On 2012-02-08, at 12:17 PM, Joseph Catron wrote:
> Meanwhile, from party types, we're left with sad, grandfatherly
> reminiscences like Marv's below. "Back in my day ..." Well, excuse me, but
> what the fuck have those preferring this approach done SINCE the 60s? These
> guys dropped the ball; someone else picked it up. How seriously am I
> supposed to take their bellyaching about how much better it was in some
> imagined glorious past? If you like orthodox Marxism better, go organize a
> fucking orthodox Marxist movement. I cam imagine some benefits, and I
> certainly don't see anyone standing in your way.
Try to calm yourself. I'm neither sad nor grandfatherly, nor was I reminiscing or am I about to launch my own movement.
My point was simply that the vast majority of today's Occupy supporters are (were?) teachers, government employees, transport and service workers, and other trade unionists, whose politics, like those of other mainstream groups represented in the movement, are mainly liberal Democratic. As these wider forces were drawn into the movement because of their serious concerns about jobs, incomes, housing, and the unjust pandering to Wall Street, it could be anticipated that they would be alienated from rather than attracted by anarchist tactics, playfully described by Shag as "smashy smashy". The test of any movement is whether it can keep broadening its appeal. The presence of the anarchists and their romantic liberal apologists, judging by many first hand commentaries, appears to have reduced it, but we'll have to see what the future brings.
These tensions over tactics were also present in the movements of the 30's and 60's, but to a lesser degree because the balance of forces between the anarchists and the socialists was different than it is today.