Turn the World Upside Down: From Occupation to Revolution By John Spritzler
5 November 2011 — Turn the World Upside Down
If OWS decides explicitly that its goal is revolution, it would transform the OWS movement. It would be a qualitative leap and set the agenda for the coming years: a national and international conversation about how to make a revolution and what a post-revolutionary society can be like. If OWS does this, then folding the tents in the heart of winter (or losing them to a police raid) won’t matter because the revolutionary strategy can be carried out even without them. What OWS will gain is what does matter: a whole new level of consciousness, determination, and ties to the community and each other internationally.
John Spritzler 03:16 on November 8, 2011 Permalink |
Hi Maggie,
Regarding the question of whether all local power should reside in local community and workplace assemblies, I think it is important to keep in mind the fact that these local assemblies would naturally and voluntarily federate. They would send delegates to regional assemblies that would in turn send delegates to state assemblies that would possibly send delegates to global assemblies (with levels in between these as appropriate.) Higher level assemblies would be responsible for making proposals for joint/coordinated action by their respective lower level assemblies. Proposals would not be commands, however, but proposals, that the lower level assemblies would agree to or else the proposal would need to be modified until there was sufficient agreement by the lower level assemblies to implement it.
There is nothing about this arrangement which can be characterized as “microcosmic” or “each locality is to be completely self-determined and fend for themselves.” Large scale coordinated cooperation can be achieved without top-down commands (i.e. laws) from a distant central government. Would you not agree?
–John
Maggie Zhou 21:00 on November 7, 2011 Permalink |
I like the article very much, but Michel is also correct. The occupying itself is an act that forces public attention on these issues, so it’s very useful, but at the same time, whether or not the occupation can last through the bitter winter is not the key. It is what message/goal the occupation focus itself on that is important. I very much concur with Spritzler’s opinion of focusing on communicating the message of building a revolutionary movement, of explaining to the public what is ultimately needed to achieve a better society.
The only thing I disagree with in the article is the idea that a democratic society has to be an entirely local democracy, where “all law-making power resides in local community and workplace assemblies”, and no central govt power exists at all. I think it’s impossible to solve our global crisis with this kind of microcosmic, idyllic democracy. Also, slum dwellers and populations of poor communities/countries/continents who have historically been exploited will never quite get the wrongs done on them righted if each locality is to be completely self-determined and fend for themselves in the post revolutionary new society.
Maggie
Mitchel Cohen 09:03 on November 7, 2011 Permalink |
Tents in parks won’t stop a ruling class that commands the greatest military force on the planet.
I don’t know of anyone who thinks that tents in parks by themselves will stop the ruling class, any more than writing on a blog will stop the ruling class. The Occupations galvanize the 99 percent, focus the class struggle (finally), and help create changed conditions so that other things can happen.
(I agree, by the way, with your opposition to issues-type demands.)
Mitchel Cohen
Brooklyn Greens/Green Party, and
Chair, WBAI (99.5FM) Local Station Board*
(*for ID purposes only)