Supposedly every war must have an exit strategy. What about class war?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

You can't keep fighting indefinitely. Yes, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance but you have to stop shooting -- even if only metaphorically -- if for no other reason than you have to reload occassionally. "Fighting" is only good if it creates or preserves those qualities desired for times of peace. If those qualities are never realized the fighting is not worth it and if the fighting goes on forever you never get to realize those qualities.

So, we're having a class war. What is our exit strategy? How do we recognize "victory" when we see it? For example -- What's our exit strategy in the so-called "War on Terror? Answer -- There isn't one. We could be fighting forever and we'll never see the peace we claim to be fighting for.

* Is the class war victorious when the current crop of legislators hears the grievances of OWS and begins implementing policy recommendations?

I don't think so. This relies on the attentions and benevolence of the people who have offended us in the first place. Absent some political epiphany on their part, I'm not seeing it but I'm definitely not seeing a political epiphany since the most egregious crackdowns/evictions occurred in cities with Democrat mayors and constituencies.

* Does OWS submit its own candidates -- as did the TP -- in primaries and elections to create its own caucus to influence legislation?

Personally, I'd prefer this approach but 1) the brand has already been damaged in the "popular media" and 2) as OWS created its own General Assembly etc for the explicit purpose of NOT participating in American polity I don't think the movement is interested/considering this option.

* Replace the current political structure of the US

The ultimate non-starter. In cities with millions of residents only a few hundred have turned-out. That's a fraction of a percent feeling moved enough to commit to long-term protest, not to mention what it would take to steer the nation away from 235+ years of governmental precedent. Egypt saw half-a-million protesters in a single location from a nation whose population is 81 million. That means we'd need more than 2 million Americans in the mall in DC to equate the size of that movement.

Replacing the political structure of the entire US (read: dissolving the constitution) ain't gonna happen. It's a pipe dream, don't waste your time on it. The police will not support/defect. The military will still obey the next (re-)elected president. Congress will still convene and pass laws. The Supreme Court will still hear cases based on US law, not resolutions passed by the OWS-GA.

If any were to say, "We don't want to replace the Constitution, we just want to make the pols adhere to it." OK, fine but the TP says that as well so that just means we're back to Square 1, arguing over who has the better interpretation of that. It also means that what OWS really needs to do is submit its own candidates as did the TP.

Plenty of good people are calling for OWS to "reboot" after getting the boot. The more ridiculous types are calling for more "direct action" as if they could somehow go toe-to-toe with the executive branches of local, state, and federal government. This latter crowd is simply too absurd to take seriously and if they show any intention of making good their threats they should be treated like Tim McVeigh, Hutaree or other asinine so-called "patriot" militias who kill innocent people because they're too petulant to accept the fact life doesn't always go their way. I would add, settling matters with violence is the old, tried-and-failed method of more primitive minds. I consider myself more -- progressive -- than that.

To the former I ask: what are we fighting for? What is the end-state? How do we recognize victory when we see it?

We have to claim we are fighting for X and then we must define X in concrete, obtainable terms. If not we may well find ourselves fighting for the wrong things, we may never know victory were it to arrive and that lack of focus will more than likely bring peace through defeat to a better organized and focused adversary.

[Brickbat]

1. Aggressors formulate exit strategies.

Your metaphor doesn't hold.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. There were no Zucotti park clearings until there was a Zucotti park occupation

So I'm not sure which aggressor you are referring to. In popular leftist literature the pols ordering the clearings would be deemed "reactionaries."

Perhaps you mean, the corporatists are the aggressors for the way they have guided policy, ignored popular will, distorted public debate, etc.

OK, fine. But that is exactly what my metaphor encapsulates. The Allies didn't start WW2. The aggressor was pretty well defined but the allies also defined terms of victory and that was for the Axis to beg for peace without condition.

So what would terms be for OWS? (If you're waiting for Warren Buffet to open his bank account and say, "Take what you need" you're in for a long wait.)

[MFrohike]

18. Ridiculous

I'm not speaking to the OP in this post, just your reply.

The phrase "exit strategy" is just a fancy buzzword. All it means is that the parties in conflict should have a recognizable end of the conflict in mind. The "exit strategy" of WW2 was the absolute capitulation of the Axis powers. The "exit strategy" of the Civil War was the reunification of the country and the elimination of slavery (yes, I know this became an avowed goal midway through the war). "Exit strategies" apply to ALL parties in conflict, not merely aggressors.

[HereSince1628]

2. You fight to convince the other side to negotiate or

you fight to simply make the other side go away.

The upper class is fighting to make the middle class go away. Currently they have momentum.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. So you're waiting for the political epiphany? n/t (no sarcasm, either)

[HereSince1628]

16. Generally you fight to wear down the oppositions resistance to negotiation

At some point, it is typical for the sides to negotiate terms to be done with the costs of conflict.

It's not a all clear that there is a representatives for either the middle class or the rich, raising the question of whether a negotiated settlement to class war is possible.

[lunatica]

3. All those words and you didn't say much of anything

Exit strategy? Exit from what? Equality? Social change? Finding jobs? Getting an education? Financial equity?

Why would anyone want an exit strategy from having rights to health care?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Those are the qualities of peace I mentioned at the beginning.

"Jews not being stuffed into ovens" is a quality of peace. WW2 is the war waged to obtain that quality. "Compelling the Axis to submit without precondition" is the exit strategy defined by the Allies.

[meow2u3]

19. We can compel the power elite to submit to the will of the people without preconditions.

In other words, treat the 1% like the tiny minority they are, the same way they're treating us now.
Presume that their fortunes were amassed by criminal means, confiscate their ill-gotten gains, and punish them with hardship, with automatic loss of rights. If the 1% want to treat peaceful protesters and other wronged people as if we were the enemy, criminals, or even terrorists, two can play that game. We can turn the tables on them and give them a taste of their own medicine.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. Why would you presume guilt?

That's horrible. Apple, Inc. $54 billion in profits sitting in the bank. They did nothing criminal or even unethical (maybe unpalatable vis-a-vis overseas jobs but unpalatable is NOT a legal standard nor should it be). They made that money because consumers voluntarily paid cost-plus-profit for the privilege of playing Angry Birds while the boss is out of the office.

And it is unenforcible. Congress will not pass this policy into law. The executive branches will not enforce this policy and no court would uphold presumptive guilt.

And anyone tries to go Tim McVeigh they will and should be locked away.

[sarcasmo]

7. It would be nice to see a real third party for the working class emerge from OWS.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. I think this is where you and i find agreement in principle

The ideals of the OWS must take a political form. They must propose legislation and nominate candidates.

However, I think they should do so within the Democrat party via primary challenges and whatnot. A third party will split the vote and THAT never leads to fun feelings, i.e. start a Nader for President thread around here and see what happens.

[sarcasmo]

15. I agree with the split of the vote. The problem being that so many in the Democratic party are

bought and paid for by the bankers just like the Republicans. Just last week Schumer came out swinging against lay away of all things, because it's obvious the credit company owns Schumer.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. So Schumer should be primaried or at least challenged

The problem is careerists are monopolies in their own right. They monopolize political power for their districts and like all monopolies they are more interested in preserving their power than serving their true patrons. That's why we have anti-trust laws.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It's all the same flock and politicians and corporations are the same flockers we've always been flocking dealing with as we fight to keep from being flocked by them.

Preserve the party during elections but those who are bought and paid for need to be challenged in primaries. If nothing else it shows the electorate we're serious about change if we're willing to enforce principles over party.

[dtexdem]

8. That depends on whose exit strategy is in question.

And, of course, wars seldom end according to anyone's exit strategy, in any case.

[Fumesucker]

9. From a very cynical point of view there are only two exits from the class war..

The first is the gulag and the second is tumbrel rides.

[ArcticFox]

11. Seems you've got your definition of exit strategy confused with conditions of victory

An exit strategy is what you employ when you realize you can't win.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. Allowing this for the sake of discussion, what are the terms of victory?

[ArcticFox]

23. I only know what I'd like to see happen

I'd like to see the rest of us liberate all the wealth that has been unfairly accumulated by those at the very top over the last 50 years or so. I'd like those making the most use of the commons to be taxed proportionately. I'd like those that make money while externalizing their harm to the environment or to others to have to pay those externalized costs. I'd like to see the end of the "war on drugs" and end of the "war on terror," neither of which qualifies for the term "war", and neither of which has any possible end other than the complete destruction of all humanity. Oh, And Liberty and Justice for ALL.

[MineralMan]

12. You make excellent sense. So, your message will probably

go unheard by the very people who could benefit from it. Recced.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. That's very kind of you but

I want folks to consider it because I want the positive things of OWS to matter, to make a difference. Like the song says, "What in the hell are we fighting for?"

[Zorra]

14. If I were a 1%er, I'd buy me a villa on the South Coast of China.

In the country that does most of my business.

The US might not be as fascist friendly in a few years as it is right now.

[MFrohike]

20. First rule

There is no actual end to class struggle. It does not end. It's a little depressing to realize that, but every new generation forgets and mislearns the lessons of the old. It's a reality of humans.

Victory, at the minimum, is a re-balancing of the scales that restores the post-war social contract. I don't mean in terms of race, sex, and sexual orientation (or anything else). I simply mean the economic contract. I would like to go back to the 50s economically while retaining the gains we've made in the meantime.