The significance of the Occupy Wall Street movement
A movement inspired by the Arab spring
The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement started on 17
September, when thousands of mostly young people moved into Zuccotti Park on
Wall Street, New York, to protest against the deteriorating conditions of
existence that are being forced on the masses of American people as a result of
the world economic crisis. Subsequently they have been joined by working class
people from all walks of life – retirees, immigrants, the unemployed and
workers of all ages and colours. Modelling themselves on the protests of the
Arab spring, a great many of the demonstrators are intending to remain camped
out on the street until their demands are met.
The protesters are admirably organised for the
purpose of providing themselves with food and shelter, and one of the greatest
strengths of the occupation is that it is a forum for the dissemination of
valuable information as to the cause of the crisis and as to the way forward,
and to heated debate that focuses people’s minds on political and economic
theory, enabling them to raise considerably their political consciousness.
Michael Moore, the maker of excellent anti-capitalist films, visits frequently,
exposing the iniquities of the capitalist system. In supporting the “Struggle
of the popular 99% against the elite 1%,” Michael Moore says that data in
Forbes and PolitiFact show that the 400 richest Americans have more money than
the poorest 150 million other US citizens put together. 15% of the population
are poor, 9% are unemployed and 50 million have no medical insurance. Yet from
tax raised from US tax payers $700 billion has gone to rescuing the banks,
while the poor are rendered poorer still.
A struggle
against capitalism?
In common with the Arab Spring protesters, however,
there was and is no clear consensus as to what demands must be met before the
protest is lifted. In Egypt and Tunisia it became a question of the removal of
the corrupt and fascistic presidents, puppets of imperialism, who were
perceived as being responsible for the hardships that the people were suffering
as a result of the mounting prices of food and the alarming levels of
unemployment, especially among the young. With the removal in due course of
these presidents, Egypt and Tunisia became somewhat more democratic and are
looking forward to freer elections than in the past, but the problems of hunger
and unemployment which were the real motive cause of the uprisings remain
unresolved. The uprisings removed the monkeys from office but the organ
grinder – international imperialism – escaped largely unscathed – for the time
being. Indeed, it used the distraction provided by the general confusion to
take steps towards the physical occupation of Africa with its war to overthrow
the Libyan regime so that, besides engorging itself on Libyan oil, it could
create for itself a base from which it can move in on both Egypt and Tunisia as
the masses seek to take their revolution further.
But now at last the masses in the imperialist
countries themselves, weighed down not only by the crisis itself but also by
the cost of the wars imperialism has been waging to maintain its right to
plunder the world, are beginning to feel the need to fight back. The uprisings
in Tottenham and other parts of London and England in August were a first spark
– brutally extinguished through the imposition of heavy prison sentences on any
participants who were caught, followed up by evictions of their families from
public housing. But the anger of the masses cannot be contained, and the
occupations which began in Wall Street rapidly spread to over 1,000 other
cities in the US and to some 80 other countries.
What is particularly impressive about these
protests is that they are clearly aware that the problem is capitalism. They
are in fact anti-capitalist protests. Slogans include
“A democratic country, not a corporate kingdom”,
“Wall Street is our street” ,“Power to the people, not to the banks”. Haitian
expats crossed the Brooklyn bridge calling “occupy Wall Street, not Haiti”, blaming finance capital for Haiti’s decades of destitution and misery, as well as the
hardships now being imposed on the people of the US. “Make Wall Street Pay For
the Crisis, NOT Working People! STOP THE CUTS AND CONCESSIONS, NOW!”,
“Nationalize the Banks!” or “Repossess the $2.2 Trillion in the Wall Street
Coffers to Fund a Public Works Program to Put 27 Million People Back to Work!”
By and large, the capitalist system has been
correctly identified as the enemy. The protesters also associate capitalism
and war, and are calling for an end to the various military adventures of US imperialism – in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. As the Korean Central News Association (KCNA) put
it on 17 October: “The Occupy Wall St movement was an eruption of
the exploited classes’ pent-up wrath at the exploiters. It was also an
expression of the will to remove the stronghold of capitalism as a whole which
brings only exploitation, oppression, unemployment and poverty to the popular
masses.” And quite correctly, KCNA offered the advice that “The Western
countries can never get rid of the vicious cycle of crisis with any means as
long as the capitalist market economy is left intact.”
What is to
replace capitalism?
Here KCNA touched on the fundamental weakness of
the OWS movement. Yes, it is excellent that it is anti-capitalist. However,
it has as yet no clear vision of what the alternative to capitalism is, much
less what needs to be done in practice to put that alternative in place. The
ONLY viable alternative to capitalism is socialism – in the sense that this is
understood by communists – which is generally called communism by ordinary
people. Yet in the US, the hatred and fear of communism that has been spread
among even the oppressed masses by the propaganda machine of the exploiters
against whom the people are demonstrating is so great that there is huge
reluctance, even among communists(!), to mention the ‘c’ word – communism – the
spectre haunting nowadays not only Europe, but also America, to say nothing of
the rest of the world.
The protesters can only succeed in their aim of
securing for the masses of the people the right to work, the right to a decent
standard of living, as well as to healthcare and education – which should be
the birthright of every person – if they acquire the understanding that to
achieve this aim the proletariat needs to seize from the imperialists and
lesser capitalists all the means of production in order to deploy them, under
the direction of a planning commission, to producing directly to meet the needs
of the masses – material, intellectual and spiritual. On top of that they need
to understand that they will be entirely unable to do this without arousing the
frenzied fury of the rich and powerful who will deploy every means at their
considerable disposal to prevent them achieving this goal, and to snatch it
away if they do achieve it. They only have to see the fate that has befallen
Gaddafi and the entire Libyan people for trying to stand up to imperialism –
without even wanting to overthrow capitalism – to understand what a vicious,
powerful and dangerous enemy they face. And that understanding must also lead
them to the knowledge that the proletariat can only succeed in its aims with
the highest level of organisation and a leadership of seasoned and experienced
cadres to act as the general staff of the proletarian masses in their historic
mission of overthrowing and eliminating the bourgeoisie and the capitalist
system of production. That general staff can only be provided by a genuine
communist party, and the masses will have to face the task of distinguishing
the genuine article from the abundance of fakes that are on offer.
Consciousness
raising
One thing that is extremely important is that
genuine communists should be clearly seen to be offering their guidance, as
communists, to the movement, for if communists in the hope of being more
acceptable to prejudiced minds fail to make clear what they stand for, then the
masses will be given no opportunity at all to learn what they need to know in
order to be able effectively to defend their interests. As Marx famously said,
“The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon,
material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a
material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.” (‘A contribution to
the critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right, 1844). For the verbal criticisms
of capitalism made by the protesters to be replaced by the force needed to
overthrow capitalism (“the criticism of the weapon”), it is
essential that theory, i.e., understanding, be “gripped by the masses” –
which it turn requires that theory to be put before them by communists. The
prejudices fostered by the all-pervasive culture of the oppressors will not
easily be overcome. It can be expected that the masses will resist being
gripped by an ideology which is unfamiliar to them and therefore seems alien.
But gradually, as they become used to communist ideas, the masses will be won
over as experience teaches them that what seemed so outlandish when they first
heard of it in fact represents the only possible way forward.
Communists also have a great deal of work to do in
countering the million and one ways in which the bourgeoisie tries to divert the
movement.
Blind
alleys on offer
Finian Cunningham of Global Research, who certainly
endorses the view that “It is the entire system of finance capitalism that
needs to be challenged” (although we would prefer to say “overthrown”)
has quite rightly said that the movement “runs the risk of running out of
the admirable popular momentum that it has thus far generated…[creating a
vacuum which] allows others who do not share the ultimate concerns of the
grassroots to define the direction of the movement – a direction that most
likely will lead to a safe, blind alley” (‘Occupy Wall Street: Populist
Financiers Supporting Protesters Is Part of the Problem, Not the Solution’, 17
October 2011).
Michel Chossudovsky, also of Global Research, has
written of the vast experience of the CIA, and other US agencies devoted to
promoting the interests of imperialism, have in creating and fostering ‘safe’
opponents of the system – mainly in foreign countries, but the principles are
no doubt just as applicable to dissent in the belly of the beast:
“Historically, progressive social movements have
been infiltrated, their leaders co-opted and manipulated, through the corporate
funding of non-governmental organizations, trade unions and political
parties. The ultimate purpose of ‘funding dissent’ is to prevent the
protest movement from challenging the legitimacy of the economic elites …
“…The elites will promote a ‘ritual of
dissent’ with a high media profile, with the support of network TV, the
corporate news as well as the internet. …
“In Egypt’s ‘Arab Spring’ the main civil society
organizations including Kifaya (Enough) and The April 6 Youth Movement
were not only supported by US based foundations, they also had the
endorsement of the US State Department. …
“In a bitter irony, Washington supported
the Mubarak dictatorship, including its atrocities, while also backing and
financing its detractors,… Under the auspices of Freedom House, Egyptian
dissidents and opponents of Hosni Mubarak … were received in May 2008 by
Condoleezza Rice … and White House National Security Adviser Stephen
Hadley.” (‘Occupy Wall Street and “The American Autumn”: Is It a
“Colored Revolution”?’ Part I, 13 October 2011).
In these circumstances, it is not as surprising as
would otherwise appear that the Wall Street protesters are receiving the
support of many of the so-called great and good. These include:
Al Gore,
former Vice President of the United States, quoted as saying: “…[O]ur
leaders have pursued solutions that are not solving our problems, instead they
propose policies that accomplish little … With democracy in crisis a true
grassroots movement pointing out the flaws in our system is the first step in
the right direction. Count me among those supporting and cheering on the Occupy Wall Street movement”;
Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
quoted as saying: “They [the Occupy Wall Street Movement] blame, with
some justification, the problems in the financial sector for getting us into
this mess, and they’re dissatisfied with the policy response here in
Washington. And at some level, I can’t blame them” .
Warren Buffett, the third richest man in the world, quoted as saying: “There has
been class warfare going on,… It’s just that my class is winning. And my class
isn’t just winning, I mean we’re killing them”.
The biggest donor to OWS, according to the Telegraph of 19 October, is Robert Halper, a
former oil futures trader who used to earn some $15 million a year, who has
donated $20,000 – while at the same time contributing $2,500 to Mitt Romney’s
campaign to be the Republican candidate in the next US presidential election
(see ‘Occupy Wall Street financial backer also supports Mitt Romney’).
While it is not impossible for the rich to
sympathise with the plight of the poor, and the intelligent ones among them may
even take the view that in order to maintain the status quo it would be as well
to make at least some concessions even if it means having to forego a yacht or
two, this kind of sympathy does not extend to those who seek to dispossess them
and, for the sake of humanity and for the sake of an end to poverty, war and
global degradation, reduce them to the ranks of the proletariat.
Even president Obama has expressed sympathy with
the protesters, as his Democratic Party looks for ways for him to secure
re-election in the face of plummeting public support, saying that he thinks “people are frustrated, and the protesters are giving voice to a more
broad-based frustration about how our financial system works”. The Democratic Party, however, does face considerable difficulty
ingratiating itself with the protesters insofar as it is the party in
government; it is the party implementing the cuts and waging the wars, bailing
out the bankers while social security, Medicaid and Medicare budgets are
slashed. Attempts by the party in government to hijack the movement would seem
unlikely, therefore, to succeed.
However, as in the UK, various union bureaucrats
are also wheeled out to try to help the bourgeoisie control the movement.
Treacherous union leaders are a much greater danger because of their ability to
claim that they represent hundreds of thousands of working-class people, and it
is forgotten that in actual fact they mostly misrepresent them.
Michel Chossudovsky (op.cit.) draws particular attention to the close links between the union
bureaucratic leaderships and the Democratic Party. The latter, as everybody
knows, would be unable, even if it wanted to, to depart from a policy of
serving the interests of the big bourgeoisie since it is entirely dependent on
the super-rich for all the party funding that enables it to run in elections at
all. And through the Democratic Party in the US, the leaders of the AFL-CIO
(the US equivalent of the TUC) are co-opted to promote bourgeois interests in
the working-class movement. These leaders have made no attempt to prevent the
impending assault on social security, Medicare and Medicaid on which America’s poor are increasingly dependent. And what conclusions can be drawn from the fact
that these union worthies are invited to attend the annual meetings of the
Davos World Economic Forum and routinely collaborate with the Business
Roundtable?
Of course, it is important for the protest movement
that it should be strongly backed by the masses of working people, and, to that
extent, expressions of support from even the worst elements of the union
leadership could possibly be helpful if they encourage ordinary union members
to support the protest. But when the Greek enemy offers presents, this is a
time to beware! Under no circumstances must these elements be allowed to
hijack the movement to prepare it for being fobbed off with concessions so
minor as to be laughable. It is probably the case that regardless of what the union
leaders say, ordinary union members sympathise with the stand taken by the
protesters and would organise to show their support anyway. The OWS is seeing
strong support from airline pilots (currently in dispute with their employers
as to wages and conditions in the situation where the two major US airlines, Continental and United, are negotiating a merger), from transport workers, teachers,
health workers, porters, security guards and maintenance workers.
As to the bona fides of the Democratic Party and
the trade union bureaucrats it controls, Professor Ismael Hossein-zadeh of
Global Research characterised the situation very well when he wrote: “On the face of it there is nothing wrong with the Democratic Party
officials or union leaders expressing support for the protesters. In light of
their actual economic policies, however, that support can be characterized only
as hypocritical. The Democrats are as much responsible for the economic
problems that have triggered the protests as their Republican counterparts. The
Obama administration has played an especially destructive role in pursuing a
devastating neoliberal austerity agenda in terms of bailing out the Wall Street
gamblers, extending the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy, expanding the US wars
of choice—and then cutting vital social spending to pay for the financial
resources thus usurped.
“Equally blameworthy are union
bureaucrats who have enabled the White House and the Congress in the
implementation of such brutal austerity programs. Hollow posturing aside, the
AFL-CIO has opposed neither the neoliberal austerity policies at home nor the
imperialist wars of aggression abroad. Well-paid union officials have not even
seriously challenged factory closures; nor have they earnestly resisted brutal
cuts in workers’ wages and benefits.
“In projecting sympathy for the
Occupy Movement, the Democrats are essentially trying to have their cake and
eat it too!” (Ismael Hossein-zadeh, ‘The Democratic
Party: An Insidious Threat to the Occupy Wall Street Movement’, Global Research
14 October 2011)
One protester excellently summarised the position
of the official parties in the US, Republican as well as Democrat: “There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party, and
it has two right wings, Republicans and Democrats.”
(Quoted by Michael Greenberg in the New York Review of Books, ‘Four weeks on
Wall Street’, 11 October 2011)
It is not, however, only obviously
social-democratic elements who are seeking to derail the movement. There are a
plethora of bourgeois peddlers of illusions fighting for their line. These
include:
[1]Those
who think that by “taking the money out of politics”, breaking the
system under which political parties are dependent on handouts from the rich in
order to be able to participate effectively in elections, will solve the
problem – and there are elements in Global Research who tend in that
direction. For instance, “The big question is how true and
deep reforms in our political and economic system needed to fight economic
inequality and injustice harming most Americans will be achieved. In this
regard, one of my hopes is that the Occupy movement in the US will get behind the effort by Dylan Ratigan at getmoneyout.com to get a constitutional amendment
that would get money out of politics. This
is the only way to directly fight the corruption of government by rich and
powerful interests.” (Joel S Hirschhorn, ‘Occupy Wall Street: How will
true reforms to fight social injustice be achieved?’, Global research, 19
October 2011 – our emphasis).
Without a doubt “taking
the money out of politics” would have the effect of making bourgeois
elections more democratic, and this is a demand that should be supported. It is
not, however, a demand that if it were fulfilled would prevent the economic crisis
which in the end will always destroy millions of lives regardless of which
party was in government. Moreover, if the ruling class is unable through
elections to secure governments which do its bidding, history proves that it
will resort to civil war and fascism to impose its wishes. The idea that
elected governments control the machinery of state, the army and police, etc.,
is simply an illusion. They control them only so long as they serve the ruling
class.
[2]
Those who oppose ALL political influence, including of course that of
communists, on the grounds that no political party could conceivably represent
the interests of the masses. Their evidence is that the bourgeois parties
don’t – but their aim is to disarm the masses organisationally and ideologically
so that they remain malleable at the whim of the bourgeoisie. The film maker
Michael Moore falls into this category, with his slogan “Do not let the
politician co-opt you”, which does not distinguish between bourgeois and
proletarian politicians.
[3]
There are of course also those who insist that it is not capitalism that is the
problem but the way it has been distorted in its proper workings by greedy “banksters”.
Such people include the Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, a former
director of the World Bank, who in supporting the protests says that the
problem is caused by the present “system in which we socialise
losses and privatise profits … That is not capitalism; that is not a market
economy, it is a distorted economy, and if we allow it to continue to grow we
won’t be creating a fairer society.” He said that
continuing to lend to people who could not repay was a fraud that should have
been put a stop to in 2004, but nobody took any notice of those who were
drawing attention to what was going on. Such bourgeois economists refuse to
accept that the crisis is a crisis of overproduction caused by the fact that
the impoverished masses cannot afford to purchase the mass of commodities
produced by capitalist producers, thus threatening the latter with bankruptcy.
The “irresponsible” loans were merely a means of propping up capitalism
by enabling the poor to carry on spending . The crisis erupted in all its
tempestuous severity when the lending had to stop. But this did not mean that
the lending caused the crisis. On the contrary, it postponed it for many
years, but was quite unable to postpone it indefinitely.
Actually, the arguments
of Joseph Stiglitz were answered quite well by Eric Walberg, a progressive
Canadian who writes for journals such as Global Research and Counterpunch. He
writes: “The textbook for today is an angry, polemical one
that must pay tribute to Marx’s Kapital, which insisted ‘dogmatically’
that all along capitalism was fated to continue its march towards greater and
greater crises, grasping at war and state terror as the best way to destroy
excess production and keep the wage-slaves in line” and
“we can dust off Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of
Capitalist and read there that international banks naturally become a
supranational force under imperialism, and strive to control all politics”, noting
that, following a trend pointed out by Lenin, “the banks in the US moved
from 2.4% of GNP in 1950 to 8.5% today”.
Conclusion
Undoubtedly the protests will prove
to be exceptionally educational for the proletariat of the various countries in
which they are taking place. Participants will witness the brutality of the
police sent to try to disperse them and learn at first hand the nature of the
bourgeois state and the class interests that it serves. Although for the
moment the major New York protest has suffered relatively little state
violence, as the authorities seek to control the movement more by deception
than by force, the same is not true of smaller and more vulnerable protests in
other US cities, where protesters have been forcibly dispersed. In Rome there was heavy resort to water cannon and tear gas. They will also learn how the
bourgeois media will unashamedly distort the truth in order to undermine the
progressive movement. It is the duty of communists to endeavour to ensure that
this education advances to the greatest possible extent, and that they are
there to explain the impossibility of reforming capitalism, the importance of
its replacement by socialism, along with the hard realities of the class
struggle.