Is OWS a precursor to Marx's socialist revolution?

OWS and all the other "Occupy" actions seem to be losing steam. Or at least they are being asked to vacate the places they've been occupying. But this may not be the end of it; it may actually be the opening step to further actions.

The Russian Revolution had actually jumped the gun on Marx's theory of the conditions necessary for a socialist movement. I'm wondering if the OWS may be an indication that the time is ripe for it. Has capitalism run its course, and could the OWS be a precursor to the real socialist revolution that Marx foretold?

 

Welcome to the forum!

I think a more apt comparison is the recent Tea Party movement. A revolution halfway around the world and 95 years ago orchestrated to overthrow a Monarchy is probably not the best model to use for a current movement arising from the abuses of a capitalist democracy. I find that anytime the economic royalists of this country are threatened by the workers standing up for themselves, the Right-wing inevitably trots out the Socialism moniker as if any deference or respect paid to the workers of this country is absolutely full-throttle reincarnation of Fidel Castro in the U.S. How can workers’ rights ever be discussed and their concerns addressed if the Right simply labels every worker issue as Socialism? They simply create an adversarial environment and divide the country which might be their goal. I’m not saying that you are a Right-winger or that this is your opinion, but it is the prevailing wind coming out of the Right these days and you seem to have at least made the connection between the current OWS movement and a long dead revolution in a distant land almost a 100 years ago. Is that even realistic?

 

You seem to have assumed that I'm thinking of a return of communism, or socialism, along the lines of the Russian/Chinese examples. Those models didn't work. They cannot work because they attempted to do by force what should have happened in due course.

By posing the question I'm not insisting that this is indeed the long awaited demise of capitalism. I'm suggesting that this may be the initial sign of a general dissatisfaction with capitalism which could develop into a trend leading to the socialist revolution. This revolution that Marx foresaw is not the one that took place in 1917 in Russia, or the 1949 one in China. And Fidel Castro is simply the favorite American ghost story.

If it's any help, I'll let you know that I really couldn't care less about what results from these movements. What happens in reality is immaterial to me. (Reality? Immaterial?) For me it's of interest from a philosophical perspective.

 

I think I understand what you are saying. You are trying to forecast the beginning of a populist socialist movement via the OWS movement. What I don't understand is why does it have to be either Capitalism or Socialism? Why couldn't it be Capitalism or a Monarchy? Why couldn't it be Capitalism or Anarchy? Why can't it be a hybrid of Capitalism and Socialism like many of our European allies? I think it is entirely possible that a new economic system could arise out of this movement. What that would be, I can’t tell you but the possibilities are certain endless.
I will say that even if you actually believe that what happens in reality is immaterial to you, you will eventually be proven wrong. Unless you plan to go live your life out under a rock, all the philosophical perspective in the universe will not keep reality from your doorstep.

 

I donno Karim. Look at the lines of people at airport security docilely taking off their shoes and belts and placing them in the bin and then allowing themselves to be patted down or x-ray scanned before wandering off down the concourse in search of a Starbucks. We are Americans. Do actually think we're going to start anything even remotely revolutionary?

 

A revolution does not have to be an armed one. The Industrial Revolution wasn't an armed uprising. The socialist revolution that Marx envisaged was never meant to be the armed uprising that Lenin and Trotsky made it.

"Let us be clear about the Marxian conception of ‘revolution’. By (social) revolution Marx means, as he already emphasises in his polemic with Ruge (1844), the « dissolution of the old relations » of society or equivalently, as he says fifteen years later, a « change » in society’s « economic basis » constituted by the (social) « relations of production. » An immediate consequence of this conception is that a social revolution is not a momentary event coinciding with the so-called ‘seizure of power’"
http://libcom.org/library/did-bolsh...alist-revolution-marxian-inquiry-paresh-chatt

Are Americans the type to start anything revolutionary? Probably not. But there are a lot of discontents willing to enflame lesser unrests into full-fledged riots. But I'm not saying categorically that the moment is now. This may just fizzle out and everyone will go back to venting their frustration on online forums. Could a series of such actions, however, lead to a snowball effect? (Hypothetically.)

 

The main thing I see coming from the protesters in the form of demands is an address of the Citizens United ruling. This is tantamount to legalised bribery of pretty much the entirety of our political structure. I think it's OK to address certain things without significant changes to our foundation. However, I think the fact that our entire economic system is pretty a stream lined device that at the end of the day takes our money and gives it to the wealthy is probably a bad thing. The Federal Reserve lending the U.S. Dollar to the U.S.Treasury Department at interest is absurd. Why does the government make us pay the banks to do their job for them? It's not a pro-socialist or anti-capitalist movement so much as it is an anti-plutocracy movement. We want our politicians to listen to us again.

 

Yes, I agree it could lead to a snowball effect. I've said all along that I have no idea where OWS is headed or what it might morph into, if anything. But it doesn't follow that it will jell into a coherent whole. As for Marx, I admire his critique but I don't think he understood work-a-day human nature very well. I'll be the first to say that I'm certainly not an expert, but it seems to me that the whole idea of the masses is mistaken. There are no masses in a long-term political sense. There are only people who for one reason or another at any given time feel a bond with one another.

And at any given time there might be a whole bunch of them together, but ultimately the masses defy definition and the supposed unity of the masses can be quite ephemeral. That's why empires break down and tiny countries have factions going back centuries that hate each other for no sensible reason. As an aside I think that that the United States is a continental empire on the German or Austro-Hungarian, and Russian model. And that's hardly a new idea. Sorry,got off on kind of a tangent there, but don't really have time to develop my ideas properly right now.

 

Well we have military forces in a whole lot of different countries. We have a lot of territories. If it walks like a duck...

Just one more thing on the pile of complaints with what we've become.

 

Just to be clear, given it's nationwide/worlldwide status, if OWS jells into a coherent whole it will be the end of it. Fortunately, I think the prospects of that are remote.

And even if the United States were to shed its territories, realms, and dominions across the seas it would still be an empire.

 

Hmm you failed at being clear there for me. I don't know what you mean by "jells into a whole". Do you mean if people come together? Or do you mean if they form a formal group? And what will that be the end of? The movement? The system as it exist today? I'm just not sure what you mean.

 

Voluntary cooperation and coordination among independent localised groups with a general common goal or goals is one thing. "Unification" under one inevitably hierarchical leadership is another. And the latter would be the end of OWS as a credible movement.

 

Yeah I kinda like what they got going now. Did you hear about the one Occupy group electing a dog as their appointed leader to deal with the mayor? They argued that if a corporation can be a person then so can a dog.

 

Hence the name "Flea Party".

 

And do you think they care about what you call them? Basically your opinion doesn't matter. Nor does mine to the extent that I don't pitch in and help in some way. They don't have to win anyone over. The grievances are a given. The would be there with or without the Flea Baggers. The only question is how to address them.

 

OK. "Flea Party" (or "Flea Baggers", if you prefer) fits just fine.

 

I just don't understand why people have such problems with wanting undue monetary influence removed from our political system. They must be flea bags because they don't want corporations to exercise their god given right to buy elections? Do you support the financial corruption of our democratic process?

 

People really need to get over trying to peg the universe into nice little bubbles of this and that, us or them and so forth. Especially systems which rely on ideas developed by people over a hundred years ago. Marxism was developed in the 1800's. Adam Smith developed his ideas even further in the past (1700's). The OWS movement isn't really about economic systems. It is about how humans deal with each other. There are two conflicting mentalities at war with each other for the human mind. One side is formed of the idea that humans are horrible only only interested in selfishness. The other side sees people as a social animal which are successful because of cooperation and compassion. One side is about power and the other side is about empathy.

There is no caring for others in capitalism and there isn't any caring for others in communism. They are both concerned with things and people are only the way to get things. Both sides want to control the creators in different ways.

Do you know what we have actually learned about this. We have learned that neither pure capitalism or pure communism is a workable system. It is the blending of the two systems with an eye towards the promotion of the needs of human beings which works best.

 

I like good ideas. That's why I'm so open to new ideas. Why do people cling to old ideas so much? Human history is simply the story of us misunderstanding pretty much everything we've ever encountered. Really as a species when was the last time we came up with an idea about something that was actually correct?