Check out American Leftist for an excellent roundup (and commentary) on recent events relating to Occupy Oakland. I won't weigh in specifically on anything that's going on there, simply because I don't know enough about the situation on the ground there. I would, however, like to make a rather general argument about the occupy movement as a whole and what it needs to do push the struggle to the next level.
First, all eyes were on Oakland because of the size of the protests, the numbers of people drawn into the movement, and the explicit call for a general strike. As countless commentators have reminded us, the last gen strike in the US was in Oakland in 1946. We've clearly entered a new era of class struggle not seen in a generation or more. Class struggle, on order to be such, has to draw large numbers of working people into a fight against some segment of (or, better, against the entire) ruling class.
Likewise, OWS was able to defend itself from Bloomberg's bid to destroy it because it mobilized huge masses of people, many of them union workers, to defend Zuccotti Park in its moment of need.
Succinctly put, the most exciting thing about the entire occupy movement is that it is --quite explicitly-- about drawing the whole 99% into the fight against the 1%. It's primary strength is that it is a mass movement against a political and economic system of, by, and for the 1%.
It goes without saying that this is an exciting time to be on the Left (and I mean the real Left, i.e. the anti-capitalist Left). Finally, a movement has broken through and challenged the legitimacy of the system through direct actions of various sorts, unpermitted protests and marches, occupations of public space, and now strikes and labor actions.
Still, countless challenges and obstacles remain. How, for example, can the continued occupation of a public space help us to win the changes we're fighting for? And, in cities where the authorities have physically prevented an encampment from taking hold, to what extent is it important to continue trying to occupy a public space on the model of OWS? Or, if occupations are meant to be a spring board for growing mass demonstrations (and, potentially, even mass strikes), how do we get from here to there? Finally, how do we build successful general strikes that have the potential to shut down entire cities? These are not easy questions to answer.
However, in a context where newly radicalized people have had their expectations about what's possible raised astronomically, there are bound to be folks who think that must be easy answers to these questions. There are bound to be folks whose legitimate excitement is driving them toward a position of impatience. This is understandable. All of us surely feel this way to some extent or other. I can say, for one, that this movement has electrified me politically in a way that no other movement has.
Nonetheless, I think we need to focus on how we got where we are in order to see where we need to go. As I described above, we didn't get where we are by way of small-scale provocations attempted by folks who feel that they can, through sheer will-power, force the movement into a more radical direction. That is, we didn't get here by way of voluntarism. Voluntarism is a politics that takes it to be possible for a small group, or even an individual, to more or less will a large-scale social change into existence through clever actions or provocations.
The trouble with voluntarism isn't that the individuals attracted to it lack motivation, political energy, or enthusiasm for changing the world. They have all of that and more --and that is not what I aim to criticize. The trouble with voluntarism is that it presupposes a perspective on social change that is problematic. As I described above, progressive social change happens when masses of people --in open defiance of the powers that be-- pour out onto the streets, occupy parks and factory, blockade capital flow, etc. In short --it happens because of some accumulation of people power that has the potential to threaten the powers that be. The 1% in Chicago, for example, isn't afraid that a small group of activists might roam the city performing street theater, banner drops, or other spontaneous or unpredictable actions. The 1% in Chicago is afraid of a mass movement drawing tens of thousands of working class people into the streets to oppose its continued dominance. That is why Rahm cleared out Grant Park by force and arrested hundreds of protesters.
But, and I'm speaking exclusively about the movement in Chicago at the moment, I think some occupiers have drawn the conclusion that because mass actions aimed at occupying Grant Park were met with police repression, they were failures. Because those actions didn't successfully "take the horse", some are now beginning to wonder whether mass movements are actually the way to change things. Understandably, this has led some to veer toward voluntarism, wherein the way forward involves pulling off unpredictable, small-scale and spontaneous actions (rather than public, mass actions drawing in as many participants as possible). In other words, this sense that we were defeated has led some to lower their expectations about what is possible. I think that perspective is understandable, but it should be re-thought. We have no reason, given what's happening all over the world right now, to doubt that a mass movement is both possible and worth fighting for.
I think we have good reason to be excited about the two failed attempts to take Grant Park. Those attempts weren't unqualified failures at all --both actions drew out more than 5,000 people to march, without a permit, through the heart of Chicago's financial district. Both actions won the movement international attention and coverage. And both actions, where over 300 people were arrested in defiance of the police order to clear the park, have elevated sympathy for movement among ordinary Chicagoans. A crew of nurses got arrested in defiance of the City's hard-line refusal to grant OC a space. A poll after the second attempt to camp at Grant Park revealed that 79% of Chicagoans stood in support of the movement, with only 8% opposed. Those actions were not failures. We should not lower our expectations in their wake --we should collectively assess them so that we can learn from their mistakes.
But why didn't those actions succeed in winning Occupy Chicago an encampment? It's hard to say exactly. For one, we would have needed more people there to actually force the cops to back down from mass arrests. The second attempt to take the horse was voted on 4 days before it went down --and as of the Friday before the action there was still no official flyer, no official Facebook group, no organized publicity or outreach. And nonetheless 6,000 people turned out. It could have been much bigger if we'd have had more time to consciously build the event by handing out leaflets at subway stations, making posters and flyers, etc. One lesson we should learn from the second attempt to take the horse is that the more time we get to build an event the bigger it has the potential to be.
We need the movement to be big if its going to succeed. OWS didn't hold Zuccotti Park because it was the perfect strategic location in all of Manhattan. It held the park because a hundred thousand people turned out to defend it. The cops, and the powerful billionaire mayor who called on them to attack OWS, were forced to back down by the sheer numbers of people who turned out to defend it. That is our fundamental strength as a movement of, by, and for the 99%: we are the vast majority of society!
So, whatever we decide to do to take this movement to the next level, it has to take stock of this fundamental fact: our strength is in numbers. If some folks want to organize small-scale, spontaneous actions meant to raise awareness and critical consciousness, they should go for it. If some want to do banner drops, small-scale bank protests, street theater, public guerrilla art projects, etc. etc. they should be cheered on for their enthusiasm and fighting spirit. But we also have to be clear: these actions are only worthwhile if they encourage more people to join and participate in the movement as a whole. Any action meant to substitute itself for a mass movement is a step in the wrong direction. Any action that discourages mass participation, is a waste of precious time and energy. Any action that isn't building toward the kind of mass 99%-strong occupy movement we all need is counter-productive.
We can't let discouragement or impatience get in the way of fighting for the kind of movement we need. Voluntarism is tempting, but revolutionary patience is what we need. Not passivity, not complacency, not conservatism. Just a sober, patient perspective that enables us to see that building this movement will not be easy. I'm not suggesting that we set aside our sense of urgency. On the contrary, I think we have to be patient in order to think through and discuss precisely how we can convert all of the excitement, energy, and urgency into a victory for our side!
Neither I am saying that we must "work within the system" or ask for modest demands. On the contrary, I am suggesting that we need to think through how to build this movement as big as possible so that it has the power and militancy to challenge the foundations of the system itself.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Voluntarist Currents in the Occupy Movement
Saturday, October 22, 2011
What is a General Strike?
What is a general strike?
A general strike is when a large number of coordinated workers in different industries (in a locality or in an entire country) all stop working at the same time. When workers stop doing their jobs, the system grinds to a halt. The goals of general strikes have been different in different times and places, but they are always aimed at forcing powerful groups (bosses, employers and their friends in government) to bend to the will of the working majority. Goals of past general strikes have included: recognition of collective bargaining rights, better wages and conditions, increased political power for the working majority, and the overthrow of capitalism (i.e. and end to the private ownership of the means of production by a small elite).
Could a general strike happen in the United States?
It already has happened here! General strikes --and struggles of all kinds against oppression and exploitation-- are a huge part of the history and heritage of the United States. Though we're not taught it in school, there have been several big general strikes in US history: 1877 Great Railroad Strike, 1877 St. Louis General Strike, 1892 New Orleans General Strike, Seattle 1919, The Great Textile Strike of 1934, 1934 Minneapolis Teamsters Strike, Toledo 1934, 1934 San Francisco General Strike and the 1946 Oakland General Strike. You'll notice from a quick glance at these dates that there was an explosion of labor militancy during the 1930s. This period of increased struggle put the fear of God in the 1% who worried that they might lose power. Thus, after WWII the U.S. ruling class clamped down hard on working class militancy through a campaign of red-baiting, purges, criminalization of strike action, union-busting, and outright repression. The 1% would use the same tactics to crush the Black Power movement. By the end of the 1960s, workers wages stagnated and declined for the first time since the 1820s. Thus began a long one-sided class war from above against the working majority. Wages are still stagnant today while unemployment levels soar toward historic highs (16.5%). Unsurprisingly, in this context the question of a general strike is back on the agenda and has re-entered the discourse as a feasible option.
What role does the general strike play internationally?
There are many countries in the world where general strikes are occurring or being planned as we speak. In Western Europe, the general strike is a key tactic of the working class in fighting back against cuts and austerity. The May '68 movement culminated in a general strike that involved over 10 million workers stopping work all at the same time. General strikes were a part of the Portuguese and Iranian Revolutions during the 1970s. General strikes were used by workers in Poland in the early 80s against the Stalinist regime that exploited them. General strikes played a key role in ousting Mubarak in the Egyptian Revolution --and the key to the success of the revolution lies in the capacity of workers to shut the system down. Occupy activists in the U.S. are (self-consciously) part of a global movement. We need to take a look at what our sisters and brothers in the global 99% are doing right now to fight back against their respective ruling classes --and that means taking the idea of a general strike seriously.
What could a general strike do for the occupy movement in the US?
The occupy movement is a global phenomenon that has electrified millions of people in the 99% all around the world. People said it couldn't happen here in the US --but it is. People are determined to fight back against cuts, austerity, layoffs, and war. They stand together against a system that places the profits of the 1% above the needs and interests of the vast majority. The occupy movement stands for genuine democracy from below --it stands for empowering the 99% to take control of society and run it in the interests of the majority. But how do we get from here to there? The occupation of public spaces --where free debate and grassroots democracy can flourish-- are key part of the struggle. But we also need to think about how to leverage the promise of occupied parks and public spaces to take the struggle to the next level. Workers' central role in economic production gives them an unparalleled social power--by use of the strike weapon--to paralyze the system like no other social force. The next logical step for the occupy movement is to consider using strike action --co-ordinated work stoppages by ordinary working people of the 99%-- to force the 1% to take us seriously. The 1% is banking on the fact that this is going to be a cold winter. The last thing they want is for us to actively disrupt the profit system that forms the basis of their power. A general strike can do just that --because the 1% does not pick up their own trash, nor do they pilot their own private jets. They need us to co-operate in order to maintain their dominance. A general strike sends a clear message: we will no longer co-operate and toil for a system that oppresses us.
Is a "colorblind" general strike movement possible?
Absolutely not. We need to be clear here: colorblindness, the view that race is "divisive" and undermines the unity of the movement, is a form of racism itself. Colorblindness, by definition, is blind to the reality of racial oppression and therefore plays a role in reproducing it. What's more, the idea that anti-racism is "divisive" is music to the ears of the 1%. They can divide a movement with racists in it --but they can't divide a movement that stands together against all forms of oppression. The last thing that the 1% wants is a movement of, by and for the entire 99% that stands firmly and uncompromisingly against racism. Furthermore, a successful general strike depends upon dense networks of solidarity. But solidarity cannot be built on a foundation of sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia or oppression. Solidarity is only possible when all workers fight together and promise to stand up for one another in accordance with the principle that an injury to one is an injury to all. One final thought. We sometimes encounter a caricatured version of the working class in the US according to which it is nothing but brawny, white men. That is false. Today, the majority of the working class in the US is women. The working class is disproportionately people of color. The working class is every bit as diverse and different as this movement needs to be if it going to stand together and win. Our sisters and brothers of color are being forced to endure this recession in a particularly acute way. As Malik --the co-founder of Occupy the Hood-- puts it: "when white people get a cold, black people get the flu". The entire 99% is hurting bad --but the pain of people of color as a group is particularly intense. We need to stand together for the good of all of the 99%. The potential for the Occupy movement to unite and assuage the social and economic misery of whole 99%--and especially of those who face special oppression-- is unprecedented. The time to get involved is now. This is what Fred Hampton was talking about back in 1969. Power to the people!
If we're for a general strike, what can we do to build it?
General strikes are not easy to pull off --they take countless hours of hard, unglamorous organizing work. But tireless organizing for the betterment of humanity is what the occupy movement is all about. So we can do this. What's the first step? There is no ready-made rulebook for how to proceed, but there are several things that we can do to encourage escalation via strike action. First off, general strikes don't spontaneously materialize because someone puts out a call for one. Putting mass strikes together requires that we work with the labor movement. This requires establishing relationships of solidarity between the movement and labor unions --particularly those unions who are under attack and have the strongest incentives to get involved in the movement. Right now transit workers and teachers are being scapegoated, attacked, punished and threatened with layoffs. Postal workers are facing mass layoffs. These facts should help orient those establishing links between the movement and organized labor. The key is to establish links with the rank and file workers of unions in order to make the argument for escalation via strike action. If the rank and file workers themselves are ready to push the struggle forward, their leaders will have no choice but to follow their lead. Solidarity --and the involvement of the labor movement-- is what stopped Bloomberg from destroying OWS. We need to learn from that experience and build on it. But we can also do other things --besides working directly with the labor movement-- to get the idea of a general strike out into public discourse: we can start discussions about general strikes (e.g. what they are, why they're important) in all kinds of social spheres --in workplaces, schools, streets, churches, neighborhoods, on buses and trains, in union halls, listservs, social media, homes, General Assemblies, committee meetings, etc. If you're moved by what you've read here, pass the world along and make the argument that working people have a potential social power like no other --to withhold their labor and force the rich and powerful 1% to take note. Only when we learn about our own history --and our own power-- can we have the constructive collective discussions that grease the axles of workers struggle. Publicize, talk about it, make fliers, post about it on Facebook, tweet that you're for a gen strike, join a revolutionary socialist organization, talk to ordinary people on the street. Don't wait --the time is now!
Is the general strike a "silver bullet"?
Hardly. We can expect a general strike to meet with the same state violence and repression that the Occupy movement has met with thus far. But our strength is in numbers --and in our capacity to shut the system down by withholding our labor. We should be careful not to romanticize the mass strike and make it sound like its the answer to all of our problems. It's not. But it is the next logical step in the progression of our movement. We --the 99%-- have enormous power when we stop doing what the system requires of us. We make this system run, we do the work in this society. It is our right to protest and occupy public spaces to begin the discussion about a new kind of society. But is also our right to withhold our labor and grind the system --which we know serves the needs and interests of the 1%-- to a halt. The ruling class can't ignore us when we stop doing the work that makes their position of dominance possible. A mass strike is a serious weapon in the tactical toolbox of the 99%. We must start talking about using it. Less abstractly: we must start talking about how one could be built in the here and now. We should consider learning from our sisters and brothers that inspired the world by fomenting the Arab Spring. We have a world to win!
