Alliance Voices: Rebuilding Socialist Alliance

Alliance Voices: Rebuilding Socialist Alliance



This is probably the best, most honest and clear-sighted contribution to Alliance Voices I have read since I became a member of the Alliance. Ewan clearly lays out all of the problems which have crept into organisational practices in recent years and identifies ways that we can go about breaking them down. Although the conference is presently taking place I'm not sure if this perspective will gain any traction; however, it has already informed some amendments to the party-building resolution, some of which have been adopted already. More on that later.

Alliance Voices: Rebuilding Socialist Alliance Youth Work

Alliance Voices: Rebuilding Socialist Alliance Youth Work



This piece of PCD for the Socialist Alliance's 10th national conference is some interesting reading on the new direction Resistance will be taking. I argued strongly against making Resistance the youth of the Socialist Alliance two years ago in Adelaide; however, the situation in the party has changed considerably since then, and I think this has driven the need to regroup youth leadership moreso than "objective conditions".

Egypt: #OccupyCabinet, 28/11

I've been reading about the sit-in outside the cabinet which has been going on for a week now, so on the 28th of November I went down from Tahrir in the morning to have a look.

The Development of Cadre

The following post was written as a contribution to Alliance Voices, a forum for members of the Socialist Alliance to debate policy, theory & organisational methods, in response to this post by Adam Baker. This piece builds on the reasons why revolutionary socialists to get involved in social movements which I started to discuss in my last post; hopefully soon I'll have the chance to put together a more comprehensive article on the topic, based on my experiences overseas as well as here in Australia.

The Development of Cadre

There are many factors which determine whether a revolutionary organisation will grow and build cadre. In my mind, the biggest one is whether the party's ideas and theories about how the working class should go about exercising our collective power to challenge and ultimately overthrow the domination of capital have been concretely tested in practice.

As such, I find it perplexing that Adam Baker has written a contribution to Alliance Voices questioning the growing role Socialist Alliance activists are playing in social movements at a time when those movements have begun to, or are on the verge of, winning major victories through mass action.

Adam wrote: “Anyone can participate in building campaigns, and anyone can lead campaigns, irrespective of what politics you have. A socialist building a campaign, however, also seeks to link the campaign to other aspects of capitalist injustice, seeks to join others in that campaign to a socialist party, seeks to win people to socialist (and therefore Marxist) ideology. Socialist Alliance campaign builders, on the other hand, are not permitted to do this, because to do so would undermine the broad party project.”

The point that Adam misses here is that not anyone can lead campaigns to victory.

Activists with a parliamentary-organisational method, such as those affiliated to the Greens or ALP, identified by Adam, will struggle to win any real victories for social movements, as they either don't identify or deliberately wish to obscure the hollow nature of “democracy” under capitalism.

This has been demonstrably true in the case of the climate movement, for example, in which radical voices arguing for real solutions including ourselves, and others, have been sidelined by such elements, the result being the ALP-Greens carbon trading scheme which doesn't even satisfy the basic demand of climate activists to reduce real emissions.

Why is it important for social movements to win? It's not just about these campaigns winning for their own sake, because we believe in the morality of the cause. It's actually about breaking the decades-old lethargy of the working classes in Australia, where mass movements have occasionally sprung to the surface, but none have delivered real lasting victories.

As was the case in the 1960s when victories for the civil rights movement in the US and the Indigenous rights movement in Australia inspired millions of workers and students to mobilise, a strong victory for a social movement on the basis of a mass action-oriented campaign would be of benefit to the class struggle in Australia as a whole, regardless of the fact that future capitalist parliaments and corporations would inevitably attempt to undermine or repeal such victories.

It is hardly arguable that “if equal marriage rights were attained, the movement would wind up and activists could go home”. This is blindly ignoring the real history of working class struggle in Australia and similar Western imperialist nations of the last 100 years, against the spirit of Marxist thought which is always open-minded and grounded in real observations.

Despite Adam's assertions, the fact that several of our leading comrades have been throwing themselves into the struggle and playing leading roles in the social movements of today is an affirmation of our revolutionary politics.

I will admit that party-building activities do come under pressure in branches where many activists are playing leading roles in such campaigns. But in my experience as a Socialist Alliance activist none of the comrades named by Adam have lost their commitment to party-building, or their willingness to engage in such tasks.

In no way does the organisational method or tactics used by Socialist Alliance activists in our involvement in movements “not permit” us to win people to Marxist ideology or seek to join them to our party. I can think of no evidence which possibly substantiates Adam's argument that Socialist Alliance's practices are not informed by Marxism, and I myself have never experienced any patronising comments or hostility when in meetings or on email lists for identifying as a Marxist. However, I have when expressing an opinion on political disagreements within the party, namely about the Libyan uprising.

Adam wrote: “Here we have one of the most senior members within the leadership of SA, openly describing an ultra-violent coup, composed of the most right wing forces within Libya, including pro-Western monarchists, the most reactionary of Islamic fundamentalists, US flag waving pro-imperialists and more, as a 'democracy movement' !! It beggars belief.”

Adam's assertion that because Chris Williams identified the movement for democracy in Libya as what it is, he no longer has Marxist credentials is seriously lacking in veracity.

A spanner is thrown into the works of Adam's argument that the movement against Colonel Gadaffi is not worth defending due to the fact that it has delivered to power a coalition of conservative pro-capitalist forces. When one looks to what is actually happening in Libya post-Gadaffi, and one can see that, despite the inevitable opening up of the oil market to the same partners Gadaffi was trading with, the democracy movement has continued, with ongoing protests in Benghazi demanding transparency and reforms to address inequality from the Transitional National Council (TNC).

Indeed, the “left-wing” movements in Tunisia and Egypt that Adam identified in his contribution to Alliance Voices as being ones that we should support have brought to power, through capitalist elections, some of the most socially conservative forces in Tunisia and Egypt's histories - Islamist governments in both countries.

Does this mean we should show no solidarity to the revolutionaries of those countries, who are now struggling to convince the massive layers of society which supported them in the struggles against Ben Ali and Mubarak that the Islamists represent the same injustice and indignity? Of course not. Yet the principle of showing solidarity to social movements struggling against imperialism doesn't seem to apply in Libya.

The thing that determines whether a party can build up a cadre of professional revolutionaries, or the measure of those cadre's revolutionary credentials, is not the amount that they can quote Lenin or James Cannon or other revolutionary Marxist thinkers. It's how well they've understood the lessons learned by those who have come before us, and can apply them to the struggle ahead of us.

With the watershed year of global revolt that we have just gone through, it's time for the working class in Australia to start putting some real runs on the board, and Socialist Alliance activists and the party as a whole should be doing everything we can to ensure the success of these struggles.

On Revolutionary Organisations Today

The following piece is my thoughts on the nature of revolutionary organisations in Australia today; they are mine alone. I am a member of the Socialist Alliance and of SA's youth organisation, Resistance; in the 2011 NSW state election I was a candidate on Socialist Alliance's upper house ticket. My criticisms of any groups or parties in Australia or abroad, including those I am part of, are in not in any way meant to belittle the noble efforts of those who are part of them. Normally I would have sent this article to someone whose opinion I respect before posting it, but this is my raw opinion on the subject, and I'd love to see debate and criticism of it in the comments below.

An activist from Socialist Alternative, with whom I was discussing my decision to leave that group after some months of membership in 2006 and my later decision to join Resistance in 2007, asked me something along the lines of "surely the question of how we organise can't be the reason why you left?" He is an activist for whom I have a lot of respect; although we'd read each others emails on e-lists, we first met at Australia's first national BDS conference, and he is a leading activist in Palestinian solidarity in his home city. We were both in Sydney for the ALP's national conference, at which there were two major protests to support equal marriage rights and against mistreatment of asylum seekers (my photos to follow soon). Yet despite the fact that we were marching side by side, presenting almost identical demands on these two issues, the thing that seemed the most important to him was whether we agreed on the theory of state capitalism and, thus, Cuba's revolution.

In late 2011 I travelled to the Middle East, largely to try and gain insight on (& show solidarity to) the revolutionary struggle being waged there in the last year, so I am someone who thinks a real understanding of the nature of imperialism is important. Yet to me, the far more important difference is Socialist Alternative's differentiation between propaganda groups and mass parties, and thus their attitude towards organising in Australia today.

The number one sign of a group that has grown too inward-looking is elevation of doctrine and theoretical correctness ahead of the kind of invaluable experience earned in struggle, which is the only way that an activist can truly put their theory & assessments to the test. Despite making obligatory statements against it, this assessment of "The nature & tasks of a small socialist group in Australia today", recently reposted by John Passant, displays exactly that dogmatic approach. This idea of marxism as a static and rigid formula that one can simply read and then apply to everything goes hand in hand with a perspective that one's own group is the only one with the correct theoretical line, and all others are practicing some perversion of marxism. To me, this attitude is ultimately counter-productive to real marxist thought.

If our primary goal is "arguing our ideas – selling our magazine, running information stalls, holding meetings, talking to individuals, organising study groups, selling books – not agitating for mass action or running for parliament", then having arguments over differences in marxist thought and ensuring that we all get on the same page theoretically is the only useful task during a period of little sustained struggle against capitalism. Thus, I can see why the comrade I was speaking to would place such significance on what I see to be a relatively small point of theoretical difference – important, but not hugely relevant to our understanding of the nature of modern Australian capital or the best strategy for revolutionary Australian socialists to work towards overthrowing it.

The fact that small-scale struggles often break out locally, or that there has been some exciting openings in campaigns relating to mass audiences in recent years, such the movement against coal seam gas mining or the one for equal marriage rights, thus only presents a new audience with whom to have such arguments; those who agree with you or can be won to your position, you recruit, and the rest you attempt to get behind your banner or condemn as "liberal". Bearing such a "sectarian" attitude is a complaint commonly thrown against any socialists attempting to work in such movements, including myself; most of the time it is pure red-baiting by those who either ideologically or personally see socialists within movements as a threat. Yet the organisational approach of SAlt argued in this document to me seems prone to such a counter-productive attitude, or, at the very least, unconcerned with the potential for activists to fall into such an approach.

I don't mean to undermine or belittle the hard work that a great many SAlt comrades do in supporting such campaigns, nor suggest that all of their members behave in this fashion (all socialists can become prone to falling into such traps of thought, after all); but to me the organisational approach of limiting a revolutionary organisation's work to propagandising and recruiting new members, and abstaining from seeking to win leadership of what struggles are being fought in the here and now, not only risks condemnation for "sectarianism", but will ultimately stifle the development of leaders and sabotage any potential to impact the political climate and move forward to a future in which we can realistically talk about an Australian revolution.

For example, the following list of tasks:

"We need to be able to confidently answer [the mileu's] concrete questions about the issues of the day and to refute the arguments of the right wing and the reformists. We participate in these movements to argue how they can win – for the need for mass action rather than relying on the ALP - and to explain how the drive to imperialist war and the attacks on workers’ living standards are all the product of a capitalist system in which a wealthy minority lives off the labour of the mass of workers. In other words, we intervene to argue ideas – to make concrete propaganda - to try to win people radicalised by these protests to a socialist standpoint. We also see intervening in these movements as vital training. It is a way to test our analysis and arguments about capitalism today. It is a way to hone the arguments of our existing members so that they can intervene more effectively and cohere a layer of people around us. It is a way to integrate new members recruited from these movements, as they have to go out and try to convince other people of our arguments about the road forward. It is a means to educate ourselves so that we can actually play a central leading role in the future, when we have accumulated more forces."

The list of tasks makes no mention of the real work of leadership, beyond providing ideological and practical direction; learning how to comprimise, build consensus behind your proposals (and find the ways to democratically move forward when consensus cannot be found), and inclusively build a campaign, network or movement. This is a vitally important question for training cadre; is is only through testing out ideas in struggle, whether practical ones about the most effective means to organise or theoretical ones about the correctness or strength of certain arguments, that we can actually see which ones work most effectively. It's not just about about seeing which ideas win arguments, but which ones win campaigns and struggles. Thus, the revolutionaries of Tunisia & Egypt did not come away from their respective episodes of workplace-based struggle in 2008 thinking that workers would not play the leading role in a struggle against the regime; instead, they sought out new ways to reach a mass audience and for the working class to provide leadership to the millions suffering from the capitalist order.

The fair and honest assessment of the weakness of the left in Australia & other similar areas of the western world today that this article gives is used to justify, most significantly, a sectarian approach to leadership of mass struggles. This is summed up in the sentence "Socialists have to learn to lead, i.e. how to convince others of ideas they initially don’t totally agree with." Even on the basic level of education & leadership within the party, such an approach, resting upon a notion of a leader as the one who is correct and should be obeyed, is a product of capitalist ideology and against any real spirit of revolution. To take such an attitude into working with others in campaigns, who may or may not be revolutionary socialists, will inevitably lead to alienation; perhaps a few who agree with you will be joined to the group, as the above quote assumes, but with such an attitude it's hard to see how healthy and productive working relationships within campaigns will be developed, and thus how those campaigns could ever win their demands.

This, ultimately, is the most important things that revolutionary socialists can bring to a struggle; an understanding of the reasons why sexism, homophobia, abuse of workers, etc exist today, and thus the clearest understanding of how we can fight back against the constant assault of capital, and perchance then to win these struggles. And ultimately, putting big wins on the board for little campaigns like these has a flow-on effect for the working class and the rest of the 99% as a whole, which becomes to realise that changing the way things work is possible and, when the next crisis of capitalism comes along, is far more ready to rise up against it. Thus the success of the mass movement against Mubarak has spurred on a whole variety of activists in Egypt, from the Coptic minority to feminist bloggers to workers. If building the party comes at the expense of building mass sentiment like that, then we're no closer to winning anything real at all.

After that, it was somewhat refreshing to read Dan DiMaggio's article Road Maps, Dead Ends, and the Search for Fresh Ground: How Can We Build the Socialist Movement in the 21st Century? on LINKS. For me, it does a far better job of outlining the real limitations and tasks for revolutionary socialist organisations in the West in this period than the artificially limited definition of a "propaganda group". For example:

"Even if it is the case that “micro-sects” are all that can be built now, then let them be less pretentious, less sectarian, more open to working with one another, and more aware of their own inherent weaknesses (not to demoralize them but rather to help better understand the role they might play). Let them critically evaluate all their methods, search out more effective forms, and really ask if they are preparing the way toward something better in the future."

Certainly to trick ourselves into thinking we are on the verge of winning revolutionary change here in Australia if only the organised left could get its act together is going to lead us to inevitable demoralisation. But to likewise condemn ourselves to banging our head against a wall because of the limitations of the objective conditions of society will do the same. Of course, there are many admirable people amongst the organised left who are willing to sacrifice their time, energy and health because they are ideologically and morally convinced to do so; but I don't like to count myself amongst their ranks. Thus, when a party has a line that greater unity & political collaboration is the goal, yet at every conference the same organisational and political tactics are proposed in order to reach that goal even though there have been limited successes (and I'm talking here about my own party, at least on certain aspects such as membership) – it's time for some changes. Experiences like the 2011 NSW state elections, in which the upper house ticket included a broad variety of leftists (some who quit the ALP in protest to join it), though, are important steps forward; but in the absence of a mass revolutionary party or layer, I don't think there is the capacity for them to form without a "micro-sect" party to initiate them.

DiMaggio's list of things to attempt on page 47-48 is an interesting example of creative ideas for organisation, and I think many of them are initiatives that could be pursued, either through direct communication between left organisations or through left unity forums such as Broad Left in Wollongong or Left Unity in Adelaide. But the question of "A common website, newspaper, and/or journal, with the aim of posting important news, reports on struggles, socialist and radical analysis, and serving as a forum for debate and organizing ideas" is one where there are limitations to what can be done in the absence of an organisation. Any paper hoping to pay the bills for production simply on donations or even sales will inevitably struggle; even corporate newpapers are experiening difficulty in this way. However, I think a project like Green Left Weekly, which is supported by a group (the Socialist Alliance distributes papers throughout the country, both through subscriptions as well as selling in the traditional "annoying" sense at rallies and events) but constantly aims towards left regroupment, encouraging contribution from a broad range of activists, can provide this need for a revolutionary media project; this is the kind of direction I'd like to see Green Left move in order to become a real rival to resources like Counterpunch and Znet, the two mentioned by DiMaggio, as well as Australian left media outlets like New Matilda.

Egypt: Elections underway

Here is three links which help in understanding Egypt's parliamentary elections and their relationship with the renewed Tahrir protests and occupation, which have now reached their 11th day and show no sign of giving up the Midan.

Firstly, the Guardian's interactive guide is useful for getting a sense of who the forces are and where they stand. All indications are that the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, which is in a coalition with some liberal and left parties but itself sits on the centre-right and conservative side of things, is going to win a landslide. If Tunisia's elections are any indicator, they will pick up much of the vote of the people who supported the revolution, but not the revolutionaries themselves. Many in Tahrir & the smaller sit in outside the Cabinet of Ministers building will be boycotting the election, although the call for a boycott went out too late and was up against too much propaganda from the regime, the Brotherhood & other forces to pick up widespread support.

The Tahrir revolutionaries and their supporters who aren't boycotting the elections seem likely to vote for the "Revolution Continues" alliance, which is largely made up of socialist groups (including the Egyptian Socialist Party, whose members I have interviewed earlier in this blog) but also the Current party, which split from the Muslim Brotherhood youth over questions like supporting ongoing protests after February 11. Ahram Online have profiled the coalition's makeup and policies. On November 20 the alliance announced it would be suspending its campaign, but yesterday it signed on to a joint statement stating they would not cancel their campaign, while calling for the public to join the protests.

Meanwhile, Mostafa Ali, a member of the IST-affilated Revolutionary Socialists party, gave an interview with Socialist Worker on what the elections and the last 11 days mean for the mass movement and revolutionary struggle here. Great analysis, especially in discussing the growth of what he calls the "revolutionary vanguard" - although note the sectarian dig at the "Revolution Continues" alliance:

"THE GENERAL feeling in Tahrir is that the SCAF has cut a deal not only with the Brotherhood and the Salafists, but also with the liberals and a section of the left, a coalition called the Revolution Continues. They are going to divide the seats in the new parliament among themselves."

For the record, the few protesters I spoke to today at the #occupycabinet sit-in were all for a boycott, but none claimed that the leftists running in the election had cut a deal with the SCAF.

Interview with the Tunisian Communist Worker's Party, part 2

The following questions were answered by leading members of the Tunisian Communist Worker's Party (PCOT) in follow-up to my earlier interview with Samir Taamallah. The response to the first question comes from a statement by Hamma Hammami; a more detailed statement on PCOT's election results can be read here, and it has been translated by blogger The Moor Next Door.



Ted Walker: How do you feel about PCOT's results in the elections? Do you feel the campaign was successful in raising the issues that you wanted to?


Hamma Hammami: Some newspapers consider that the elections of October 23th were extraordinary and unique, furthermore, perfect; this is clearly an exaggeration. We have to avoid blind optimism for the election's results, and instead consider it with more criticism.

There were many complaints against some lists, and I don’t think the judiciary system would be rude in taking positions in their affairs. But despite our criticism, the PCOT aren't asking to rerun the elections or to cancel them, however we have some remarks to mention:

First, the reduced number of participants in the elections; according to the ISIE, only 48.9% have voted! Such statistics are worrying and their impacts on the political future of the Constituent Assembly (CA) would be important, because the constitution doesn't reflect the opinion of the majority. To heal this problem, the PCOT is calling for the constitution, once it would be finished, to be presented to the people in a referendum; thus, the Tunisian population would accept it or not!

Second, political money (money invested by parties in their electoral campaign) was a significant factor in differentiating the results of the parties. No one can deny that there an obvious difference between spending 25 dinars on an elector and spending 500 dinars on him.

Third, the use of religious rhetoric in mosques and public areas directly & indirectly influenced people. The biggest failure is that persons who should have reacted against such attempts to influence voters didn’t, and behaved just as passively as they did under Ben Ali regime. It’s just like there were hidden powers which want to create divides between atheists and religious people.

Fourth, the poor role played by the media, especially public media, meant that they didn’t help people distinguish, choose and understand what does the constitution and its content mean.

Fifth, there were mutual attacks between parties which sometimes reached a very pitiful edge.

Sixth, there were many infractions of electoral rules were noticed in polling stations, confirmed by a wide number of observers.

To conclude: no one can deny that the Tunisian election was manipulated by international actors (most notably American and European ones) which are aiming to limit the Tunisian revolution to minor reforms and modifications and want to sustain the former system, the former pro-capitalist economic, political and social policies. The foreign intervention was materialized by the transitory government and some parties, because during the election campaign there were many people traveling in and out Tunisia and we were hearing many assurances from different parties that Tunisia will maintain the old political and economic policies.


Ted: How does PCOT evaluate its own participation in the election?


Chrif Khraief: We estimate that our participation was very weak, and we’re not satisfied because 3 seats in the CA doesn’t reflect at all the real weight of the party on the streets. No one can deny the historical role, the historical activism and the big impact of PCOT in building the revolution. We are looking critically at ourselves all the time in the purpose of going forward and overcoming our weaknesses and improve ourselves.

It’s true that PCOT have learnt revolutionary activism and have always done it very well, but we’ve never learnt or experienced electoral campaigning. We made a clean electoral campaign in which we focused on our program and proposals for the constitution and the transitory government and we relied on our activists' energy and motivation, mainly young ones, but we’ve suffered from our weak implantation in cities and countryside which negatively impact transforming political reputation to an electoral power. And we lost many voices by changing our name “PCOT” to “Al Badil (Revolutionary Alternative)”; many people didn’t recognize us on polling day.

We made a big mistake when we didn’t organise a supervisor for each polling station, which allowed to some parties to catch the opportunity to influence people. We’ve also faced the electoral campaign with very modest material means and we relied on campaign funding given by the authorities, which reached us very late in the campaign. Additionally, our candidates were the target of a very rude campaign of attacks because of our principles and integrity; some parties spread many rumors against us which didn’t allow us reach our target result of 10%.

Although our results are not satisfying, we’ve learnt a lot from this experience, we actually know our weakness and we’re more than ever convinced by our principles.


Ted: Do you feel like the new government will make any deep social or economic changes? Will it pursue real justice against the former regime?


Chrif Khraief: We don’t believe at all that the new government, with its current composition, is willing to make radical and real changes on the social and economic fronts. Even before the first sitting of the CA, they’ve reassured the world that they would hold on the same way of the former regime. This is especially true regarding economic policy; they have statedthey will pay foreign debts and they still sustaining the market economy which lead to political dictatorship, economic regression and social inequality.

On the social front, the CA has shown no interest in the poor people and disadvantaged interior which were neglected for a long time under Ben Ali, which was one of the reasons behind protests and strikes. And given the lack of judicial reform, even if they would take decisions, they would be fake, because we can’t exercise real democracy when the agents of the former regime are still active, the judiciary system is still not fair or free, and the media is still not free, the administration is still corrupt, and people involved in torture and corruption are still free. We can’t talk about real justice without talking about accountability and giving back esteem to the victims of Ben Ali.


Ted: There has been major strikes called in tourism, transport and other industries since the elections were held. Have PCOT members been involved in or supporting these actions? What place is the UGTT and workers taking in the revolutionary struggle?


Chrif Khraief: PCOT was not behind those protests, but it’s supporting them and forever will do! We will insist that the government realize promises it gave just after the revolution like canceling interim work wages, subsidising those worked on a fixed wage, adopting transparent standards of recruitment, etc.

Workers are, at present, split into two groups. There are the kind of revolutionaries which aims to concretize interior democracy within the UGTT, and to defend workers against capitalists and bosses. This kind includes democrats, left, syndicalists, and others; it was always present in the brightest moment of the UGTT – the strike of 26 January 1978, the bread revolution of 1984, legitimacy fights of 1985, support of Iraq in Gulf War of 1990, Redeyef and Oum Laarayes uprising of 2008. But mainly and above all, these workers were involved in the revolutionary movements which led to the downfall of Ben Ali on January 14.

All activists of this kind are going to have an assembly in December to pursue the path of revolution and to install a real democracy and to pursue defending workers rights against the second kind of workers. These are the bureaucrats which are representing the counter-revolutionary power (bosses syndicate) which want to fail the negotiations and modify the orientations of debates by playing with buying power of Tunisians (prices all still rising day by day although salaries not), rather than making the union become a tool of worker's independence and power. These bureaucrats are the ones which supported Ben Ali until the last moment and treated revolutionaries as trouble makers.


Ted: What do you think about the #occupy protest movement which has been growing around the world and which recently saw an Occupy Tunis protest on the 11th of November?


Jilani Hamemi: The #occupy protest movement which began in Wall street in USA is a logical consequence of the collapsing capitalist system.

In fact, the capitalist system has passed through many crisis which occurred periodically through its history, but they are getting closer and closer – the TIC crisis, military industry’s crisis, real estate crisis, and now a crisis based on a bad banking system with a lot of interests which harm the American citizen budget and standard of life. And now, the Occupy protest movement is giving hope that we can change this capitalist system to a communist one. This movement is tagging its origin from the “Arab spring” and it’s materializing a similar revolutionary struggle against miserable life conditions.

The capitalist system is now making every effort to absorb the street’s anger and make frequent interventions – but these have not worked so far, because the people want real changes; a minimum guaranteed industrial wage, a guaranteed yearly income, the right of work, the right of free education, of public health care, the canceling of their debts due to interest, and even the canceling of many country’s foreign debt, such as Tunisia. They are demanding a new society based on democracy, equality, and freedom.

That’s the real way of struggle. We have to hold on to reach our objective; the struggle won’t be easy, but it's not impossible for us to win. But we must remain critically aware of the movement's weaknesses.