtube.com/watch?v=9i-DWOcbwrY

You can't compromise with capitalism. Even if you slow the rate at which the bourgeoisie accumulate capital, they're still going to accumulate capital which will eventually undo the whole thing.

Just to add to this point:

I think the mistake that anarchists make is to assume some situation of absolute natural equality between humans. It forgets that hierarchy can still exist even if it not formalized. They have forgotten what the school playground looks like. Rather than create power imbalances, properly socialist formalized hierarchical structures allow for proper rules, understood by all and accessible to all, to challenge leadership and vie for leadership.