Where is the USA going? Discussion document by the WIL - part one

"The U.S. is increasingly polarized to the right and to the left. Although the media plays up the Tea Party and the right wing, the general trend among the working class will be toward the left. Poll after poll confirms this. The youth in particular are suffering the brunt of the crisis, and they are far more free from the prejudices and inertia of the past. They know nothing but a world of crisis, war, mass unemployment, and discrimination, and are increasingly willing to do something about it. Even more important and powerful than the right-left polarization is the intensifying polarization between the rich and the poor. Wealth disparity has reached unprecedented levels, and there is a burning hatred of the rich by broad swathes of the population. (...) As it has in one country after another, at a certain stage, the experience of life under capitalism will force the U.S. working class to enter into mass struggle."

 [The following draft document on U.S. Perspectives was adopted by the National Committee of the Workers International League at its meeting of August 25, 2012. It is now being discussed throughout the WIL and will be discussed, amended as needed, and voted on at our National Congress in November. If you agree with the broad outlines put forward below, contact us for more information on joining the WIL. Let’s work together to bring these ideas to more and more workers and youth and to fight for socialism!]

Introduction

We do not have a crystal ball. We cannot predict the future with pinpoint accuracy. But we can apply the Marxist method to draw out the most likely developments and scenarios. Through a series of successive approximations, we can arrive at an ever-richer, more nuanced understanding of the complex and dynamic world around us. We do this, not as an academic exercise, but in order to better understand the conditions we are working in, the period through which we are passing, and how all of this affects our organization and the consciousness of those we want to win to the WIL.

We have explained in our prior documents that American capitalism is in serious decline. U.S. imperialism was at its zenith following World War II. Now, its manufacturing industry is nothing like it once was and its infrastructure is falling apart. GM, the once proud colossus of American capitalism only survived with subsidies from the state and major give-backs from the workers. It is a telling sign that today, one of America’s richest capitalists is Sheldon Addelson, a casino owner. The once great American steel, automobile, and rubber industries are no longer dominant. It is the more parasitic industries that are successful, with Wall Street, finance and “entertainment” at the top.

Even conservative NY Times columnist David Brooks has noted that American GDP growth in the decades after World War II averaged over 3% per year, while from 2000 to 2009, it was 1.7% per year, and from 2009 to 2011, it was only .6%.  At the same time, U.S. workers' productivity more than doubled since the early 1970s, yet net family worth is the same as it was 20 years ago. We must understand that the next period will be even bleaker.

The last four years have been truly dramatic. No one can now deny that we are passing through a tumultuous period of crisis, war, revolution, and counterrevolution. The extreme volatility has been accompanied by sharp, sudden changes, both in the U.S. and internationally. And yet, despite the rottenness and instability of the capitalist system, this turbulent situation can continue for years or even decades. The material, objective conditions for the overthrow of capitalism and the building of socialism are present. But one crucial condition is lacking: the subjective factor, the revolutionary leadership of the working class. Without such a leadership, capitalism can and will eventually find a way out of even the deepest crisis.

However, there is only one way out for the system: even deeper cuts, austerity, and an all-out offensive by the capitalists against the working class. So far, we have seen only the tip of the iceberg of what the bosses have in store for the workers. This is not due to malice or ideology, but because the system simply cannot afford the reforms wrenched from it by the workers in the bitter struggles of the past. The question being posed is simple: who will pay for the crisis?

The capitalists and their system caused the crisis, and yet they insist that the workers must pay. The more obtuse among them refuse to make a single concession or pay a single penny in taxes, preferring instead to increase surveillance and repression. But the more far-sighted capitalists understand that if some steam is not let off in the form of modest reforms or higher taxes on the super-rich, the whole thing can explode in their faces. In other words, there are divisions within the ruling class over how to maintain and perpetuate their system. This is one of the classic early indications that a revolutionary situation is brewing beneath the apparently calm surface of society.

The U.S. is increasingly polarized to the right and to the left. Although the media plays up the Tea Party and the right wing, the general trend among the working class will be toward the left. Poll after poll confirms this. The youth in particular are suffering the brunt of the crisis, and they are far more free from the prejudices and inertia of the past. They know nothing but a world of crisis, war, mass unemployment, and discrimination, and are increasingly willing to do something about it. Even more important and powerful than the right-left polarization is the intensifying polarization between the rich and the poor. Wealth disparity has reached unprecedented levels, and there is a burning hatred of the rich by broad swathes of the population.

As Ted Grant always explained, it is events, events, events that most profoundly shape people’s consciousness. Capitalism’s inability to provide even a nominal degree of stability is radically shaking up the worldview of the “ordinary” worker. The Occupy movement, the Verizon strike, the mass protests in Wisconsin, and the struggle in Longview, WA were just the beginning.

As it has in one country after another, the experience of life under capitalism will force the U.S. working class to enter into mass struggle at a certain stage. That much is certain. But will the working class succeed in building the necessary leadership in time to ensure the victory of the socialist revolution? That is up to us. Capitalism itself is doing 99% of the work for us—but the remaining 1% of the work will not do itself. Our task is to build a mass revolutionary party to give the system a final push over the edge into the dustbin of history. Starting with our small cadre organization, we aim to accomplish precisely that.

The international situation

The IMT’s 2012 World Perspectives document outlines the big picture of the international situation and provides some details on key processes and countries. Most importantly, it illustrates the interconnected nature of the world economy and the class struggle. Events around the world now affect the U.S. more than ever. The Egyptian Revolution’s psychological impact on the mass struggle in Wisconsin is just one anecdotal example.

The crisis in Greece and Europe is far from over. While many Americans seem to believe that events there will not affect them, the implosion of the euro would have very real and direct consequences for the U.S. economy. At just $5.8 billion, the U.S. has relatively limited exposure to Greek sovereign debt. But it is not so much Greece itself, as it is the contagion to the rest of Europe that threatens the weak U.S. economic recovery. If Greece is forced out of the eurozone, borrowing costs for countries such as Spain, Italy, Ireland, and Portugal would explode, and their future in the euro would also be in question. The U.S. owns $6.6 billion in Portuguese sovereign debt; $50 billion in Spanish debt; another $50 billion in Irish debt; and $66 billion in Italian debt.

But the full extent of the crisis is even greater. According to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, “Although U.S. banks have limited exposure to peripheral European countries, their exposures to European banks and to the larger, ‘core’ countries of Europe are more material. Moreover, European holdings represented 35% of the assets of prime U.S. money market funds in February, and these funds remain structurally vulnerable.”

In the first quarter of 2012, Europe was a hair’s breadth away from being in a technical recession. A “messy” break up of the euro would shatter the precarious stability of markets in Europe and worldwide. The “credit crunch” that followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008 could well be put in the shade by the collapse of any European country’s economy—let alone several. In addition to the financial calamity the European crisis poses to the U.S. economy, the break up of the eurozone would inevitably lead to competitive currency devaluations and other protectionist measures. This would immediately lead to a substantial decline in world trade and rising unemployment.

General strikes and massive student movements have already erupted across Europe, including in “sleepy old Britain.” In Canada, wildcat strikes by major unions and the months-long student struggle in Quebec have predictably been met with a virtual media blackout in the U.S. Across North Africa and throughout the Middle East, the entire Arab world is in turmoil and the revolution is far from over. Israel has seen the biggest mass demonstrations in its history. Iran continues to be a powder keg waiting to explode. In Russia, Putin’s iron grip has been shaken by historic mass protests, and Eastern Europe too is being shaken by mass demonstrations against austerity. India and Pakistan are seething with discontent, which will not be long in finding an outlet.

Sub-Saharan Africa is also being dragged into the general conflagration, with the magnificent anti-austerity movement in Nigeria as just one example. And while the Arab Revolution may have jumped ahead of Latin America for the time being, none of the contradictions on that vast continent have been resolved. Sooner or later, they will again erupt to the surface on an even higher level. With events in Mexico and elections Venezuela, we must keep our eye on this important part of the world.

The Chinese capitalist “miracle” has helped keep the world economy afloat for the last period, but even that is now in question. Every country wishes to export its way out of the crisis, but this has very material limits. After Canada and Mexico, the eurozone is the third-largest market for U.S. exports, accounting for $49.2 billion, or 13% of U.S. exports in the first quarter of 2012—more than both China and Japan combined. But as the value of the euro falls in relation to the dollar, U.S. products will become increasingly expensive for Europeans. Reduced purchasing power in Europe also means fewer markets for Chinese exports, which in turn exacerbates the contradictions there.

In short, the world is awash with “inflammable material,” and there is no end in sight to the crisis. The 2008–09 crisis left Americans in a state of shock. They hoped against hope that it was only an anomaly, that things would soon enough get back to normal. As we have explained, things will indeed get back to normal; but it will be a “new normality.” The capitalist crisis means a driving down of wages, conditions, and benefits. The workers will have no option but to fight back.

The U.S. economy

The economy is the base upon which the superstructure of politics and ideology rest. Shifts in the economic base lead dialectically—not directly and mechanically—to shifts in the superstructure. But in the final analysis, the economy sets the parameters for what is possible in society. A sick and decrepit economic system is expressed in a sick and decrepit society. The manifestations of this sickness are all around us.

We cannot make a fetish out of this or that rise or fall on the market or in unemployment. While we must follow these changes carefully, what most concerns us is the overall trend. And the overall trend is one of continuous instability. Anything the capitalists do to restore economic equilibrium will lead to social and political disequilibrium.

After growing modestly yet steadily throughout 2011, U.S. GDP fell from 3% in the 4th quarter to a meager 1.9% in the first quarter of 2012. GDP expanded at an average of just 1.6% for the whole of 2011, after growth of 3.2% in 2010. It is estimated that between 3.0 and 3.5% is needed just to keep pace with the rising population. The results for any given quarter are not decisive. But the overall trend is clear. The recovery has been anemic at best. What GDP growth there has been has done nothing but further enrich the wealthy, while the majority has been mired in unemployment, home foreclosures, and wage and benefit cuts.

The official unemployment rate peaked at 10% in October 2009, and is currently hovering just above 8%. However, the U6 unemployment figure, which includes underemployment, stands between 14 and 15%. Millions are no longer even counted in these figures as they have given up all hope of finding a job. There have been fewer jobs created than are needed to keep up with the tens of thousands of workers entering the labor market each month, let alone to make up for the 8 million that were lost at the height of the crisis. There is an estimated “jobs gap” of between 10 and 12.5 million. The most optimistic forecast for 2012 is that fewer than 200,000 jobs will be created on average each month. May’s figure of just 69,000 sent markets reeling and could presage even lower averages for the rest of the year.

On what basis, therefore, has the economy achieved its modest growth? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, manufacturing sector productivity rose at an annual rate of 5.9% in the first quarter of 2012, with output growing by 10.8% and hours worked increasing by 4.6%. At the same time, unit labor costs fell at a rate of 4.2%. In other words, the economic growth in the first quarter and throughout the “recovery” has been possible due to an increase in the exploitation of the existing workforce: the intensified extraction of both absolute and relative surplus value. In plain English, fewer workers are working longer and producing more for less pay. This leads to GDP growth and increased profits. But it does not lead to more jobs or a better quality of life for the working majority.

Increased productivity means more commodities are created by fewer people. This means that the workers—those who actually create the wealth of society—are less able than ever to buy all those commodities back. This leads to a piling up of unsaleable goods. This further exacerbates the crisis of overproduction and will inevitably lead again to the seizing up of the productive forces, which are constrained by the need to realize profits on the market. If the commodities already being produced can’t be sold for a profit, the capitalists won’t invest in more workers or increased capacity to produce more. It’s as simple as that. The Economist has explained that although profit margins are at a 50-year high, the capitalists are still not investing. After all, the capitalists are in the business of making profits, not job creation.

Capacity utilization for total industry in May 2012 was at just 79.0%, up from the 2009 low of 63.8%. This means that society could increase industrial production by over 21% with zero additional investment in capacity. But why invest in more factories when you already have more than you can use? Why increase production and hire more workers when you can squeeze more out of those you already have? Cuts in jobs, wages, and social services only add further pressure on this downward spiral.

Over the last 30 years, there has been an unparalleled upward flow of wealth, as the share of wealth created by the working class has increasingly gone to line the pockets of the already extremely wealthy. U.S. GDP has doubled in the last three decades, while wages have stagnated or even fallen in inflation-adjusted terms. This astronomical wealth disparity and the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands has only been exacerbated under Obama.

Since 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% has grown from 34.6% to 37.1%. The share owned by the top 20% of Americans has grown from 85% to 87.7%. A record 49.1 million Americans were living in poverty in 2011. Without the food stamps program, another 5 million would be added to that. That same year, the combined Fortune 500 generated an all-time record of $824.5 billion in profits—a 16 percent jump from 2010.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, corporate CEO pay grew by an average of 15% in 2011, on top of a 28% rise in 2010. By contrast, average worker pay in 2011 fell by 2%. Over the last 30 years, CEO pay has grown by an incredible 725%, while worker pay has risen by just 5.7%. And when inflation is taken into account, median wages for male workers are actually less today than they were in 1968! CEOs now make an average of 244 times more than their employees.

In 2010, profits for the Fortune 500 grew by 81%. These 500 companies and their subsidiaries generated nearly $10.8 trillion in total revenues, up 10.5% from 2009. This is out of a total U.S. GDP of $14.7 trillion. These 500 companies alone generated 73.5% of the total economic output of the United States. This represents a colossal concentration of capital and economic power.

The capitalists are sitting on enormous amounts of wealth. Non-financial companies currently have more than $2 trillion in cash on hand—nearly $7,000 per American—with no place to invest it profitably. This money cannot even be invested to earn the rate of inflation. With that amount of cash, the credit card debt ($771.7 billion) and student loans ($1 trillion) of every single American could be wiped out overnight.

During the postwar boom, the upswings were, generally speaking, relatively long, punctuated by relatively short downturns. Things were getting better for the majority, at least in absolute, if not in relative terms. The rich got richer faster than the workers, but at least the workers received a growing share. There was an upward curve of capitalist development, in which the booms created more wealth than the slumps destroyed. These objective conditions led to a dampening of the class struggle. This all ended with the recession of 1973–5. Now it is the opposite. There is a downward curve of development and the disparity of wealth has skyrocketed.

According to an article on Bloomberg: “The loss of manufacturing has also exacerbated capitalism’s natural boom-and-bust cycle. After the first seven post-World War II U.S. recessions, it took an average of only four months for employment levels to return to their pre-recession levels. But after off-shoring became widespread in the 1980s, recovery from recessions started to take much longer. After the 1990–91 recession, it took 19 months to return to normal. After the 2000–01 bust, with even more manufacturing jobs offshore, it took 30 months for employment to reach pre-recession levels. How long will it take to regain the 8 million jobs lost in the latest recession, let alone the 4 million additional ones needed to keep up with population growth? It has been almost 30 months since the trough in June 2009, yet we’ve made almost no progress.”

Consumer spending, which accounts for 70% of economic activity, cannot be expected to save the day as in the past. While it has risen in the first few months of 2012, savings have fallen. This is an unsustainable situation. Millions of people have “underwater” mortgages, which means they owe more on their house than they can sell it for. In relation to consumer credit, The Economist reported that: “At the end of the Second World War in 1945, consumer credit in America totaled just under $5.7 billion; ten years later it had already grown to nearly $43 billion and the party was just getting started. It reached $100 billion in 1966, $500 billion in 1984 and $1 trillion in 1994 ...The peak, so far, was almost $2.6 trillion in July 2008. Household debt approached 100% of GDP in 2007, a level seen only once before, rather ominously in 1929.”

Even if Obama wanted to implement a new New Deal in order to stave off social unrest, there are no resources with which to do so. In the 1930s, the U.S. was the world’s largest creditor nation; now it is the world’s largest debtor. Total public debt in May 2012 stood at $15.7 trillion, or 102% of GDP. After draining the treasury with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the bailouts of the banks, even the creditworthiness of the U.S. is in question. Any increased social spending would require either more borrowing or more taxes. Borrowing even more money at higher interest rates would increase the debt and debt servicing payments even further, which would be an even greater drag on the economy. Further taxing the workers would cut demand and contribute to the downward spiral of the economy. Taxing the rich even modestly will be fought tooth and nail, though modest taxes cannot be ruled out.

If job creation were so easy, the capitalists would do it. But this is capitalism, not socialism. This is not a rational society based on producing for the common good. This is cold, calculating capitalism, a system based on exploiting the working class in pursuit of maximizing profits. You cannot have a rational, democratically planned economy if you do not control the commanding heights of the means of production; and you cannot control what you do not own. This is why we demand the Fortune 500 be nationalized under democratic workers’ control, and that these companies be incorporated into a rational plan of production, distribution, and exchange.

The material basis of the “American Dream” has been shattered. How can this not have an effect on workers’ consciousness? For example, an ABC/Washington Post poll in late 2011 showed that 75% of Americans support raising taxes on millionaires to reduce the federal deficit. There is widespread opposition to cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other social programs. And for the first time since the 1930s, a majority of Americans are in favor of redistribution of income and wealth. According to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, a super-majority of 66 percent of Americans believe the nation’s wealth should be more evenly distributed. A Pew Research Center poll found that 49% of Americans between 18 and 29 favor socialism, versus 43% who favor capitalism. The same poll also found that 55% of African Americans have a favorable view of socialism. In other words, those with the least to lose under capitalism are the most open to a new form of society, a society based on genuine democracy and equality of opportunity for all.

But these transformations in consciousness are not linear and are not always easy to predict. There can be wild swings, to the left and to the right, with periods of tremendous radicalization, followed by dejection and disillusionment—and back again. Moods can shift dramatically over the course of just a few weeks, and even over the course of a single day. We see this in individuals and in organizations. Our task is to maintain a sense of proportion and keep the big picture and perspective in mind at all times.
Needless to say, the Marxists do not want and are not the cause of the suffering and stress that the economic crisis brings with it; we merely point out the reality of the situation. And the situation is grim. A “double dip” into another recession could lead to another round of shock among the workers, as we saw in 2008, which was compounded by Obama’s election. On the other hand, a sustained, albeit weak recovery, if it did occur, would not be a bad thing from the perspective of the class struggle. Certain layers of workers would feel more secure in their position and be emboldened to fight for a bigger share of the pie. No matter what, at a certain stage, the workers will have had enough of the constant instability and will move to take things into their own hands. The system cannot offer any lasting solutions.

Even the slightest shock to the economy could tip it back into a technical recession. The capitalists cannot square the circle. They cannot have both austerity and job creation. They cannot have cuts and economic growth. Ultimately, they cannot gut the material basis for class peace and expect class peace to reign. The more serious strategists of capital are worried about this and are preparing themselves for a new epoch of social unrest.

The youth

While the crisis bears down on all workers, it is the youth who are being hammered the hardest: a veritable “lost generation” of millions of young people whose hopes, dreams, and aspirations for a better life are being ground into the dust by this system.
Although every layer of the working class has seen a drop in the employment-to-population ratio, the youth have been absolutely savaged. In July of 2011 (July is typically the peak of youth employment), just 48.8% of all young people between the ages of 14 and 16 were employed—the lowest level since records began in 1948. Out of the total youth labor force of 22.7 million—the number of young people working or looking for work—just 59.5% were employed, also the lowest on record. By comparison, in July 1989, the proportion was 77.5%. Young black youth are hit especially hard, with an unemployment rate nearly double that of whites.

A Pew Research poll recently found that households headed by people age 35 and younger were worth an average of just $3,662 in 2009, 47 times less than the median net worth of households headed by people 65 and older. In 1984, the differential was 10 times. In other words, under capitalism, today’s generation will never attain the quality of life and standard of living of their parents’ generation. This cannot but have a profound effect on young people’s consciousness.

In April of 2012, student debt hit a record $1 trillion—more than the total credit card debt. The average student debt for a recent graduate was $23,300 in 2011, with 10% owing more than $54,000, and 3% owing more than $100,000. With interest, this can add up to decades of monthly payments of $1,000 or more.

Since 1978, education costs have risen by more than 900%, and by 511% over the last 13 years alone. Grants used to cover an average of 70% of tuition; now they cover just 34%. Over the last 20 years, the number of students going into debt to earn a bachelor’s degree has risen from 45% to as high as 94%. Some refer to this as the “debt for diplomas” model of education. Along with extortionate health care costs and the housing bubble, the massive increase in student debt is another component of the unprecedented upward flow of wealth over the last 30 years—the looting of current and future generations to further enrich the already obscenely wealthy.

Adding insult to injury, the 2005 “Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005” includes a provision prohibiting students from declaring bankruptcy as a result of their student debt. As with the housing bubble and sub-prime collapse, this level of debt could well lead to a mass wave of defaults. With parents as co-signers on much of this debt, entire families face decades of hardship or even total ruin as a result. The Education Department reports that payments are being made on just 38% of outstanding federal student loans, down from 46% just 5 years ago. The debt is not being paid because the borrowers are still in school, have postponed payments, or have stopped paying altogether. Nearly 10% of borrowers who started repayments in 2009 have defaulted within 2 years, double the rate in 2005.

A recent study by Rutgers University found that 40% of recent graduates had delayed purchasing a home or car due to student debt. More than 25% had put off continuing their education or had moved in with relatives as they could not possibly pay both the student loans and the rent. Millions of recent graduates end up taking jobs not at all related to their field of study, just to make ends meet. Others are not even able to finish their studies, yet are tens of thousands of dollars in debt without a degree to show for it.

This is an inescapable black hole of debt. It is a decades-long burden weighing on millions of young people just starting to build their lives—chaining them to the banks long before they even consider the additional chain of a mortgage. But at least in the past, there was a relatively high number of decently paid jobs available, and paying the debt was a realistic, if onerous possibility. Today’s graduates are saddled with astronomical debt, and are not even certain to find a job to begin paying that debt once they graduate.

The overall unemployment situation facing young people in the U.S. today is statistically comparable to the situation that existed in the Arab world before the eruption of the Arab Spring, and is similarly pregnant with revolutionary potential. It is not an accident that the youth were the heartbeat behind Occupy Wall Street. The role of students in sparking the mass protests in Wisconsin, the mass student mobilizations in California, and the inspiring examples of the Quebecois and Mexican students are further indications of this potential.

However, the youth are not merely a “sensitive barometer” of society; they are also the future of the American socialist revolution and of the WIL. For every young person we recruit and educate in our ideas and methods today, we will be able to recruit dozens of workers in the years to come. The untrained and untested youth of today will form the backbone of the cadres of the WIL in the future. This is why our initiative to aim to build campus socialist clubs around the country is so important and must be given the attention it deserves. As Lenin aptly put it, “he who has the youth, has the future!”

The Occupy movement

Like the proverbial “bolt from a clear blue sky,” Occupy Wall Street took the U.S.—and the world—by storm. Inspired by events in Egypt, Spain, Greece, and Wisconsin, what started out as a small occupation struck a chord and spread like wildfire around the country and back around the world. For weeks on end, Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan, and parks and plazas across the country, were “occupied” by hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life. The movement has dispersed for the moment, but the lessons learned by those who participated will not be wasted by history’s “molecular process of revolution.”

The aims of the protesters were varied and lacked political cohesion, but they were united around this: the status quo is intolerable and must be changed. More importantly, these hundreds of thousands of people, spearheaded by the youth, were willing to actually do something about it. The slanders about the “apathy” of the youth and the idea that “this kind of thing may happen in Venezuela or Greece but it could never happen here” were dramatically swept away.

Although we cannot predict with precision exactly when and where, we have always explained that such movements will necessarily emerge at a certain stage. This is an inevitable reaction to the crisis of capitalism, of decreasing standards of living, foremost among the youth, who have the worst jobs, conditions, pay, unemployment, and prospects for the future. The realization that this is indeed “as good as it gets,” and that the G.W. Bush years were a kind of “golden age” in comparison is sinking in, and people are not happy about it.

Millions who did not directly participate sympathized with the movement and were inspired by the idea that perhaps something could be done after all. This is an unprecedented phenomenon in recent U.S. history and is loaded with revolutionary implications for the future. The national dialogue was radically transformed overnight, and the idea of “we are the 99%” versus the “1%” entered the mainstream. Just compare this to the “we are all middle class” rhetoric of the past and the flag-waving national unity in the aftermath of 9/11. This is a sea change in the situation.

In some cities, simply waiting and wearing out the movement was the main strategy for containing it. In others, police repression was used, but this often only served to spur the movement on further. In Oakland, CA, police violence led to calls for a city-wide general strike, resulting in mass protests that shut down the city’s giant port facilities.

All kinds of ideas were expressed by the occupiers: naive but sincere reformism, ultraleftism; right-wing libertarianism; continued support for Obama; total rejection of politics; and everything in between. There are ideological and organizational parallels with the Narodnik movement in Russia in the 1870s and 1880s, and with the radicalization of the youth in the U.S. in the 1960s. For many, this was the first time they had ever protested.

There is a healthy distrust of the current political parties and leaders. Many of the occupiers were on the streets precisely because their vote for Obama did not lead to real change. Nonetheless, the Democrats are working hard to co-opt the movement and have enlisted the current union leadership to aid them. However, it will not be a straightforward process. Many are suspicious of the unions and are resistant to being politically co-opted, due to the Democrats’ role in bringing about the crisis in the first place. The lack of a mass party of labor and a bold lead by the union leadership has led to tremendous confusion when it comes to the political perspectives for the movement.

Through a combination of repression, cold weather, infighting, and general tiredness at the lack of perspectives, organization, program, or leadership, the movement has subsided for the time being. Different ideas, programs and approaches were tested in practice. The revival of anarchist ideas, of “horizontalism” and unelected and unaccountable “non-leader” leadership cliques, and the debate between consensus and democracy demoralized many. However, this experience clarified for many how not to do things, and how to do things better the next time around. In some form or another, there will inevitably be a next time.

We must be sensitive in how we raise criticisms of movements such as Occupy. We cannot be seen as part of the opposition; we are a component part of the movement. Our criticisms must always be of a friendly nature with a view to improving the work. But we must bear in mind that movements come and go. We must be clear about our goals and role in movements such as this. Movements have a spiral of development, of ups and downs.

Ultimately, any movement that emerges, no matter how broad and powerful, will reach its limits and ebb if it does not set itself the task of abolishing the root cause of misery and crisis: the capitalist system itself. The feeling among the occupiers was clearly that “if we occupy long enough they will give in to us.” But this tactic eventually hit a dead end, just as the occupation of Tahrir Square was about to run out of steam—until the Egyptian working class began to enter the stage in a decisive and organized way. This is what was lacking in the Occupy movement: the decisive entry of the American working class as a class. The situation was not quite ripe for that development, but in the not-too-distant future, we can be assured of it.

There is always a danger when movements such as Occupy arise that we could fall into mindless activism. Many pressures come to bear on our comrades, who are recognized as being among the best organizers, speakers, writers, and leaders. We must be careful not to liquidate ourselves into the movement in search of short-term, but fleeting gains, or simply to “get on the good side” of the activists we work with. We must always present our ideas and organization openly and clearly, although we will not always convince the majority of our perspectives and methods. But through patient participation in such movements and coalitions, we can successfully build the organization. We must always “keep our eye on the prize” of recruiting the ones and twos to the WIL and training them as cadres. This is the only approach that can assure the long-term success of the struggle for socialism. There are no panaceas or get rich quick schemes.

There is also the danger that we could take a dismissive attitude because “this isn’t yet the revolution.” We must have a sense of balance and proportion. This is why we need a politically strong national and local leadership that is crystal clear as to our tasks and how to achieve them. However, a strong leadership does not emerge overnight. A person does not become a genuine leader merely because he or she has been elected to this or that position, or is thrust into that position because there is no one else. We are forging the leadership of this organization through our hard work, sacrifice, study of theory, and growing experience. We are building a team, leading by example, that can work together efficiently and energetically to achieve the targets that have been democratically determined by the membership.

We must be clear: we were never in a position to lead the Occupy movement, even if we had wanted to. This should be a mild warning to us: having correct ideas and methods is not enough! The masses will not automatically recognize the correctness of our ideas. We need to grow and strengthen our organization in order to take better advantage of these opportunities in the future. There are no shortcuts. Leading the movement was not our aim. Our aim was and is to find the ones and twos and win them to our ideas. We have made many new contacts through this movement, or had previous contacts’ interest reinforced by these events. Now that the movement has ebbed, we must patiently provide our contacts and periphery with a political explanation and perspectives for the future.

Despite all the contradictions, confusions, and chaos of these events, Occupy has been a marvelous school of politics and life for those who participated. Different ideas have clashed, different methods have been tested in practice, and people are reflecting on the experiences. We must be ready to intervene in the movement in whatever form it takes, to raise our ideas with those who will listen, to connect with those we can win to the WIL. In comparison to the past, our ideas seem less “far out there” than before. The idea of a labor party and our approach to the unions has gotten an echo as well and differentiates us from the other groups. Our emphasis on the power of labor to actually shut down Wall Street and business as usual has been well-received.

We must explain that the way to actually shut down Wall Street is for the millions of unionized workers to shut down power, communications, transportation, building maintenance, etc. The organized workers are the only force on the planet that can actually do this. The brightest moments in the Occupy movement were in New York and on the West coast, where Occupy reached out to labor and played a supportive role—and vice versa. It is a complicated relationship, compounded by the conservatism of the union bureaucracy and the question of the Democrats. But this is the only way forward: to unite the workers and youth in struggle on the streets and at the polls. And this means the building of a labor party based on the unions that can fight not only to occupy plazas and shut down the physical running of Wall Street, but to change the laws and the economic structures that favor the 1% at the expense of the working class majority.

The dam of capitalism is leaking. There is a raging river of class discontent pushing to break through. Once it is unleashed, it will not be driven back into the channel easily. The objective reality is that conditions are not going to get significantly better for the majority. In fact, they will likely get far worse.

To be continued