Forum Post: Do Anarchists "own" the movement?
Posted 12 years ago on May 17, 2012, 6:33 a.m. EST by ShubeLMorgan2
(1088)
from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
A bourgeois concept "ownership" but I can understand it anyhow. People came up with a brilliant if self evident idea - "let's bring 20,000 protesters to Wall Street and Occupy the place!"
While it didn't quite work out that way still the idea was brilliant and it shook the world. Many people- I'm sure many or even most of them anarchists- sacrificed and continue to do so for the sake of the movement called "Occupy". And so a sense of ownership would almost be "natural" in this world we live in. The fact is though that if the anarchist way doesn't deliver to the masses whose well being and even very lives ride of the success of revolution - even if they don't know it- then the anarchist way will be swept aside.
I'd suggest to anarchists to look for negative example on the left - take Workers World Party. Always setting up "mass organizations" total bureaucratic control over which they can't let go of and so they get nowhere. The masses just don't show up or if they do they soon leave.
And anyhow i have some questions about Occupy's anarchism:
Is it anarchist to have demands made on the powers that be?
Aren't they making demands in Frankfurt?
http://occupywallst.org/article/stop-neo-liberal-crisis-politics-dispossess-benefi/
When Occupy embraced the movement for justice for Trayvon Martin were't they demanding something of the "justice system"? Wasn't that the correct thing to do? I think it was.
When Occupiers sued in the government's court to get the fences taken down from around Liberty Square was that an example of ignoring the state as illegitimate? I think it is good to use all available avenues to pursue a just demand.
Wasn't it complying with the system to file a suit against stop and frisk?
http://occupywallst.org/forum/manhattan-federal-judges-decision-clears-way-for-t/
I think that was a good thing. Now a judge is not going to stop police racism and brutality but this action might bring a dollop of justice and relief and open the eyes of the world to what the NYPD's reign is over the communities of color in Bloomberg's "Luxury Product" city where tourists just love to take pictures in Times Square next to these "heroes".
And read about how the anarchists in the Civil War in Spain had to compromise their "principles" and learned to do that perhaps too late adopting "hierarchical structures" in their army in order to conduct modern warfare, joining local and national government, etc.
Now there are many Occupy supporters who are thinking a lot about the upcoming elections. It's a legitimate arena for debate, not for shutting people down. While this forum cannot and should not be enveloped with that discussion wouldn't it make sense to have a thread or post or whatever that's just about that - let the debate be vigorous and whole hearted.
They (ANARCHISTS) would like to think so. Hopefully, they will be proved wrong....that is, if the movement ends up meaning something.
One of the biggest tools of a totalitarian government is fear. Our current govt. are no exception to this technique. Real or imagined, people are afraid of terrorists. People are afraid of the word anarchy. Whether or no "anarchists" control the movement, they are a perfect red herring. Anarchists are fused into terrorists, and the masses turn against the people trying to protect them. It's a delicate situation.
Actually I believe that the "anarchist" label is not such a burdensome one, especially in the USA with its individualist culture and history. I even think that Beavis and Butthead were anarchists. I remember them with an anarchist banner. It's socialism and communism and even liberalism that are all labels to avoid if one is seeking mass approval. Politically savvy Democratic Party operators and union bureaucrats, when it has suited them, have little hesitation to align with "Occupy" even though "Occupy" openly and not at all on the down low embraces the label of anarchism. I doubt they'd do that with an honestly and openly self proclaimed communist or socialist organization if they had any alternative and "anarchist" Occupy has at several junctures fit the bill. (I am not against alliances - that's not the same thing as being coopted).
I pointed to Anarchism in the Spanish civil war to show that indeed in history anarchism has utilized hierarchy and bourgeois government when it was necessary, and I am asking (not proclaiming, just putting a question out there) if it might not now be the time for a rethink on those things. Articulate and reliable spokespeople, and identifiable popular demands - are they such bad things?
No, I think you're right. I think it is a good idea. Even having some allies in mainstream media would be extremely beneficial. People soak up whatever the media tells them because they can't fathom that they're being lied to. I was just saying that the situation is delicate because they will use any label they can to generate fear. My example are the Cleveland five who were arrested for supposedly planning to bomb a bridge. Every article about them mentioned that they were anarchists. So they've already planted the seed. We are fighting against years and years of coercion, lies and manipulation, a lot of which was set in place before many of us were born.
I really appreciate you bringing this up, and asking these tough questions. I'm not gonna pretend that I personally have any of the answers... but I do think it is worth mentioning an essay that Chomsky wrote called, "Goals and Visions" about this dilemma.
Chomsky wrote, "By visions, I mean the conception of a future society that animates what we actually do, a society in which a descent human being might actually want to live. By goals, I mean the choices and tasks that are within reach, that we will pursue one way or another guided by a vision that may be distant and hazy."
He stated that his vision is that of a libertarian-socialist world being created, but his short-term goals to get to this vision requires working with the current state to help impede "the dedicated efforts [by the private tyrannies] to roll back the progress that has been achieved in extending democracy and human rights." Even though much of state authority is basically serving these private tyrannies, it still "offers (weak) protection of some aspects" of our society. He pointed out that the private tyrannies are severely attacking the state because of the past constraints that the new deal liberals had put on them. As we can see: The more and more that these tyrannies attack the state (or simply send in its agents using the revolving door), the more and more we see a loss of rights and what little democracy we did have. So is abolishing whats left of the weak protections that the state still offers the best thing to do without an appropriate counter to this type of massive concentrated power these tyrannies have?
Chomsky went on to state: "In today's world, I think, the goals of a committed anarchist should be to defend some state institutions from the attack against them, while trying at the same time to pry them open to more meaningful public participation - and ultimately, to dismantle them in a much more free society, if the appropriate circumstances can be achieved. Right or wrong - and that's a matter of uncertain judgement - this stand is not undermined by the apparent conflict between goals and visions. Such conflict is a normal feature of everyday life, which we somehow try to live with but cannot escape."
I remember him getting a lot of flack by some anarchists for stating this, but I do think Chomsky raises some important points in this essay. And I especially think this sentence of his is very important - "while trying at the same time to pry them open to more meaningful public participation." Because this is exactly one of the things that Occupy has brought to the forefront - meaningful public participation. One of the aspects of occupy that analysts, opponents and some in Occupy seem to have overlooked is how much this movement has helped to revitalize the democratic spirit. The fact that millions of people across the nation are beginning to connect, organize and build communities that allow people to participate is incredible. The positive effect that this may have on the future is immeasurable at this time. But it's safe to say it is a positive thing for the masses. Obviously many many people are starving for a more participatory society... and I think continuing to build on this aspect is important because it will lead to a more participatory society.
For ex: if the budding Home foreclosure resistance movement begins to grow and connect nation-wide, and suddenly it is 1 or 2 million strong, those people will have already created a more participatory society, and the state will be forced to listen to them. This very well could be the beginning of the "prying open of the state" that Chomsky was writing about.
Anyway... thanks again for this great OP.
No. Not such bad things at all.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
Very good questions encompassed or implied in the OP. The idea is ... by making demands, you legitimize the system. In other words, when one party demands something of another, there's an implicit assumption that the other party has the power to grant that demand (and the party making the demand, legitimizes the other parties power to grant it, just by caveat of making the demand). A core idea of anarchism (probably it's most fundamental precept) is the idea of a consensus based society (and a presumptive hostility against power relationships, where one party claims dominion over another). There is a distinction between protesting and demanding a cessation of illegitimate conduct (or remedying the harm caused by that conduct), and making demands that are premised on the idea that the other party has the "legitimate" power to satisfy those demands. The distinction may seem subtle, and in some cases it may even seem like semantics (but it's not).
I would, however, admit to the possibility that this could be a retrospective argument to justify this position (or a post hoc analysis).
Please see my reply to Dan1984 http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-anarchists-own-the-movement/#comment-738047
I'm not a Chomsky fan, but I do agree pretty much with what he says here. Thanks.
People talking about anarchy as some kind of a system with principles for governing...???
Personally, I see anarchy more of a tactic for getting something done. Like in mocking the government in power, and making it popular to do so. That initiates the cracks, that gets the government to crumble. So as then to get a new and better government put in its place.
No. It would not make any sense at all.If you must debate corporate politics please go to the NY Times or another venue like it.
I appreciate your opinion and sentiments. I sent you a PM along with to all who commented here. I hope you have more to say.
The very point of being an Anarchist is to never actually have to do anything. These people look at our world and realize there is no way they are going to expend the effort to to be a successful human being but their egos require approbation so what's a lazy boy to do?? Become an Anarchist!
Being an Anarchist is cool at parties, no one expects you to accomplish anything because because never in the history of the world has anarchy ever gone anywhere and everyone knows it never will. Anarchists like to romanticize their Quixotic quest as the great struggle against whatever ya got. You're expected to smell bad, not shave, wear cheap, crappy clothes and live off your friends.
For some it's just a phase, they get tired of pretending and move on. Others with trust funds settle in for a career of doing absolutely nothing and some get paid a pittance from ANSWER to hang out on the internet and be obnoxious lefties at forums like this.
Being an Anarchist is just a comfortable way to spend some time avoiding reality.
There is no democracy without Votes.
One of the biggest threats to totalitarianism is a united and thriving democracy.
Anarchy (lawlessness; absence of government) is not conducive to a united, thriving democracy, or a successful populace movement.
America is a nation of laws and a democratic (government) experiment.
Occupy's successes will come from public acceptance and lawful democratic reforms, or not at all.
Unite and Win!
Get out the Vote!!
You have absolutely no idea, do you? Voting is lending support to the system that oppresses and robs from you,. why would any sane person vote in a hopelessly corrupted system??
Anarchy is a system of social organisation without hierarchical power structures,. all have equal value and rights, as opposed the the 1%'s system of power and money control over all.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
These are actually great questions that should be asked and discussed. But unfortunately asking these types of questions on this board gets your thread shadow banned(not being able to be viewed when not signed in, as if your thread doesn't exist for anyone to see unless they sign into the site). Its a way to limit the people that see your thread.
Example: http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupys-choices-anarchism-violence-and-failure-or-/
I know for some Anarchists(especially the creator of this site and some of the mods) if you question ANYTHING about Anachism you've gone to far. I think that says more about them being able to back up what they believe than anything else.
I am aware of the shadow ban policy. I don't know if it has been applied to this thread. I think it is ironic if supposed anarchists can't tolerate any questions or debate. At any rate I am not putting anarchism itself into question here, just strategy and tactics.
Your reply has been collapsed btw.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-anarchists-own-the-movement/#comment-738047
"I think it is ironic if supposed anarchists can't tolerate any questions or debate."
And that in a nutshell is my point. Thanks for being able to see that. I wasn't trashing I was questioning.
And yes I know my reply has been collapsed. Its happening a lot all over this forum. Its pathetic.
Interesting observation...
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-movement-is-dead/#comment-692069
For once April I actually appreciate your post here. It is very illuminating. Thanks. http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-anarchists-own-the-movement/#comment-738047
Awww shucks Shube aren't you the sweet one. Please no more flattery. I'm starting to blush. : )
btw. OWS is essentially broke. Hundreds of thousands never accounted for. Quite the little scandal if you read the minutes and forums from the Accounting Group and Accountability and Transparency Group. Warning: take a few aspirin first. It's all predictably disintegrated into infighting and going round and round in endless circles about the same shit that never ever has been/gets resolved.
OWS is taking in just a few thousand a week now and spending it just as quickly, mostly on metrocards, bail and some food for events.
Best I can tell the main funding is now coming from -
http://movementresourcegroup.org/
Gee who would have guessed. The anarchists non-organization organization self-destructs. And a hiearchical organization steps in with leadership, goals and an effective decision making process for funding. Shocking.
April that is very interesting info. Thanks for pointing that out.
As you can read above, I have ideas about that...
He's full of shit.
GirlFriday, please elaborate. Just name calling without any explanation just kind of makes you look that the one thats full of..well...
know for some Anarchists(especially the creator of this site and some of the mods) if you question ANYTHING about Anachism you've gone to far.
That is a lie.
So im just imagining all of the complaints of banned threads that asks questions about the subject? Also go and read some of the explanations i've gotten in my thread as to why it "probably" got banned. Pretty much backs up what im saying.
Girlfriday, you may not like the fact that I pointed that out but just because you don't like it doesn't make it "a lie". Now if I said something like "Girlfriday seems like a reasonable open minded person that doesn't insult people just because of disagreements"...then that would be a lie.
You are throwing a tantrum. You don't like it that you got called on it.
That isn't my problem.
What..what kind of response is that? What exactly did you call me out on when I specifically gave an example of what im talking about?
lol wow. You got me. You called me out for being correct. You win this one GirlFriday...
Listen up fuck twit. We see right through your shit. This is an old game. You are a liar. So, grow the fuck up and stick with one ID and pack your ass a lunch.
LOL so now you're implying that I have multiple accounts. You are a fucking joke.
To ANY mod out there. Please check my IP with any of the accounts that have ever been used with this site. You will see that this is the ONLY account that i've ever had on this site. GirlFriday you accusing me of not only being a lair but also someone who would stoop to the point of having multiple ID's without anything to back up those claims just because you disagree with some of the points I've made proves more about you than it does me.
Seriously, go ask some of the mods(Im sure you're either a mod or you know some of them) and ask them if I have multiple accounts or not.
You've just made yourself look like a complete idiot. I suggest next time if you're going to make accusations like that you have your facts straight. At least now I know what type of person you are. Thanks for that.
The only idiot here is you.
know for some Anarchists(especially the creator of this site and some of the mods) if you question ANYTHING about Anachism you've gone to far.
is a lie. It makes you a fucking liar. Grow a pair.
haha hold old are you? You come off as if you're like 13 or something. You just ignore any rebuttals I make and any examples given and you just say the same thing as if you're actually proving a point.
If you are a kid then its understandable. But if your an adult..its just really sad.
You don't have any rebuttals. You are a fucking liar and a douche bag.
"You are throwing a tantrum." ~ GirlFriday
Pats GirlFriday on the head
Its okay. You've done well pretending to be a grown up. Now just calm down and drink your juice.
I don't even see the point in this anymore. You're kind of not all there. And facts don't phase you. Its a gift I guess.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-movement-is-dead/#comment-692069
April, if that link was in response to what I said, I don't follow what that has to do with me...
Just sharing. Thought you might find it interesting. Relates to the overall topic of the post.
Tell me more...
There are many different kinds of anarchists. You have to work real hard to get nailed for saying stuff that is anti anarchist. I am not on as much as I was but I have never seen any mod take down threads simply for asking questions. This is an attempt to draw Jart out. It's a shit argument.
Wth are you talking about? It fucking happened lol. Its like you want me to ignore facts.
Im not attempting to draw anyone out specifically. I just want the mods to handle the real trolls like the ones in this thread down voting all of the comments and to stop shadow banning threads that they disagree with but don't break any of the rules.
If not voting for Goldman Sachs or Bain Capital, war and the twin-party way of life... then what?
A popular, democratic vote to force Congress to call an Article V Convention?
Why?
Because, simply put, corrupt twin-party politics as usual is destroying our nation and democratic values… and has been for some time. Elite, corporate and government conduct is become so egregious people are taking notice and asking the right questions. But fact is, there is no direct, democratic means for us, we the people, to challenge our own government when it becomes corrupt, despotic and tyrannical.
We ought try to change that. Constitutionally. In the 2012 elections. By presenting American voters with a stark choice -- either support the status-quo or oppose it. With sufficient votes, our "NO CONSENT" opposition can force Congress to issue an Article V Convention call, thereby invoking Constitutional means to propose amendments to effect changes we all agree necessary -- the Separation of Wealth and State -- removal of all elite and corporate money from both electoral and representative political process.
Our founders did too good a job containing “mobocracy” (which they considered "momentary passions" of democracy) and protecting the elite. And while I am fine with private ownership, even great wealth, we must draw the line at great wealth corrupting our democracy and government, bullying the world and buying favors at our expense...
...and there is NO democratic alternative to the elite's "heads I win, tails you lose" twin-party political game?
I don't think so...
It's our Constitution, our government and our vote. It's our decision.
A Convention will not runaway from us, we wield our votes, but is capable of ripping control away from the elite and their corporations.
Many argue ALEC has been trying to call an Article V Convention for years, be afraid. I think not. By all credible accounts, more than enough state resolutions were tendered long ago for Congress to call a Convention. In fact, it is un-Constitutional for Congress to continue refusing to call one...
Tell every sitting Representative and Senator: This is our petition for redress of our grievances; either call a Convention now, before the elections, or we will withdraw our consent to be governed in your election and force the issue... Would any candidate be seen as a legitimate Representative, Senator or President if a plurality of us opposed them by voting NO CONSENT in their election?
Voting to withdraw our consent to be governed is a Constitutional crisis for the elite...
Just because it is a peaceful revolution does not make it any less a power struggle. Nor any less effective. OWS emphasizes its process. Our process, voting, is every American's Constitutional heritage and democratic obligation -- if we want politics to be more fair and democratic, we must make it so.
I happen to believe that an Article V convention would be a catastrophe. Each state gets one vote. And who picks the delegates? Not us. And who has the propaganda machinery all oiled up to get people to cheer for policies that will kill them?
http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-anarchists-own-the-movement/#comment-738047
Yep - figured - your talking to cart before horse guy. He really seems to want to push something that is unnecessary if we can get people involved in their democratic process and suicidal if we can not get the people to own their process of government.
More non-specific platitudes and bullsh!t... "if we can get people involved"?
We can, but we must offer them something that works and is effective. Folks are tired of bullsh!t phrases like "get the people to own their process of government". Offer just a little democracy -- voting our consent to be governed under the Constitution to force Congress to comply with the Constitution and call an Article V Convention -- and I notice you get scared fast...
Status-quo good enough for you? Seems so.
BS slinging Koch Whore.
The people are beginning to rise and you bastards are getting frantic.
Go play with yourself - we are not interested in throwing away the constitution.
Nor am I "interested in throwing away the [sic]* constitution."
Nor do I see how continuing to play a rigged twin-party political game, yet again, will make any difference. We did that for years and nothing changed. We need to make a difference now, while we still can.
You obviously vote for the status-quo.
*NOTE: Constitution, as in The Constitution of the United States of America, is a proper noun and should always be capitalized.
Hmmm, why so afraid of the constitution?
There are people that have figured out a way to use the constitution without fear. You need to read about the strategy that Christopher Brown has presented here, and at a forum created just for article v.
http://articlevconvention.org/showthread.php?26-These-are-basic-and-non-specific-adjustments-designed-for-easier-digestion
If a malware warning pops up, ignore it. The strategy is basic, logical and very American. If you are an American you will love it and immediately change your mind. An article v is made perfectly safe with full constitutional intent by each American demanding that ALL delegates propose amendments and ratify amendments that do the following.
1) End the abridgment of free speech 2) Effect campaign finance reform 3) Secure voting systems
After article v makes amendment that does those three things, THEN if there is something else, it to can be done and it will be done with full constitutional intent.
Why? If you think "each state gets one vote", you're mistaken. Might you also be mistaken about one being a catastrophe?
And I understand, to some degree, propaganda and its employ. Below some is being employed.
Plus there is an upside you haven't considered. We might prevail if we're smart about this. Are you willing to talk?
Your so full of shit. How tall were they able to stack you?
Push for a fuckin Artcle V convention when every thing is coming apart at the seams.
Yeah good fuckin plan just hand it right over to the fuckin Koch's .
We have the bastards starting to really squirm and YOU want us to throw it all away.
Fuck Off.
Oh really? Your little ol' self got some billionaires under your thumb? You got game?
Let's cut through your twin-party bullsh!t and accomplish something useful.
Fucking slime merchant.
Not every one lives for the pursuit of money.
Every Democratic and Republican politician "lives for the pursuit of money", chump. There is no difference between the two parties: Common corporate ownership, common corruption to the core. Down with the Two-Party Tyranny!
When you sold your soul - what were you promised?
Only a pro-regime plant like DKAtoday would try to redirect their own guilt with a false accusation like that. As for me, I'm pretty much with Chris:
“Don't waste any more time or energy on the presidential election than it takes to get to your polling station and pull a lever for a third-party candidate-—just enough to register your obstruction and defiance—and then get back out onto the street. That is where the question of real power is being decided.”--Chris Hedges, May 2012
Yeah go ahead and try to hide in sheep's clothing.
Figures:
able132
No Profile Information Private Messages
Information
Joined May 17, 2012
Just born?
How fucking intelligent you aren't.
Why would a Democratic Party plant like DKAtoday call Chris Hedges a sheep? Do you even know who Chris Hedges is, chump?
OH fuckin ass - that troll BS of putting words in someones mouth?
Shit now I know you are a Koch whore. Same tactics same manual.
Don't any of you look at the forum before you attack?
Bunch of lame sad sacks.
Hey - does Mittens operate out of the same manual?
He likes to put words in peoples mouths too. Better yet He Gave the Bushmeister's wars to Obama and The Meltdown from Bush's term of office as well.
Well he is trying to anyway.
Nope no - I can already hear your gears grinding - no I am not an Obama fan.
Move on to your next talking point but make it snappy it is getting late and we have heard it all before.
So try not to put us to sleep - Hey?
The funniest thing about DKAtoday being the laughing-stock of this forum is he has no clue that's the case, folks. Hell, you've flooded this forum with thousands of points worth of thinly-veiled Democratic Party propaganda, and how many "followers" came to your aid when you were getting slammed with down votes? 3? 4? You are a legend only in your own mind, dipshit...
Eat shit and bark at the moon with the rest of your pack.
Were you banned during the attack?
Did you not hide yourself very well?
Go hang out with your koch whore pal DSams.
You two are a tag team your just not very good.
More wasted Koch money.
Now you sound like your retarded friend "shooz", who calls anyone who doesn't support the Democratic Party and two-party tyranny a "Repelican". Well I say fuck the Republican Party, fuck the Democratic Party, and fuck pro-regime forum plants like you and "shooz" - although he does provide some comic relief as this forum's Village Idiot.
Which is why an article v convention is so important. These 3 simple preparations are soooooooooo constitutional.
1) End the abridging of free speech 2) Reform campaign finance 3) Secure voting and elections
I'm not making a dime by being here...
You just enjoy trolling?
Just a simple thought-peddler. Amazing how easy it is to rile ya'll up. Any real thought will do...
Yeah you think your so fuckin sly. Dip Shit.
I saw you try to instigate. Fuckin Slime bag.
My, my, you do go on so...
"We "might" prevail . . . " Oh, fucking great.
OMG, another one afraid of the constitution.
Our soldiers will prevail, IF they are going to defend the constitution. Here is the soldiers ultimate method of constitutionally defending the constitution with LAW. Download this .pdf
http://www.sendspace.com/file/i8xx16
The soldiers fight for our first constitutional right, article v, in military courts and we join the fight in civil courts.
Nothing worthwhile happens without agreement, commitment and hard work.