The Basics of the Nepalese Revolution (part 2)

The Opposition and Their Politics

The last issue I discussed the Maoist party and its leaders in brief. Since this article will be about the opposition and those parties it is important to mention the the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) won elections in the Constituent Assembly (in charge of writing a constitution) winning 29.28% of the popular vote and thus 229 seats in the assembly coming one seat shy of having double the seats as the next party.

Nepali Congress

While the name may not suggest it, the Nepali Congress (NC) is a political party and not the congress of Nepal. They describe themselves as Democratic Socialist and they uphold liberalism. They believe in a mix between neo-liberalism and a welfare state. They are in opposition to the Maoist in the UCPN and see market socialism as a good thing and support outright liberalism. The party is guilty of supporting the monarchy in the past. They stopped support opportunistically only when the king declared direct rule but were supporters of his constitutional monarchy until this point. Even then the party remained "open on the issue" of constitutional monarchy after direct rule was implemented(1). In the 2008 election the Nepali Congress won 21.14% of the votes and got 115 seats on the Constituent Assembly making it the second largest party in the assembly. The NC is a member of the Socialist International.

Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist)

The Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist) (CPN-UML) Describes itself as "firmly committed to nationalism, democracy, equality and justice and to enhance progress and prosperity of the people." They came up with an idea that has been coined "Peoples Multi-Party Democracy" which the party itself describes as "a creative application of Marxism and Leninism in the Nepalese condition"(2).
In February of 2011 with the support of the Maoist, the CPN-UML won the seat of prime minister of the assembly With 368 out of 601 votes approving the prime minister(3). This was seen as a compromise from the Maoist to show they were willing to share power but at the same time were committed to building socialism above being in charge of the nation. The party is the third largest holder of seats in the Constituent Assembly. Having won 20.33% of the vote the CPN-UML was awarded 108 seats in the assembly.

Madhesi Jana Adhikar Forum

The forth largest party in the Constituent Assembly will also be the last party we discuss as no other party got more than five percent of the vote nor holds more than twenty five seats after the Madhesi Jana Adhikar Forum (MJF). (The parties web site is currently down and has been for at least two weeks so unfortunately all this information comes from their Wikipedia page.) The MJF is a party that is dedicated to creating a federalist state in Nepal with autonomy for the Madhesh (Terai as it is more popularly known) region. The party has declared Social Democracy as its guiding principle. The MJF won 6.32% of the popular vote and earned 54 seats on the Constituent Assembly.

Conclusion

From the information provided here, we see that even the non-communist parties of Nepal uphold social-democracy and left of SD ideologies. The largest conservative party (also label themselves as monarchist and nationalist) the Rastriya Prajatantra Party only won 2.45% of the popular vote and holds 8 seats. Second largest conservative party? The Sadbhavana Party (also conservative monarchist but Hinduism instead of nationalism) won 1.56% of the vote. So I think it is a fair conclusion to announce that by far the people of Nepal are very progressive and the masses voted over overwhelmingly for at least some form of socialism to be built in Nepal.

It goes without saying that the revolution in Nepal is worth supporting, with all of its faults and its successes. In Nepal we are seeing something new. Multiple communist and left-wing parties competing in a democratic battlefield for the support of the masses. But what can we on the outside realistically do? Who do we support? That is easy, we should support any of the parties who are dedicated to advancing socialism! We should support Nepali independence from Chinese and Indian intervention and we should support them against Indian expansionism and imperialism. It is not important that we support one single party but that we support self-determination for the Nepalese people.


*For more information on all the parties visit the Wikipedia page "Napalese Constituent Assembly election, 2008" as a starting point to learn more about the election numbers and the different parties involved. It is interesting to see just how many communist/socialist parties won seats.

All claims supported:(1) "Nepali Congress An Introduction". nepalicongress.org. n.d. Web. Jan/22/2012. http://www.nepalicongress.org/index.php?linkId=2

(2) "Ideology and Peoples Movement." ucnuml.org. n.d. Web. Jan 31 2012. http://www.cpnuml.org/en/pmovement.php

(3) Walter Smolarek. "New Coalition of Forces Emerges in Nepal's Revolution" pslweb.org. Liberation news. Feb/10/2011. Web. Jan/31/2012

The Basics of the Nepalese Revolution.

This is something I wrote for The Proletarian Sun newsletter which can be found here.

The Basics of the Nepalese Revolution (part one)

The Toppling of a King

The people of Nepal were under the rule of a Monarchy/feudal system until a civil war that lasted from February 13 1996 til November 21st 2006 and was led by the Unified Communist Party of Nepal liberated the masses of Nepal from the old systems. The Maoist declared a three month cease fire in September 2005 to try and sway other political parties towards the overthrow of the government by showing that reformism was a dead end in Nepal. The King initially allowed elections but in 2005 but he sacked the government and decided to have direct rule over the country on his own. This brought on the wrath of all opposition forces. In early April 2006 the Maoist organized a general strike and promised to keep it a peaceful one. The next day on the 7th of April there is a huge clash between the police and the protesters on strike. Hundreds are arrested by the loyalist forces and a couple handful of people are injured. The day after the clashes the by now afraid king who has "direct rule" powers declares a curfew on Kathmandu and he gives the order that all people violating the curfew to be "shot on sight" (1). On April the ninth it is reported that three are dead, the curfew was popularly opposed as thousands defied the curfew and filled into the streets to demand more democracy (2). The king was forced to allow a new government to form and his throne was demoted to a mere ceremonial position until it was completely abolished by the government on May 28th 2008 and the now former king was given 15 days to vacate the palace.

The Names to Know in the UCPN

There are generally three names that ones needs to know in order to understand the UCPN and the different lines that are struggling with in the party at this current time. When reading about Nepal's UCPN leaders it can get confusing because two of these three leaders have nicknames of sorts and hopefully by the end of this section the reader will be able to tell the difference.

The Chairman of the UCPN is (most popularly known as) "Prachanda" (his nickname). His real name is Puspa Kamal Dahal. He used to be considered the middle line or the more moderate political line in the UCPN. More recently and more increasingly he has been seen as the conservative/right wing line in the party. He has been accused by the left-wing of the party of betraying the guerrillas and people's army (who fought for the liberation of Nepal) when he turned over the keys to the weapons cache's in the UN camps built to house the Maoist rebels. He did this without approval of the UCPN and has been accused of ignoring democratic process within the party. He has also been accused of compromising too much with the opposition and enemies of the UCPN. Giving too many concessions with out getting any demands in return. The left opposition within the party recently released a document critiquing the Chairman and his line and should and can be read here. This was not always the case as Puspa Kamal Dahal was once seen as the middle road and the hero of the Nepalese revolution. The chairman comes from a landlord peasant family which is the most oppressive position one can hold in a peasant society*. But there is no reason to believe that Pachanda carries this way with him in his politics.

Dr. Baburam Bhattarai is seen as more of the right wing line in the party and is the vice chairman of the UCPN. His relationship with the chairman has been through a lot of ups and downs but recently he has been siding with the chairman against the left wings call to continue the people's war to install a peoples government with a pro-peoples constitution. He has been accused by the left wing of misusing funds and using party money for personal gains and favors. Dr. Bhattarai was born to a lower middle class peasant family, meaning that most likely his family owned little land and little farming equipment but not enough possessions to feed their family all year and probably had to sell some of their labor*. Most middle peasants still live very hard lives and should not be compared to what we in the states call "middle class" workers. (I will refrain from writing too much about Dr. Bhattarai as I out right oppose his line and do not want to compromise the integrity of keeping this article un-biased). He is also the current prime minister of Nepal.

Mohan Baidya is the leader of the left-wing radical line and huge supporter of re-starting the people's war if the opposition parties refuse to sign a pro peoples constitution. His nickname is "Kiran", he is also vice chairman of the UCPN. Baidya saw a rise in support among the masses after he raised alarm to money issues and abuses in the party (3). He has even called for demonstrations against the chairman's decision to hand over the keys of the weapons cache in the peoples army cantonments. Baidya has even threatened to split the party if the UCPN continues down the path of revisionism, reformism and consession without demands being met. He has stated that he believes that the party on its current path is betraying the people of Nepal and he aims to put it back on the right path to revolution and serving the people. (I will also refrain from writing too much on Baidya because I support his line in the UCPN outright.)

Next month we will discuss the opposition leaders and the general politics of all the major parties.


Written by; Dustin Slagle


* these examples are taken from the class analogy of peasants given by Jen Pi-Shih in the book "several problems regarding land reform" written in 1948. translated and explained by William Hinton in his book "Fanshen" in the re-published version (2008) paperback page 27

(1) Gurubacharya, Binaj. "anti-monarchy rallies spread in Nepal". Boston Globe April 8th 2006. print

(2) "Violent Clashes Amid Nepal Curfew". BBCNEWS. BBC, Web. April 10 2006.

(3) B, Basnet, Kiran Pun. "Money issues boost Mohan Baidya faction". myrepublica.com. Web. 12/21/2011

Proletarian and Workers Language!

First of all it is important to point out that some one who is a proletarian is someone who is both oppressed in some form or another and that person is also exploited for his/her labor, meaning he/she creates more wealth for his/her bosses than he/she receives. Some one who works at say McDonald's as a cashier is a proletarian. They do not actually produce any wealth but they do collect it for their bosses. The person in a factory somewhere who is making the pre-made patties for the restaurant use would be a proletarian because he/she is creating a product to be sold at a profit higher than s/he is paid. So in short anyone who PRODUCES wealth and receives a lower wage than s/he creates is exploited for their labor and thus is a proletarian. The cashier, while not a proletarian (as in they do not produce any wealth) is still a member of the working class and is still exploited.


I tend to think that it is hypocritical when I hear communist say that "we shouldn't separate ourselves from the working class" and yet they insist on talking at people like they are ignorant and the communist try to use this superior language that makes themselves feel smarter. They repeat "we shouldn't separate ourselves from the working class" over and over and then go to the working class and TELL them what they should believe and how things really are and mainly they just come off sounding really condescending and turn people off of socialism.


If we are not to remove ourselves from the masses (I will be replacing the words "working class" with "the masses" from now on) then we must adapt their ideas to our own. Not try and force the masses to take on our ideas fully because that will never happen. What is more important? That the masses have Marxist principles? Or that the masses call it Marxism?

An example of adapting our ideas to theirs: In the US the masses see that there are multiple classes. So instead of applying dialect materialism to the situation and adapting and moving forward the communist would rather scream at the masses that they are wrong and only the communist are right that there are only two classes. But I tell you that we must adapt the ideas of the masses into our own rather we like it or not. If the masses believe there are multiple classes then we must say "okay, how do we go forward with this way of thinking." Of course we should attempt to slowly educate and advocate to the masses that there are two main class blocs but to refuse to listen to the masses is to refuse the masses support.


In the US there is a general understanding in the masses that there is a upper class, a upper middle class, a working middle class, Working class poor, and the lower class (poor, homeless etc). That is five classes, some may argue there is only four recognized by the masses and that is fine and can be applied as well. The most common way I hear to deal with this contradiction between the masses and the American communist is to simply "educate the working class about class consciousness" But as it was so well put by a successful revolutionary in a imperialist dominated country:
"Education requires money, people and instruments. In today's world money is entirely in the hands of the capitalists. Those who have charge of education are all either capitalists or wives of capitalists. In today's world the schools and the press, the two most important instruments of education are entirely under capitalist control. In short, education in today's world is capitalist education. If we teach capitalism to children, these children, when they grow up will in turn teach capitalism to a second generation of children. Education thus remains in the hands of the capitalists. Then the capitalists have 'parliaments' to pass laws protecting the capitalists and handicapping the proletariat; they have 'governments' to apply these laws and to enforce the advantages and the prohibitions that they contain; they have 'armies' and 'police' to defend the well-being of the capitalists and to repress the demands of the proletariat; they have 'banks' to serve as repositories in the circulation of their wealth ; they have ' factories', which are the instruments by which they monopolize the production of goods. Thus, if the communists do not seize political power, they will not be able to find any refuge in this world; how, under such circumstances, could they take charge of education? Thus, the capitalists will continue to control education and to praise their capitalism to the skies, so that the number of coverts to the proletariat's communist propaganda will diminish from day to day. Consequently, I believe that the method of education is unfeasible...."(1)


It is not the masses who should be parroting us, but it us who should lead them in the right direction while helping them help themselves. Only by putting "politics in command!" can we successfully move the masses forward to communism. But a big step is that we as revolutionaries have to put the peoples politics into consideration and stop thinking we know all the answers. We don't and we can't, they are always going to be contradictions that need to be met and all we can do is try to solve it for the betterment of the masses.


I for one see a huge connection between why there is a separation of the masses and communist and the communist condescending nature. Ive seen it too many times where some one will walk away because the communist "know everything" and aren't listening to the people. And that leaves an impression on that person that communist are all that way; controlling and condescending and unwilling to listen to other peoples theory's and ideas.


Ive said it many of times that we communist are the main reason why we are so unpopular. We are disorganized, over barring, constant in-fighting, some communist insult other people that don't share their ideas constantly (I have never changed my mind because I was called stupid or ignorant have you?), we talk tooooooo much about stuff that happened in Russia back in 1919 and while it is important to learn from the past it is also a waste to dwell on it.


So this is my call to all communist to start using the language of the proletarian or else stay on your sidelines and keep shouting cause no one is listening. And no one is going to start listening to you til you start listening to them also. I end this with a quote that addresses what I'm talking about:

"Twenty-four years of experience tell us that the right task, policy and style of work invariably conform with the demands of the masses at a given time and place and invariably strengthen our ties with the masses, and the wrong task, policy and style of work invariably disagree with the demands of the masses at a given time and place and invariably alienate us from the masses. The reason why such evils as dogmatism, empiricism, commandism, tailism, sectarianism, bureaucracy and an arrogant attitude in work are definitely harmful and intolerable, and why anyone suffering from these maladies must overcome them, is that they alienate us from the masses."(2)


"Production by the masses, the interests of the masses, the experiences and feelings of the masses - to these the leading cadres should pay constant attention. "(2)


"We should pay close attention to the well being of the masses, from the problems of land and labour to those of fuel, rice, cooking oil and salt.... All such problems concerning the well being of the masses should be placed on our agenda. We should discuss them, adopt and carry out decisions and check up on the results. We should help the masses to realize that we represent their interests and that our lives are intimately bound up with theirs. We should help them to proceed from these things to an understanding of the higher tasks which we have put forward, the tasks of the revolutionary war, so that they will support the revolution and spread it throughout the country, respond to our political appeals and fight to the end for victory in the revolution. " (2)


Written by: Dustin Slagle

Resources:

(1) "Communism and Dictatorship" by Mao Tse Tung November 1920 January 1921 [Extracted from. two letters to Ts’ai Ho-sen, in November 1920 and January 1921.]

(2) "The Little Red Book" (Quotations from Chairman Mao), Chapter:"The Mass Line", Published 1966. Quotes taken from; http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/

A short review for Robert Service: Comrades a History of World Communism.

This is going to be a very short review because I want to issue a warning to someone wanting to buy this book more so than give an overview and opinion.


Usually it is easy to tell when a book is going to be overwhelmingly biased. When I was reading the back of this book and the reviews online I didn't get the feeling that Robert Service was an anti-communist (specially seeing as he has written biographies about Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin). In fact from reviews online he seemed to write fairly. Upon reading this book I now feel like I was ripped off by the book store.


The book is very much filled with personal opinions written as truths and the writer even degrades to name calling towards soviet supporters from the 30's and 40's. One point in the book he claims that a reporter was duped by the soviets when the reporter visited a labor camp. He claims the reporter visiting the labor camp wrote positively about the USSR because when he went to a labor camp the local soviet government replaced the labor workers with guards so they appeared well fed and that rehabilitation was working and that the laborers were in good conditions. And his source for this assertion? It isn't a document ordering guards to act as laborers or anything official what so ever. No, he sources the reporters positive letter as a source. The book is filled with false sources like this through out.


The book is also filled with baseless assertions such as claiming that Marxism is dead and communism is dead. As though Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, While perverted types of socialism there is also NK and China, Venezuela and Bolivia, Uruguay just elected an ex-guerrilla just don't exist. These type of false statements are made through out. It is hard to believe he has read anything that was not written by McCarthy himself by his writing style. Whats more upsetting is that I already bought his Stalin Biography. Guess that is money and time I will never get back.


Written by: Dustin Slagle

Religion, Should it be Banned Under a Revolutionary Government?

It is a complicated question with a complex answer that varies between many different groups and individuals.


Most communist are atheist or follow the slogan that "Religion is the opium of the masses." But as Maoist we are taught that;


"To link oneself with the masses, one must act in accordance with the needs and wishes of the masses. All work done for the masses must start from their needs and not from the desire of any individual, however well-intentioned. It often happens that objectively the masses need a certain change, but subjectively they are not yet conscious of the need, not yet willing or determined to make the change. In such cases, we should wait patiently. We should not make the change until, through our work, most of the masses have become conscious of the need and are willing and determined to carry it out. Otherwise we shall isolate ourselves from the masses. Unless they are conscious and willing, any kind of work that requires their participation will turn out to be a mere formality and will fail.... There are two principles here: one is the actual needs of the masses rather than what we fancy they need, and the other is the wishes of the masses, who must make up their own minds instead of our making up their minds for them" (1)


The first four sentences of this quote spell out exactly what a communist stance should be towards the banning of religion. Especially in the USA it would be impossible to expect the proletariat to allow a revolutionary government to ban their religion. Religion is important to the proletariat. And to ban it would be to go against the wishes of the masses. It is also important to point out that some nations with strong religious roots have turned to communism our socialism.


It is an error to call for the banning of religion in a nation as a whole. It shows people who espouse this would run the nation as the few ruling over the masses. But I would never suggest that we ban religion as a whole.


But it can also go both ways. As a comrade of mine said "right wing deviations should be banned" I think watched and monitored would be the best at first followed by state criticism and propaganda against right wing deviations of religions. Then when the masses are ready and support it we can close down the right wing deviations of religions. The other side of the coin is that some religions and certain sects of different religions are left wing in nature. They would support a revolutionary government that is centered around empowering the masses over the few. They would support a government that puts needs above profits and material want.


Religion will only be our complete enemy if we constantly attack it and threaten to ban it. Not all sects will oppose a revolutionary state. Some sects should even be reached out to and brought into the communist and socialist circles. Many of sects espouse social justice at their services. Should we alienate these people because of a quote by Marx? NO! It is foolish how communist act towards the religious peoples when we need to be engaging them.



Written by; Dustin Slagle


1, Quotations from chairman Mao, the Mass line. Taken from Marxist.org

The Occupy Movement. Here to Stay?

There are many opinions and different ideas about what the Occupy Wall Street Movement (OWS) stands for and really what it is in general. But what are the concrete things we can see the OWS changing for everyday Americans (or for the world) and how is it changing the cadre of other organizations?


As for the things that the OWS has changed in the daily lives of the average person. I can't see any. Most people I talk to on my bus commutes, at school etc only know what they have seen on the news. Most are indifferent or think it is silly to camp in the middle of town as a form of protest. One person who rides the bus with me often is a guy named Jamal and he said (paraphrasing) 'these protesters mainly look like hippies, the government is not afraid of them. How do they expect to force change when the government is not afraid of being forced to change?' (he asked rhetorically).


There have also been charges that some of the local occupy are corrupt. I was told "sometimes when a proposition was blocked by a large group, the people who put forth the proposition would wait til the people who blocked it left then they would bring it back up to be voted on so it could pass" This may possibly be an anomaly but it seems like this could be a major problem with this sort of democracy.


To be frank the OWS has not changed the everyday lives of the average proletariat. But I do see a change in the advanced of the working class and even a new energy in the advanced section of workers (proletarian revolutionaries).


I saw this weekend at a local event that the OWS has really influenced the people in my area. At the event people were doing hand signs as they do in the GA here locally. Though I found it annoying, people would respond when "mic check" was yelled. I really felt a more sense of unity among the different groups at this event also (not too much unity, it was still a leftist event). There was open talk of breaking laws and of revolutionary actions and even a class where we discussed what we would want out of a revolutionary nation. These were from some of the same people who attacked me in the past as a ultra leftist etc. Even the numbers of this event was larger than any normal crowd in my local area for any left event.


I think this new radicalization of the left in my area is very exciting. I hope even if the OWS goes away that the new feeling will stay. That more people will become radicalized and realize that reformist pacifism is not a plausible way to change anything. That when the government is faced with change it doesn't want or like that it will attack the people, rather they are peaceful or not.


I fear that the OWS in some places will tire out and be co-opted into the parliamentary road of trying to change things. This historically has been the death of many and most radical movements (and people) who walk this path. It tends to make groups and individuals content with the political and economic status quot because they are apart of it and can brush off revolutionary's with a simple 'we are doing what we can'. Working for small gains within the government also tends to relax the anger to the extent you lose some of or all the anger of the masses. Health care that was passed here in the states is a great example. We had independents and democrats pissed at the democratic party because we were not getting any real health care that would help the poor people, not to mention the democratic party hardly lifted a finger to try and pass a real health care bill. but since their members got a compromise and passed "something, anything" it quelled the anger and the people returned to the democrats. This will probably be the similar outcome if the OWS is absorbed into the parliamentary road.




Written by: Dustin Slagle

My Recent Absence From Blogging. (My Proletarian Life)

I have not posted anything for well over a month now. I wanted to explain the reasons why I have been unable to write.


First of all I would like to explain that my life is very busy and full of stress I am a dad of a toddler and I don't live with his mother (though we are together) so I am constantly trying to find ways and time to spend with my family.


I do not have running water (no hot water for two years, no running water for nine months as of December 2011) and back in October the electric company turned out our power (number one reason I was unable to write) and charged us over one thousand five hundred US dollars for a meter that got messed up somehow and they stuck us with the bill. I was out of electricity for about three weeks. In that time I also happened to be at a very low place money wise and had about twelve dollars to feed me for about two weeks. So there were a lot of things on my mind at the time besides my blog.


I was also going to school three times a week (now two because I couldn't focus on my work and had to drop a class) and being distracted caused me to slip on my grades. Again I had to concentrate on my school work before my blog. I have one class up to a passing grade and the other class I am close to getting a passing grade.


When the electricity was out all of our food spoiled, so again I was busy with trying to get some money to get food into the house. And through all of this, the stress has cause a condition I have called Ulcerative Colitis or UC to have an abnormally long flare up. It seems as though when tough times come they make sure to test our strength to the fullest. Also they shut off our gas (which is how we heat our house and have for years, we have no central heat or A/C) making it impossible to heat the house.


I don't write this to complain or to cry about my position in life (I'm well aware that some have it far worse) I just wanted to offer a glimpse into my life at the current time and offer a reason for my absence in posting. Look for my regular posting to begin really soon. Most likely on the occupy movement and the Oakland Commune. Thank you to all who continued to check the site while I was away!


Written by: Dustin Slagle

Some Thoughts on the Occupy Wall St. Movement.

I, like most of the American left have been following the Occupy Wall Street Movement (OWS) very closely. Unfortunately due to finals and my partner plus myself being sick. I've not been able to go down to my local occupy movement.

When the "occupations" first started I was very wary of their origins and who was behind organizing them etc etc. This obviously was eventually discussed on Facebook between me and a friend to which Mike Ely from the Kasama Project asked me: "Share with me your "I don't know what I feel about it"? I am curious why some decent people are so ambivalent." Besides the fact that I was flattered that he called us "decent people" he raised a great point. Before I could answer him my friend replied with about the same answer I would have given: "I'm definitely down with the Occupy Wall Street end of things. They seem to have pretty good politics. I'm just a little worried about the Occupy St. Louis end. Looking at the page, it seems like there's a bunch of Zeitgeist Movement types, which makes me kind of nervous...So if the protest is going to be about limiting the financial sector, getting corporate money out of politics, preserving/strengthening the social safety net, and building a democratic, egalitarian, left-wing movement for radical change, I'm totally in. I'm just nervous that it might not be."

And I agree with this so I just added my two cents: "Ive gone to go to things close to this message and when I got there it was just a bunch of move on people raising money to lobby. Should have known by the fact that no anarchist or commies were invited."

To this day I am unsure of who or what started this movement. Another thing that baffles me is how it changes from city to city. Some cities seem to be led by radicals while other cities are being hijacked or were led by liberal the whole time. So it is hard at this time to really speak about or address the OWS movement as a whole because the orientation, the class background and direction of the OWS movement at this time is very blurred.

Permits: One thing I've heard differ from city to city is the question on rather or not to obtain permits for assembly in these public spaces.

Let me be very clear here; if you have a permit then you are not occupying a space. You are permitted to hang out in that spot. 'oh but that is just being ultra-leftist' some might say. But the truth is that you are as my comrade put it: "All we've got is a giant hang out spot"

The same quoted comrade above brought up another great point (and you can and should read the whole article here) that is the "pro-police" activity that has been occurring in some cities. The pigs are our class enemies, period. They defend structures like wall street. That is their job. Their pay rate may land them in the "99%" but they defend the 1% and thus are only logically our class enemy. Not to mention it shows how unorganized this movement is by the fact that the police are attacking this movement in some cities. Even in New York itself where all this started the police have attacked protesters. So show some solidarity with the people from your own movement and stop pro-police demonstrations and stop letting them control your occupation.

The populist nature of the movement: good or bad? I have actually had someone tell me that there is no basis for the claim that this movement is populist. My response is simple; How can a movement who's main slogan is "we are 99%" not be coined populist?

One reoccurring theme I hear from both the left and the right about these occupations is that "we don't know what they stand for or really what they want." I disagree because we do know what they want, they released a list of demands when all this started.

My problem with the populism? Is that it really lacks class analogy. The top twenty percent of the population in the US owns around 83% of all the wealth. Leaving the bottom 80% of the population with only 17% of the nations wealth (1). I must reiterate the lack of class analogy. The next 19% are no better than the top 1%. I'm sure most of those 19% would love to be in the 1%. I know "we are 99" is a better slogan than "we are 80" but siding with the other top 19% just doesn't sit well with me.

What do I think are the positives with the populism? I have thought for a long time now that any movement in the US has to be semi-populist to be successful. I like that a left leaning movement that is large and in the media is pinning "us against them" even if I disagree with the amount of "them" (the rich) they are pinning themselves against.

Plus as an anti-capitalist it is inspiring to see all the "eat the rich" "tax the rich" and "smash wall street" style signs. I truly think if we took the populism out of these occupations that they would disappear fast.

Final Thoughts? There is still a lot to be seen as far as what the future holds for the OWS movement. There is very lose organization going on, some cities are very radical while some cities are playing liberal pacifism. Denouncing each other in some cities, signing papers promising not to denounce each others groups in other cities. To me it is all still very confusing and I am eager to see the outcome and results from this when all is said and done.

One thing I think deserves mentioning is the international solidarity these occupations have received from many of nations, including but not exclusive to: Australia, Russia, France, Brazil, South Africa and many more nations. And another very interesting development is a Chinese protest that echoed the OWS protest.

Written by: Dustin Slagle

(1) William Domhoff. "Wealth. Income and Power". Who Rules America. UCSC, July 2011. WEB. October 14 2011. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html