Occupy Will Be Back

  • Posted on: 28 June 2012
  • By: worker

<table><tr><td>From <a href="http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/occupy_will_be_back_20120618/">Truth Dig</a> - By Chris Hedges

In every conflict, insurgency, uprising and revolution I have covered as a foreign correspondent, the power elite used periods of dormancy, lulls and setbacks to write off the opposition. This is why obituaries for the Occupy movement are in vogue. And this is why the next groundswell of popular protest—and there will be one—will be labeled as “unexpected,” a “shock” and a “surprise.”

The television pundits and talking heads, the columnists and academics who declare the movement dead are as out of touch with reality now as they were on Sept. 17 when New York City’s Zuccotti Park was occupied. Nothing this movement does will ever be seen by them as a success. Nothing it does will ever be good enough. Nothing, short of its dissolution and the funneling of its energy back into the political system, will be considered beneficial.</td><td><img title="Chris, you are an idiot." src="http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/2012/arms_duck.jpg"></td></tr></...
Those who have the largest megaphones in our corporate state serve the very systems of power we are seeking to topple. They encourage us, whether on Fox or MSNBC, to debate inanities, trivia, gossip or the personal narratives of candidates. They seek to channel legitimate outrage and direct it into the black hole of corporate politics. They spin these silly, useless stories from the “left” or the “right” while ignoring the egregious assault by corporate power on the citizenry, an assault enabled by the Democrats and the Republicans. Don’t waste time watching or listening. They exist to confuse and demoralize you.

The engine of all protest movements rests, finally, not in the hands of the protesters but the ruling class. If the ruling class responds rationally to the grievances and injustices that drive people into the streets, as it did during the New Deal, if it institutes jobs programs for the poor and the young, a prolongation of unemployment benefits (which hundreds of thousands of Americans have just lost), improved Medicare for all, infrastructure projects, a moratorium on foreclosures and bank repossessions, and a forgiveness of student debt, then a mass movement can be diluted. Under a rational ruling class, one that responds to the demands of the citizenry, the energy in the street can be channeled back into the mainstream. But once the system calcifies as a servant of the interests of the corporate elites, as has happened in the United States, formal political power thwarts justice rather than advances it.

Our dying corporate class, corrupt, engorged on obscene profits and indifferent to human suffering, is the guarantee that the mass movement will expand and flourish. No one knows when. No one knows how. The future movement may not resemble Occupy. It may not even bear the name Occupy. But it will come. I have seen this before. And we should use this time to prepare, to educate ourselves about the best ways to fight back, to learn from our mistakes, as many Occupiers are doing in New York, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and other cities. There are dark and turbulent days ahead. There are powerful and frightening forces of hate, backed by corporate money, that will seek to hijack public rage and frustration to create a culture of fear. It is not certain we will win. But it is certain this is not over.

“We had a very powerful first six months,” Kevin Zeese, one of the original organizers of the Occupy encampment in Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C., said when I reached him by phone. “We impacted the debate. We impacted policy. We showed people they are not alone. We exposed the unfair economy and our dysfunctional government. We showed people they could have an impact. We showed people they could have power. We let the genie out of the bottle. No one will put it back in.”

The physical eradication of the encampments and efforts by the corporate state to disrupt the movement through surveillance, entrapment, intimidation and infiltration have knocked many off balance. That was the intent. But there continue to be important pockets of resistance. These enclaves will provide fertile ground and direction once mass protests return. It is imperative that, no matter how dispirited we may become, we resist being lured into the dead game of electoral politics.

“The recent election in Wisconsin shows why Occupy should stay out of the elections,” Zeese said. “Many of the people who organized the Wisconsin occupation of the Capitol building became involved in the recall. First, they spent a lot of time and money collecting more than 1 million signatures. Second, they got involved in the primary where the Democrats picked someone who was not very supportive of union rights and who lost to [Gov. Scott] Walker just a couple of years ago. Third, the general election effort was corrupted by billionaire dollars. They lost. Occupy got involved in politics. What did they get? What would they have gotten if they won? They would have gotten a weak, corporate Democrat who in a couple of years would be hated. That would have undermined their credibility and demobilized their movement. Now, they have to restart their resistance movement.

“Would it not have been better if those who organized the occupation of the Capitol continued to organize an independent, mass resistance movement?” Zeese asked. “They already had strong organization in Madison, and in Dane County as well as nearby counties. They could have developed a Montreal-like movement of mass protest that stopped the function of government and built people power. Every time Walker pushed something extreme they could have been out in the streets and in the Legislature disrupting it. They could have organized general and targeted strikes. They would have built their strength. And by the time Walker faced re-election he would have been easily defeated.

“Elections are something that Occupy needs to continue to avoid,” Zeese said. “The Obama-Romney debate is not a discussion of the concerns of the American people. Obama sometimes uses Occupy language, but he puts forth virtually no job creation, nothing to end the wealth divide and no real tax reform. On tax reform, the Buffett rule—that the secretary should pay the same tax rate as the boss—is totally insufficient. We should be debating whether to go back to the Eisenhower tax rates of 91 percent, the Nixon tax rate of 70 percent or the Reagan tax rate of 50 percent for the top income earners—not whether secretaries and CEOs should be taxed at the same rate!”

The Occupy movement is not finally about occupying. It is, as Zeese points out, about shifting power from the 1 percent to the 99 percent. It is a tactic. And tactics evolve and change. The freedom rides, the sit-ins at segregated lunch counters, the marches in Birmingham and the Montgomery bus boycott were tactics used in the civil rights movement. And just as the civil rights movement often borrowed tactics used by the old Communist Party, which long fought segregation in the South, the Occupy movement, as Zeese points out, draws on earlier protests against global trade agreements and the worldwide protests over the invasion of Iraq. Each was, like the Occupy movement, a global response. And this is a global movement.

We live in a period of history the Canadian philosopher John Ralston Saul calls an interregnum, a period when we are enveloped in what he calls “a vacuum of economic thought,” a period when the reigning ideology, although it no longer corresponds to reality, has yet to be replaced with ideas that respond to the crisis engendered by the collapse of globalization. And the formulation of ideas, which are always at first the purview of a small, marginalized minority, is one of the fundamental tasks of the movement. It is as important to think about how we will live and to begin to reconfigure our lives as it is to resist.

Occupy has organized some significant actions, including the May Day protests, the NATO protest in Chicago, an Occupy G8 summit and G-8 protests in Thurmont and Frederick, Md. There are a number of ongoing actions—Occupy Our Homes, Occupy Faith, Occupy the Criminal Justice System, Occupy University, the Occupy Caravan—that protect the embers of revolt. Last week when Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, testified before a U.S. Senate committee, he was confronted by Occupy protesters, including Deborah Harris, who lost her home in a JPMorgan foreclosure. But you will hear little if anything about these actions on cable television or in The Washington Post. Such acts of resistance get covered almost entirely in the alternative media, such as The Occupied Wall Street Journal and the Occupy Page of The Real News.

“Our job is to build pockets of resistance so that when the flash point arrives, people will have a place to go,” Zeese said. “Our job is to stand for transformation, shifting power from concentrated wealth to the people. As long as we keep annunciating and fighting for this, whether we are talking about health care, finance, empire, housing, we will succeed.

“We will only accomplish this by becoming a mass movement,” he said. “It will not work if we become a fringe movement. Mass movements have to be diverse. If you build a movement around one ethnic group, or one class group, it is easier for the power structure and the police to figure out what we will do next. With diversity you get creativity of tactics. And creativity of tactics is critical to our success. With diversity you bring to the movement different histories, different ideas, different identities, different experiences and different forms of nonviolent tactics.

“The object is to shift people from the power structure to our side, whether it is media, business, youth, labor or police,” he went on. “We must break the enforcement structure. In the book ‘Why Civil Resistance Works,’ a review of resistance efforts over the last 100 years, breaking the enforcement structure, which almost always comes through nonviolent civil disobedience, increases your chances of success by 60 percent. We need to divide the police. This is critical. And only a mass movement that is nonviolent and diverse, that draws on all segments of society, has any hope of achieving this. If we can build that, we can win.”


"In the book ‘Why Civil Resistance Works,’ a review of resistance efforts over the last 100 years, breaking the enforcement structure, which almost always comes through nonviolent civil disobedience, increases your chances of success by 60 percent."

nonviolence is science

You call 100 years, out of thousands, a good sample? Your understanding of science is lacking.


You got trolled, bro.

Just like hardcore Christians, you Occupy idiots are confusing "science" with cultism.

What is "science" is politics, or political relations. And no politics can bite into reality without at least a minimum of violence. Just as war is the foundation of any State, and organized violence the foundation of property.

But of course, sectarian lefties of your kind will not read any of such criticism... as all critique of nonviolence is utterly Evil, wrong-wrong-wrong and probably worth snitching to the cops as well, eh?

I think you are either drunk or on the wrong site. That was funny though, you really thought you were saying something.

This cat called y'all a dehumanized metastasizing disease and now his wisdom is featured on the frontal page. Bravo. Cheers. Hallelujah. You may not be a non-human disease but ya dam well got Stockholm Syndrome.

Articles of interest are posted here. Sometimes we might want to read things we may disagree with that is of interest to anarchists. This meta-conversation has come up many times before, so I'll leave it at that.

This article like so many was posted as troll bait.

I hope so.

John Raulston Saul = Racist/Pro-Colonial sack of shit

Chris hedges.
Occupy folds.
We raise our bets.

Bonus points for a haiku.

chris hedges:
"the corporate state is a monsterous totalitarian nightmare!!!!"
"only make symbolic gestures of nonacceptance and then go back to work at your non-profit."
he's got some serious cognitive dissonance going on.

"In every conflict, insurgency, uprising and revolution I have covered as a foreign correspondent..."

It's amazing how confident he is of his assumption that whatever worked in communist Romania must inevitably work in 2012 USA. He critiques his own coverage of these conflicts as being parasitic, saying he was addicted to the thrill of vicariously experiencing violence, but then doesn't follow up on the current situation in these places. How is Romania doing now? How did that revolution work out? Eastern Europe is drifting into open fascism thanks to the failure of capitalist democracy brought by the "insurgency, uprising, and revolution" that Hedges still praises.

But remember, he must be right. He was there goddamn it!!! He was THERE!

For a few years anyway...

Profiting off the sensationalizing of others' misery.

I helped put a lot of energy into building Occupy once, and now I am done. In fact, I'm even pro-actively digging it's grave.

Go die in a fire, Chris. Go work on Obama's campaign or something.

Me too, I feel your pain, but much as I hate Hedges for being a liberal demagogue douche, he's right. He's not trying to reify Occupy, he's just saying that the Geist isn't going away. Occupy was just the very first signs of what will probably be decades of similar unrest, hopefully exponential, definitely reactionary.

I look forward to riding the future waves in the city and quietly agitating in the sticks when the cities sleep.

Once again anarchists fail to get it right. Chris Hedges openly rejects a working class movement in favor of liberal populism and imperialist stool-pidgeonry. Why does non of the critiques on this thread call out Chris Hedges for his populist class collaboration? Maybe its because anarchism throughout history has been based on a program of class collaboration and proto-imperialism. Anarchism's principle ideological leader, Noam Chomsky, endorsed the capitalist Green Party in the 2012 election, that is not a position that you anarchists can just explain away. Anarchists fail to defend North Korea's right to nuclear weapons, but instead engage in petty adventurism against nuclear scientists, hence serving the interests of imperialism. Anarchists siding with the imperialists against the Bolsheviks--and the revolutionary gains of the international proletariat--in the Kronstadt rebellion is yet another glaring example of anarchism's petit bourgeois counter revolutionary nature.

If you are interested in a true revolutionary perspective, check out the Workers Vanguard the bi-weekly organ of the Spartacist League U.S., flagship section of the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist). We offer the leadership and program to build a genuine revolutionary workers party based on the principles of the Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky.


Chomsky is the "principle ideological leader"? What a clueless loser. Back to your reading circles fool.

Lol. This is hilarious, but I don't think it's an attempt at humor.

If by "class collaboration" you mean uniting workers, peasants, and some lumpens then I suppose I don't have a problem with that...

Attacking nuclear scientists is pro-imperialism?

Free speech and worker collectives are petit bourgeois and counter revolutionary?


lol wtf. Good luck with creating a country where workers are imprisoned for dissent with question or trial, yo. (see: all of your examples of "workers states")

^ *without

Of course the "anarchists" would make appeals to bourgeois democratic rights in response to polemics against class collaboration. Just more proof that anarchism is the ideology of the merchants and small shop keepers.

"The Anarchist theoreticians, who after the great test of 1931-37 continue to repeat the old reactionary nonsense about Kronstadt, and who affirm that “Stalinism is the inevitable result of Marxism and Bolshevism,” simply demonstrate by this they are forever dead for the revolution"

(Trotsky, December 1937).

I hope to whatever gods that you're a troll because otherwise this is incredibly depressing

How many business owners do you know who favor anarchism to capitalism? Or anarchy at all? Are you suggesting it's the owners who are throwing bricks through their own windows?

"The urge to shit is also a whatever urge"-- Bakunin. See, I can quote dead people too.

lol. This trot just said worker collectives are bourgeois.

Trololololo.... wut?

its uncle Pedobear!

one of the Spart leaders liked to diddle little girls

dear leader Pedobear is the chairman of the Marxist Little Girls and Boys Club of Soviet Russia.

"Anarchists fail to defend North Korea's right to nuclear weapons"

Fuuuuuccckkk. Seriously? I don't even think "North Korea" has a "right" to EXIST, let alone a "right" to possess nuclear weapons. Trot trolls are fucking weird.

Defend Laos, though, seriously.

What a sad troll

"Anarchists siding with the imperialists against the Bolsheviks--and the revolutionary gains of the international proletariat--in the Kronstadt rebellion..."

actually, if the Spart troll had bothered to learn anything about M-L history, they would know that the Kronstadt rebellion was lead by Bolshevik sailors; anarchists mostly cheered on from a distance.

But, you know, they probably don't print that fact too much in the party paper.

The soldiers in Kronstadt who engaged in counter-revolution against the Bolsheviks weren't the same soldiers who fought in the civil war. You are right about one thing though: anarchists did cheer on the counter revolution in Krodstadt, because it--like anarchism--was expressing the interests of the petit bourgeois class.


so you admit that Kronstadt was mostly steamy hot Bolshevik-on-Bolshevik action?

"Anarchists fail to defend North Korea's right to nuclear weapons, but instead engage in petty adventurism against nuclear scientists, hence serving the interests of imperialism.


This is either full of trolling, or sheer idiocy worth a vote for Obama!

By making pacifist appeals against nuclear proliferation, anarchists are engaging in proto-imperialism by denying the right to self defense of the deformed workers against imperialist aggression, and hence throwing the gains of the October Revolution--and the international proletariat as a whole--under the bus. Ridiculous Cliffite "state capitalist" theories and the neo-Shachtmanism of anarchism is nothing more then a betrayal of proletarian revolution and petit bourgeois opportunism. The ICL on the other hand took up the slogan of unconditional defense of the Soviet Union and continues to carry the banner of defense of the deformed workers states of North Korea, China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam.


Dude ... it's not funny anymore. Seriously.

You call knee-caping pacifist? And the issue was nuclear power, not nuclear weapons. And it was an engineer, not a scientist.

We are against nuclear weapons in general, but not one-sided non-proliferation ala current global imperialism.

You really are hillarious. You openly defend what you admit to be "deforemed workers states" which in the case of China, for example, is more capitalist than the US and Europe! - even fascist by many standards.

I think you are deranged. I can count at least 3 fallacies of logic that you made in this post alone.

And how can you be pro-trotsky yet claim to have always provided "unconditional defense of the soviet union"? [ a mere statement that by itself is absolutely horrifying, as unconditional defense of anything is a sign of irrationality]

Fuck you, you fucking idiot.

"It is necessary to adopt the position of the most resolute and unconditional defense of the USSR against external dangers, which does not exclude, but, on the contrary, presupposes an irreconcilable struggle against Stalinism in time of war even more so than in time of peace."

(The Defense of the Soviet Union and the Opposition. September, 1929)
-Leon Trotsky

To have abandoned the degenerated workers state of the Soviet Union, would have been to abandon the revolutionary gains of the international proletariat. To assert that international solidarity and defense of the working class and it's revolutionary gains as "irrational", only further exposes anarchism's reactionary class orientation and venomous opportunism. The ICL(fi) through our bi-weekly organ, Workers Vanguard, based on the principles of Lenin and Trotsky, offered unwavering defense of the Soviet Union and deformed workers states of China, Cuba, North Korea, Loas, and Vietnam. While anarchists (and their Cliffite brethren) were falling over themselves to condemn what was left of the October Revolution by supporting the reactionaries of Solidarity in Poland, we the ICL(fi), hailed the Red Army in Afganistan and mobilized workers in the streets of Berlin against the counter revolution of 92. We are the only revolutionary organization in the world with the leadership and program to bring to bring about international socialist revolution.

"This is either full of trolling, or sheer idiocy worth a vote for Obama!"

Or a vote for the Green Party like your leader Chomsky. I mean the Greens are part of the "99%", a concept that your other leader David Graeber is so fond of. Isn't it ironic that the most notable things anarchism has put forward in the last few years is support for a capitalist political party and a populist slogan?


does ICL(fi) stand for Irrelevant communist league(Famously idiotic)? I'm pretty sure it does.

What's truly idiotic is anarchisms principle ideological leaders Noam Chomsky's and David Graeber's refusal to call for an independent working class struggle against imperialist war and the capitalist rule, instead calling for support of the capitalist Green Party and their bourgeois liberal platform. How do you reconcile that positions anarchists?

The fundamental difference between anarchists and Marxists/Maoists/Whateverists: We don't need or have no fucking leaders. You guys do because you love being lead and being told what to do. You even name yourselves after dead folks. How sad.

Bakunin was a fucking leader.

Inspired by example perhaps ...

IGTT 7/10

"DEFORMED WORKERS STATES" is a phrase that tickles my funny bone.


"Anarchism's principle ideological leader,"


"Anarchism's principle ideological leader,"


"principle leader"

...juesus babyfuckin christ I hopw yer trollin mate.

In every conflict, insurgency, uprising and revolution I have covered as a foreign correspondent, the power elite used periods of dormancy, lulls and setbacks to {criminalize} the opposition {using people like Chris Hedges}. This is why obituaries for the Occupy movement are in vogue {cancer kills, right Chris? you lead the way!}. And this is why the next groundswell of popular protest—and there will be one—will be labeled as “unexpected,” a “shock” and a “surprise.”{by people like you, Chris}.

there, fixed.

Chris Hedges 2012 !

Change we can sort of beieve in.

ha ha good to see Hedges following the herd by writing a "vogue" Occupy obituary.

“Our job is to build pockets of resistance so that when the flash point arrives, people will have a place to go,” Zeese said

fuck. seriously? I only hope. Maybe Occupy will learn what the anarchists did. Crazy fucking assholes will swarm your shit and destroy you.

"one of the original organizers of the Occupy encampment" = OOTOOOTOE

Used in a sentence. "I am OOTOOOTOE."

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.