'Occupy' What?

"Without Revolutionary theory, there can be no Revolutionary Movement."

Vladimir Lenin

While I appreciate what the Occupy movement represents, as an anticipated reaction to escalating inequalities, I have concluded, from direct observation, research, and reflection, that Occupy is extremely malnourished when it comes to mature analysis of the global economic problem and underlying structures of oppression (racism, sexism, neocolonialism, etc.).. That renders Occupy unable to provide any genuine alternative approaches of addressing the problems it stands against.

For a while I saw occupy as a genuine unfolding of the forces of social justice, until I was able to witness its manifestation in the city where I currently reside (Toronto), and then started to witness the growing genuine criticism of Occupy overall.. Occupy hasn't gone beyond structures of oppression, as some claim, but simply brushed them all by, and didn't invoke the analytic tools to address them (in its generality as a movement).. The mere emotional slogan of "the 99%" speaks for itself.. This is an immature product of a consumerist society from which the most of the so-called 99% are clearly benefiting and living a life of oblivion, founded upon exploiting others around the world and within their own societies.. A revolution without substantive content isn't a revolution; it is just a riot.

It is equally important to clarify that even a genuine analysis of class conflict is missing from the Occupy discourse.. There was some financial analysis in the beginning, regarding the banks and their full responsibility of the felt market collapse, but that's no substitute for an actual class analysis.. The whole '99%' slogan is closer to a propaganda stunt than to a genuine expression of reality.. It turned out that many petit bourgeoisie and their dependents were fully engaged in the Occupy bandwagon because they either were complaining that they're becoming 'less wealthy', or because they could actually make money out of the general sentiments, or because they're simply able to afford 'camping out' for weeks without worrying about actually 'working' to earn their living (while the majority of the real working class could not afford such expensive protesting without specified demands).

Some argue in defense of Occupy and say that it is not Occupy's obligation to propose an alternative to the system, but only enabling the public awareness.. I would have to disagree with this.. It is a most important obligation of "the 99%" to propose an alternative system (or admit, as it is clear, that they are not really the 99%).. Enabling public awareness is a work of education, not protesting (and no, occupy was not an educational space.. There are many examples of educational spaces that were much more effective, public and direct since the 1960s and 70s, from which occupy hasn't learned).

Many criticisms started to surface now, from radical groups, about the nature of Occupy.. While it sent the positive message that the people have to care about the systemic nature of their economic problems, Occupy also sent the dangerous message that substance, education, and a life-style commitment to counter structural oppression and entrench socioeconomic analysis don't matter much; as long as you have provoked sentiments and empty slogans. Such a hollow idea cannot deliver any genuine change.

Last but not least, the term 'occupy' itself carries a clearly oppressive notion in common political language.. Members of the indigenous peoples of North America actively promoted the change of 'Occupy' to 'Decolonize'.. They were generally ignored.