Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Anarchism - a Dirty Word or The Cure

Posted 2 years ago on May 30, 2012, 10:28 p.m. EST by junglemonkeez (208)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Idk but, to me Anarchism is Liberty, liberty is the freedom to act as one Must. And as individuals, who by nature are simply different, we must be able to act according to our individual callings.

A lot of people will call this lawlessness and are afraid. But this is baseless conjecture. Of course one should not be free to kill at will, but this is a rather moot point as this is already happening, just at the will of the powerful and the military industrial complex and for both sides of every arguement.

I would argue this is the cure, in so much as it is the only idea provided by man that has not had its day in the sun. Those in power live under the notion that the masses can and must be controlled and will force their will to maintain this control. However, this control is manufactured and as with all manufactured goods when demand dries up, the control will fade.

What does all that mean, let me try and brake this down. A man is limited in his wants and desires, to one thing. Freedom! So most men get a job like good little boys do and thus has some money, then he gets a wife/honey/home/kids/education for himself and his kids/healthcare for himself and his kids or in all other words... Debt. It is at this point that ones Freedom is no longer his own. Every man in this predicament, if he is being honest, will tell you this is so. Yes, I do realize some have beat the odds, and for this demonstration, and if you care about your fellow man, you should open your mind and imagine how this must feel to a man or woman burdened by Debt Slavery. Think about the all seeing eye on the back of the dollar bill, the bottom bricks on the pyramid are the Debt Slaves. (This by the way is a deliberate slap in the face of the very people who use this currency.) Above the Debt Slaves are all the people who help to keep the slaves at bay, and if you will look on the dollar bill you will notice there are many levels in that pyramid, now I ask you what level do you belong. This example is only meant as an awakening dialogue. We have all been dooped, from The President, some in congress, to countries and their peoples all over the world. There is only room at the top for one person and some advisors, the rest are ponds in this game of Risk (the game of world domination.)

Again I say, Anarchism, not as it has been defined but as the collective shall jointly define it, is the cure. Only when the burdens of belief, the belief of debt are cast off will the pyramid be turned on its head and crushed under its own weight. Ask yourself, what man owns your home but you, what is his name? What man owns your families happiness, what is his name? There is only the institution of honoring ones debt, which keeps you in shakles. But you ARE free, you are ALL free! And always have been.

Anarchism is a belief in justice, provided by all free men of good sound conscience, or at least that is what I think it is.

As a proponant of this idea, i would also like to say this isn't a mutually exclusive idea, I believe it would blend nicely with a direct democracy. I believe in the good sound hearts of most people and in their hearts lies the gateway to justice, but until we can tap into that. There will be no justice for the slaves.

So, if you missed the point, you the Slave, have the Power, provided that you all stand together and in each others defense. I didn't make this all up, it is just what I am seeing on all of those streets and It Gives Me Hope for Real Change.

signed, the Learning1

54 Comments

54 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Anarchism won't happen as a result of a protest movement by the underclass (in an environment where the vast majority of people do not see themselves as part of the underclass). These days, people won't follow a movement unless they think it's competent. Obscure complaints, an unwillingness to commit to positions, etc., is a turn off for most people. Most people want to hear articulate arguments from well qualified people. Even the ancient Athenians, arguably the most robust direct democracy in history (assuming you were an Athenian male) would appoint skilled orators to debate in the Agora.

[-] -2 points by allen (12) 2 years ago

The problem with OWS today is that many protesters are trying to offer solutions instead of protesting. OWS is NOT a solution machine. The anarchists were smart not to make demands, support a particular candidate, or run OWS candidates for office. We can easily be inclusive and promote solidarity when we get together to protest because we can all agree there is a problem with the current form of capitalism. However, when socialists, anarchists, capitalists, communists, etc... come together, they can never agree on a solution because they all have different ideologies.

This search for a common solution is what is tearing OWS apart. OWS should remain a protest and never become a solution machine. That is a job for other groups.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/on-ows-advantages-dis-advantages-misconceptions-an/

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Look, I've been involved in marches, some big, some small, walking around NYC shouting things like protect education, and that is a position statement. If we say stop attacking education, it obviously implies that there's some specific action being taken by government that we oppose, and again, this IS a position. So it seems disingenuous to on hand articulate a position, while on the other hand, denying that we take positions (not to mention, it seems silly).

OWS was propelled by acute circumstances (the 2008 financial crash). When it first came out, everyone loved slogans like 99%. Then, after OWS was kicked out of Zuccotti, I think many people gravitated to events like May Day, because they were pissed off at the unfair way OWS was treated; but this sort of thing wears off.

Eventually, OWS will have to deal with rigorous scrutiny, and not by Fox News (who has zero credibility), but by people who they won't be able to accuse of advocating for the 1%. So I think maybe, rather than thinking the search for a common solution is tearing OWS apart, it could be that the failure to propose solutions is starting to turn people away.

[-] -2 points by allen (12) 2 years ago

Talking about problems and offering specific solutions are two different things. We can come together and point out the problem of high education costs, and we can protest against this. But, if I am a socialist, and you are an anarchist, we most likely will have different opinions on what the solution should be (the opinion might differ on general aspects, or in the details, this does not matter. What matters is that we will disagree.) For that reason, OWS should be reserved for protesting, and not try to offer solutions we will all agree on because this is impossible.

What is tearing people away is not the failure to offer solutions, but the exact opposite. As soon as we start talking about solutions, we disagree and people some people will leave the movement. This is inevitable. Socialists, communists, capitalists, anarchists, etc... cannot agree on solutions because they have fundamentally different ideologies.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

How is agreeing on problems any less controversial than agreeing on solutions? I mean, strictly speaking, education costs are related to supply and demand. A good capitalist might not see a problem in the rising cost of college tuition. Likewise, a good capitalist might not be concerned about the 15% of our population without health insurance. They may be satisfied with the ways we provide medical treatment for that population. Moreover, in some cases solutions are implicit in the way we identify problems. If we think education should be free ... that narrows the list of available options considerably (since there's no such thing as a magical education fairy, we would think that this necessarily implies public financing of education).

Moreover, it seems sort of absurd to endorse participatory democracy for our society, if coming up with solutions among ourselves is just too damn difficult and controversial. There's also a danger here. I'd hate to see an ineffective organization occupying the public's attention, while these important issues remain unaddressed. That just seems counterproductive to our stated purpose.

OWS is in some cases, at least loosely, endorsing untested ideas. If we impose dogmatic restrictions on ourselves, then it prevents us from experimentation.

[-] -1 points by allen (12) 2 years ago

Problems exist, and can be identified by looking at the symptoms. Solutions are theoretical until they are implemented. This, generally speaking, makes agreeing on problems much easier than agreeing on solutions.

As a simple example, most can agree there are economic problems in US. We can see the symptoms. The dollar is lower than before, and there is a higher rate of unemployment. You cannot deny that the economy was once better. However, agreeing on how to get out of this recession is not so easy.

But, you are right that some problems are not problems for others.

Obviously, OWS should stick to the main problems like greed on Wall Street and the problem of money being tied to politics which causes corruption. (Again, not everyone will agree that these are problems. Those that don't can simply abstain from OWS. We want as many people as possible, but we are still about something.)

I think most of us agree that the people don't have much control over the government. It's not the people's government. What we can't agree on is how to fix this.

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Right, if OWS stuck to a narrow list of grievances, then it would be easier to gain broad support. But at the end of the say, universal consensus is a tenuous idea among free thinking people. Anarchist philosophy would say that we can have a society built on consensus and voluntary cooperation. Where we have disagreement, one can simply opt out of whatever they disagree with.

Suffice it to say, this is at best a very long term goal, and at worse, wishful thinking (but unless we're willing to experiment, we have no way of knowing). Moreover, there's little reason for a complete refusal to discuss solutions, and in some cases (like I've been saying) we do pony specific proposals (for instance, there's pretty broad consensus behind the idea of restoring Glass Steagall).

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

This the best post you have made IMHO.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23968) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

More spewage of divisive crap.

[-] -1 points by allen (12) 2 years ago

If you took a moment, you would see it's the absolute opposite. Arguing over solutions is what separates us, I promote the idea of concentrating on issues that unite us. The reason we use labels such as anarchist, socialist, communist, capitalist, etc... is because these are complete viewpoints that offer very different solutions. There's no two way about it, as soon as we start talking solutions we start being divided. We are only united when talking about problems and protesting them.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"Socialists, communists, capitalists, anarchists, etc... cannot agree on solutions because they have fundamentally different ideologies."

Unfortunately, that is true. That is why change is so impossible to create. That is why the status quo (capitalism) remain in place unchallenged. Divide and conquer is the easiest way to defeat your enemy. So long as the enemy of the status quo is divided on what changes to make, the status quo reigns.

But saying OWS should remain organized around protesting and not organize around making changes, is just making the situation worse, not better.

[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

Here check out this interview with Gar Alperovitz I think what he's talking about is a pretty good solution http://occupywallst.org/forum/check-out-this-interview-with-gar-alperovitz/

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Gar advocates socialism. The only way to have a society that is fair, that is just, that works well for everyone as a right is through socialism.

It would be great if the US can build a legitimate socialist movement to show people that there is a much, much, much, much better alternative to capitalism.

Gar points out that this country produces roughly $50k per capita which amounts to about $200k per family of 4. That is enough to make everyone in this country wealthy. I talk about that a lot here.

So if income was allocated more equally, which will only happen in socialism, everyone would get paid a high income. Socialism would make everyone wealthy. I think that is the way to sell socialism to the mainstream. Everyone wants to get paid more money.

[-] 0 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

I like what he says because its not another form of state socialism but a decentralized localized worker owned socialism which fits well with my own political philosophy

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I agree. I think history has made it very clear that what works best is democratic market socialism.

I get very specific on how exactly that type of system can work and the exact benefits it would deliver in this post.

We could raise the minimum wage to $115k; reduce the work week to 20 hours; pay students to go to school; and guarantee everyone a 100% mortgage at 0% interest, a job and a pension.

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

hahah... Still peddling I see.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

hahah... still trolling i see.

Maybe you should exercise your brain and offer something intellectual instead. Your beloved capitalism has been a miserable failure everywhere.

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I think I'll visit demandthegoodlife.com and sign up for a virtual pyramid scheme instead.

Here's something for you to read regarding the failure of capitalism.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272081/modern-poverty-includes-ac-and-xbox-ken-mcintyre

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Since DTGL is part of a game, make sure you sign up for the game.

That article links to how the American poor are taking care of so that they don't starve to death in the street. That is socialism, government programs, that help them, NOT CAPITALISM!!!!!

Capitalism makes them poor and socialism prevents that poverty from becoming a death sentence.

Did you even read the article you linked to? lol

In socialism, there would be no poor that need any help because everyone is guaranteed a job with a wage high enough to make them wealthy.

Like I said, and like that article shows, socialism works and capitalism does not!

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

"A rising tide raises all boats." It is cliche - but applies here. The article shows that even the poor in the US are better off than what would be considered middle class in many other countries. That is because of capitalism. Capitalism is what generates money. Socialism does not.

Here we go again... please show me where your model of socialism has worked and that there are no poor, and everyone is wealthy.

[-] 0 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

A rising tide raises all boats equally. That is not what capitalism does!! That is what socialism does. Even though the economy has grown the last 10 years, wages have gone down and even though the economy has grown the last 30 years, wages have been stagnant. That is because all the gains have gone to the people at the top.

So in your defense of capitalism you gave 2 examples of the failures of capitalism and the benefits of socialism. lol

The reason why people are better off in America than in other countries is because we have socialist programs that mitigate the failures of capitalism and because we live in a country that has been developing longer than the others.

Capitalism doesn't produce "money" which I assume you mean goods and services. Socialism doesn't produce it either. People working produce everything. Capitalism and socialism are just different ways of allocating what is produced.

Capitalism allocates based on bargaining power which results in most going to a few at the top. Socialism allocates based on work which results in everything being allocated fairly to everyone.

Socialism does work. It is based on grade school math. When you allocate income based on work instead of bargaining power, your income will likely quadruple which you can verify with simple arithmetic in this post.

[-] 1 points by allen (12) 2 years ago

I don't agree. I think OWS should stick to protesting only. This is the big advantage of the protest and where all ideologies can come together to fight against common problems they agree on.

Solution machines are needed, but should be separate. Socialists can come up with their own solutions, anarchists with theirs, etc... This will provide many different view points, and they won't need to be watered down to accommodate the others. If OWS becomes a solution machine, then we need to make simplified solutions (watered down) to accommodate all the different ideologies, and, in the end, this will only separate us. We must be inclusive and unify ourselves around the beliefs we can all share, and those beliefs all have to do with identifying problems, not solutions.

And, really, some solutions are diametrically opposed to each other. Anarchists want to topple the representative republic, others only want to modify the laws to get money out of politics, etc... There is no reconcile that is possible in such a case. In the end, one must win out over the other, and that win is better done outside of OWS, else you just lost have the protesters. (or more).

The anarchists were smart in that sense. They did not promote their solutions over those of others. They simply stated that we should not make demands, and not play into politics. They knew that if we did this, we would all fight in different directions. Our common cause is the realization that America is an oligarchy and that this needs to be fixed, it is not about how this should be fixed.

[-] 2 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"I think OWS should stick to protesting only. This is the big advantage of the protest and where all ideologies can come together to fight against common problems they agree on."

You are contradicting yourself.

You can't say on the one hand that OWS should remain a protest movement only. And then on the other hand say it should be a place where people can fight against common problems.

Is it a movement that enables people to protest or a movement that enables people to solve problems?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I see no contradiction. OWS should protest against the oligarchy.! It should be a place where people can fight (protest!) against common problems (THE OLIGARCHY!) Get it! Same thing. no contradiction. OWS SHOULD point out the problems. Oligarchy covers many specific smaller problems. Solutions should come from somewhere else. I think even the current corrupt system might be pressured to create and implement some solutions. But not without a potent movement to constantly protest/pressure all pols. Thats OWS!

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I agree with you.

[-] 0 points by allen (12) 2 years ago

Finally we can agree on something. Finally.

BTW - I see you got banned. What did you do wrong? (Don't worry, everybody gets banned here after a bit of time. I think it's one of the website policies. Sort of like the Nazi's always hit their soldiers once in awhile.)

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Never been banned. Wrong answer.

[-] -1 points by allen (12) 2 years ago

Why the name change then? Forgot your password, or you're trying to pass yourself of as another?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Irrelevent. Stop speaking for the 1%. They prey on you and your family. They cannot succeed with getting half the 99% (right wing) to vote against their own interests. Support OWS. Vote out pro norquist, anti Buffett rule politicians.

[-] 0 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"Solutions should come from somewhere else"

So organize around complaining. But do not organize around changing things. I'm sure the oligarchs love your idea since they know that means nothing will ever change.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Complaining sounds childish. We are protesting against 1% abuse of the 99%. Unfair tax system. Hiding corp assets, weak regulations that hurt the 99%. loan shark level cr card interest rates, crippling healthcare costs, crippling college costs, corp crimes unprosecuted, outsourcing jobs, Union busting, corp personhood/citizens united. voter suppression legislation. You call it complaints I call it protesting about specific problems that hurt the 99%. So we say solve these problems God damn it!. We might have protested against racial discrimination 50 years ago but we wouldn't have drafted the legislation that addressed it. Ghandi didn't tell the British how they should leave india, only that Indians didn't want them there. It's a protest movement! Not a solutions movement. Got it.!

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The civil rights movement was a movement to enact civil rights. It wasn't a protest movement. Ghandi also demanded specific solutions.

Complaining that the British are in India is a protest movement. Demanding that the British should leave is a solutions movement. You have your definitions mixed up.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Wrong again. I am not mixed up at all. Civil rights marches were protesting discrimination. protesting lack of voting rights. protesting access to travel accomodations. The solutions had to be constructed. They went to court and won. Then someone else had to create the solution through crafting legislation acceptable to the courts. It is entirely valid to protest the problems that hurt the 99%. the solution must be crafted and OWS can review and approve or disapprove. get it?

[-] 0 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

If OWS is crafting a solution, reviewing it and the approving or disapproving it, it is no longer just a protest movement. Get it?

Since the civil rights movement protested discrimination and specifically demand changes in law, it was not just a protest movement. Get it?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Lets see a solution 1st then by natural process OWS will approve and cease protests, or disapprove and continue protesting. Simple.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

We will not craft the solution. I meant someone else must and OWS will approve/disapprove. Civil right did not formulate any solutions. someone else did that. When those solutions were acceptable to the movement the protests stopped.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You have it right. DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom says, "If OWS is taking an official position on a specific solution." OWS doesn't speak for anyone so there is no "official position."

Members of the movement vote with their participation in the protest. If the solution satisfies me, I quit. If it doesn't, I keep protesting. Good enough is perfect in this case. Solutions that satisfy most of the people is what we will get, at best.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I think we are just having a semantic argument now.

If OWS is taking an official position on a specific solution, it is no longer just a protest movement. And some people are adamantly opposed to OWS doing that.

[-] -1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

This guy is totally full of shit. He wants to co opt this for the Democrats.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You talkin' 'bout me? I don't see anyone else. You talkin' 'bout me.? I'm not "full of shit". I am resolute. I will speak up for the 99% until my last breath! I wil cunter right wing 1% tools whenever I can. You don't appear to support OWS. get in line. get behind us, or get the F%$# outta the way!

[-] -2 points by allen (12) 2 years ago

You can't say on the one hand that OWS should remain a protest movement only. And then on the other hand say it should be a place where people can fight against common problems.

Where is the contradiction? Fighting against common problems is not equal to solving those problems. Identifying problems and protesting against those problems is the first part of fighting problems straight on.

OWS is a protest that should be about identifying problems and voicing those problems in the street. Period. This is where all political ideologies can remain untied.

OWS should not be a solution machine because this will tear us apart.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

There is nothing preventing people from being part of the OWS movement and another group that advocates for specific solutions at the same time. Walk and chew gum.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

So the goal is not to solve problems, the goal is not to tear apart OWS?

Unless the organized group of people who are protesting a problem organize for a specific solution, that problem will remain.

What is the point of protesting a problem if you have no intention of solving it? And do we really need a protest to point out that we live in an unequal society and that the housing crisis is at the heart of the current recession? People don't already know this?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23968) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Many choose to ignore as they feel they may be secure in their situation and do not want to risk rocking the boat. The public protests - all of them - go towards pointing out the truth - no one is safe under these current conditions.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Right on again, however anarchists were not alone in this position.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by junglemonkeez (208) 2 years ago

Times change, and the interesting thing about this moment in time as opposed to the past, is that we now have an internet connection/network, so you see this movement can be momentous.

I always cringe when people say can't, or impossible.

Don't get to bogged down by the ism's here, it is the message of unity that we want to stress.

I guess this makes me a conspiracy theorist, but I do think the game is rigged.

I don't believe you can fix this from the inside out, if you could why haven't they?

[-] 0 points by allen (12) 2 years ago

You illustrate my point well. Some like you don't believe the problem can be fixed from the inside, some people do. It's when we start talking about solutions that we are teared apart. A communist will never agree with the solutions proposed by a socialist, because, as soon as he does, he has become a socialist himself. We can only be united by problems, and by protesting against them.

OWS should not become a solution machine. It must remain a protest which is an inclusive as possible. As soon as we start proposing defined solutions, then we will start dividing our ranks.

[-] 1 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 2 years ago

ERROR! "A man is limited in his wants and desires". Wrong, wants and desires are unlimited, infinite. CORRECTED A man is limited in his needs

junglemonkeez wrote: "What does all that mean, let me try and brake this down. A man is limited in his wants and desires, to one thing."

Even the dictionarys have this screwed up going back about 20 years. I think it was done intentionally to foul our capacity to work with the absolutes of understanding our needs or agreeing upon them then using the agreement in unity to resist slavery.

Those that would enslave us logically want us to be confused.

**The only peaceful anarchy is one where everyone in it knows everything there is to know about needs and never places their wants over the needs of another.

Evolution is enhanced by this because our behaviors are the only real problem in evolving.

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 2 years ago

I hear the anarchist cookbook offers some delicious and healthy solutions for those on a tight budget in ten minutes or less...

[-] 1 points by junglemonkeez (208) 2 years ago

You really are bored aren't you?

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 2 years ago

Yeah, my neighbors just yelled at me for banging pots and pans. I was like "wtf, that's no way to talk to a revolutionary."

[-] 2 points by junglemonkeez (208) 2 years ago

There just are some assholes out there, but you give them hell for the rest of us!

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 2 years ago

Haha thanks.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

Anarchy is where hipster douchbags hide so they never have to you know, like, compete or anything. Hippy chicks love us cause we're like rebels and stuff. We're like all dark 'n cool and all political, you know?.