Forum Post: Do you think Anarchist are Hurting the Occupy Movement? And if yes, Will This Cause Occupy to Splinter?
Posted 12 years ago on May 21, 2012, 9:20 p.m. EST by Endgame
(535)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I think hardcore Anarchists absolutely are hurting this movement and holding Occupy back.
I know this movement was founded by Anarchists(even though the words "Anarchism" were never used in the beginning to advertise the movement). And the way this movement began was brilliant. A lot of people were attracted to what was being advertised about the movement and all the important issues that it thrusted into the forefront that needed to be addressed. People wanted to realistically transform the system and fix our democracy and our government.
BUT as more and more Occupiers are finding out the truth about the beliefs of the founders of the movement(Anarchists) they are finding out that the end goals of Anarchists are unrealistic. Anarchists wants complete absence of government. While the overwhelming majority of Occupiers wants to FIX government and to transform the system by getting outside money out of politics, ending the bribery in our political system, financial reform, dealing with education costs, healthcare, ETC. Big differences...
Hell most of the protesters out there don't even see themselves as Anarchists. They see themselves as people trying to fix government and our democracy. NOT destroying all forms of Hierarchy. Anarchists can only achieve their goals if there is no Hierarchy. Anarchists need the entire system to collapse before their vision can advance. It needs a lot more suffering then there is now, fixing anything through the system hurts their goal.
The irony of it all is that 99% of Occupiers want to fix the system by transforming it, but the 1% (Anarchists) don't.
And take the events of Chicago this weekend. I have very little doubt that the police and FBI are capable of framing Occupiers and attempting to make them look bad. But the reason this shady tactic works and turns the public against us is because of past actions of the extremists(Black Block, etc) of the movement. When the extremists vandalize and cause damage they do not and should not speak for the movement. So where are the Anarchists immediately coming out to call out the ones causing the nonsense?
Occupy hasn't even began to run any candidates. Not one. Anarchists believe we should NOT get involved politically. This is another unrealistic view of hard core Anarchist. If we do not do anything to affect politics in a political way we have no power! We become toothless complainers.
I honestly don't see how these huge differences of goals don't cause the movement to splinter where the large majority goes off to achieve realistic transformative goals to fix government. And where the hardcore Anarchists go there own way to attempt to achieve their goals of ending governement and hierarchy.
Your thoughts?
In the beginning, I was really against the idea of anarchists ( black bloc ) being involved with the Occupy Movement. As well as Anonymous. Because initially, I thought it was the biggest reason why the average person wasn't supporting OWS. And I also felt that because of that, the government would have a much bigger reason to "crack down" on Occupy.
Though I still don't agree with vandalism, or the whole idea of anarchy. I do think that the government would still have moved in the same direction they have now, Even if there were no Black Bloc & Anonymous attached. Why? Simply because I think the main messages that Occupy stood for, broke through plain and clear. Loud enough & strong enough, that even the MSM ( main stream media ) had to pick up on some of it.
I believe that the government knew and had planned this course of action, long before occupy came along. Because they knew with the way things have been going in America. Both politically & econmically. That sooner or later, people were going to start speaking out & standing up for what they believe in.
Its not about getting the government to initially agree with us. Its about getting the majority of the public to join us. Then making the politicians change their ways or be elected out. I agree with you that no matter what the government would of been against the movement. But with the public on our side and with us having a clear core message, it wouldn't have mattered, we would of been winning.
Aren't dem co-opters on the internet anarchists? They think it really matters to get the protestors vote but it doesn't. It's always the same with dems, "Give us one more chance and we'll git er done!!" It's always the same result though.
According to one of our regular posters, the Rockefeller Institute did a study years ago that forecast widespread dissent, possibly riots by now. I believe the study had to do with the economy. In my opinion, this explains a lot of what's been happening in the past decade or so; the systematic stripping away of our freedoms, the militarization of our police departments, the building of hundreds of detention camps, DHS purchasing hundreds of millions of rounds of .40 caliber ammo. Yeah, the government suspected something was coming long ago. And they've had plenty of time to plan for it.
they just keep making amo because that's their job
we're stuck in an economic distopia is all
on the bright side,
communication is now world wide and available to billions
Well, . . . . at least there is a bright side.
There is, isn't there?
I hear that it's day time in china.
and there is no bright side of the moon
or at least not always bright
it's day and night is equal to it's orbit
29.53 earth days
You, sir, are a poet. And a scholar, I suspect.
That is a very good analysis of the situation we are in.
OWS has forgotten the 99% that''s what is hurting ti.
This is a movement of multi-ideologies and strategies on how to make it right. There's no reason why we should be one dimensional and limit ourselves. A good example is the Civil rights movement that had a non- violent movement and a self-defense movement (that didn't partner with each other but together got the job done). I propose today that the polarizing different movements work together to achieve a common goal. In the 60's, when Pres.JFK, his Brother Bobby, and America saw the rioting, Watts burning, Police dogs snapping, etc; they said to themselves 'pressure bust pipes', we dont want a civil war on our hand; this is ugly we must do the right thing and provide them the equal rights that they deserve as Human beings. But when we provide them these rights we must credit the non-violent movement for obtaining those rights; because a government can never be seen caving into physical force from its own citizenry. Thus they accomdated and paved the way for the March on Washington. Now please, by no means interpret this as me calling for violence; cause eventhought we have much room for improvement, we are a more better nation that had progress too much and is too great to destroy ourselves (also we must concern ourselves with the reputation and public opinion of our movement). Thus just civil protest is suffice to achieve our goals. Its always good to be multi dimensional to give the opposition an incentive to take the diplomatic approach or "if you dont listen to me than you have to deal with him" (like good cop/Bad cop). So yes I intend to propose that we have a political branch within our movement to help us pursue our goals. I dont see why not; in many ways we acknowledge their laws and authorities any way (constitution group; Activist legal group; court orders; arrests; etc). So why just push from the outside going in; also push from the inside going out with our cause. Lastly, many of our ancestors died for the cause of obtaining political and voting rights' why would we allow their live to go in vain. Lastly, Us disenfranchising ourselves this presidential election yearr will only dilute our voting block and allow officials in who are less likely to champion our causes.
Excellent post 99pp. We must be multidimensional in our tactics.
Work from the outside of the system and from the inside in an unconventional and creative way to achieve transformative goals while making our movement more attractive to the masses so we get more people on board. We don't have to play by the same corrupt rules in order to achieve success politically.
This is the part of what you said that I feel needs to be highlighted because it is extremely important in regards to why Occupy should get involved politically vs why it shouldn't.
""""So yes I intend to propose that we have a political branch within our movement to help us pursue our goals. I dont see why not; in many ways we acknowledge their laws and authorities any way (constitution group; Activist legal group; court orders; arrests; etc). So why just push from the outside going in; also push from the inside going out with our cause. Lastly, many of our ancestors died for the cause of obtaining political and voting rights' why would we allow their live to go in vain. Lastly, Us disenfranchising ourselves this presidential election yearr will only dilute our voting block and allow officials in who are less likely to champion our causes.""""
Can you put some paragraphs into your wall of text? Make it a little more reader friendly.
Ever hear of "crimethinc"? It was a cointelpro misleading program that promoted vandalism as a way to oppose government and the system generally.
Their hearts are in the right place, but their thin(c)king misses the boat.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/CrimethInc.
I tried to explain to them in 2003 on their message board that the only peaceful anarchy was the one where everyone in it knew every thing there was about needs and would not place their wants over the needs of another.
Their forum disappeared after I started posting that in response to posts that recommended using baseball bats on windshields to oppose capitalism.
That is really troubling...
Thanks for the info though.
Until the powers that be in Occupy start opposing the tactics of some of these Black Bloc members and other vandalizers they will continue to make us all look bad and hurt this movement.
I would venture that the powers that be are behind the blac bloc meaning they do not want their tactics exposed as separate from OWS because they are using the actions to demean OWS.
Its hard not to agree with that assumption.
Or if they mean not to demean OWS, they could be using Occupy as a launching pad to get their own agenda's across. Gain support as something else then gradually Co-op your own movement...
I continue to find it odd how Occupy advertised itself as a populous movement only to have the 1% of the 99% (the Anarchists) attempt to shift this entire movement into an Anarchist movement.
If you believe in what you believe in so much, why hide it? Why the deceit? Shady as hell.
But they shouldn't be able to lie and just hijack the movement like they are attempting to. The movement began as populous that is the way it is going to stay.
OWS used without knowing it, is the logical conclusion.
What tipped me off is that there is obviously an agenda far more important than the very real demands meeting peoples needs. When no OWS'er would carry the Article V issue to general assembly, it became clear there was a hidden agenda. Perhaps hidden from the conscious minds of members participating in the general assembly.
I've revised the Preparatory amendment explanation.
http://algoxy.com/ows/preparation_for_article_v.pdf
Here is a blogger's take: Today's anarchists are just brats in black By David Horsey
May 22, 2012, 5:00 a.m http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-anarchists-20120522,0,5423459.story?track=lat-pick
The small gangs of destructive knuckleheads who style themselves as anarchists have been the bane of Occupy Wall Street protests this spring. On May Day, the brats in black smashed store windows, bashed cars and fought with police on the streets of Seattle, Oakland, Montreal and other cities. Their antics stole attention from the thousands of peaceful protesters who may have had serious things to say about the expanding divide between rich and poor.
I wonder why the latimes blogger missed the story from their own town of the "knucklehead" black bloc'ers who saved the L.A. mayday march?
http://www.laactivist.com/2012/05/04/la%E2%80%99s-black-bloc-kept-may-day-march-moving/comment-page-1/#comment-3086
The LAtimes article you provided is just more crap, piled high on the crap-heap lies of corporate journalism that has become the guard dogs of the ruling elite. The blogger in this article simply falls in line with the bullshit story spread by the Chicago police about the supposed "terrorists" who harbored nothing but beer making equipment and the courage to show up in Chicago to exercise their first amendment rights. Where is the other side of the story in this article? The National Lawyers Guild is defending these guys for a reason! And doesn't anybody notice the same fucking pattern being used every single time a major protest is scheduled? This same exact story happened in MN during the Republican convention. My god, the collective memories of the people of this country are seriously missing here.
It is what it is. I put it in as a reminder of what the real world context is. Read your own comment. All of your comments may be true and justified, the size of the hill you are trying to climb is relevant to your preparation and your tactics. We are neighbors by the way and so just look west toward Mt. Evans Climbing the first range of foothills is quite different than Evans itself, You can curse its height and the footing but you still have to put one foot in front of another and do it a lot of times.
Thanks for your comment, and for clarifying why you posted the article. And I agree with the advice you are giving here. Thanks for the new perspective. And I hope I we can meet in person sometime in the future as we try to climb this massive mountain in front of us.
I'm in Brighton obviously.
errr England? ;-)
Nope CO.
Thought it was ME.
There are at least a handful of them.
Yeah I remember you telling me that, but I thought you were in Maine. Your wit would indicate a New England background.
Just goes to show that there are some half wits west of the Mississippi.
No not a half wit in your case. Now, with that self-depracating humor, i would have guessed OK where one of my heroes is from. He was famous for that humor and his humility, but he did carouse a bit too much, but nobody's perfect.
He had the Will.
Lol
No Mickey
Steamboat Willie? Toot tooot!
Yes he did, and despite his faults, he more than anyone else maybe taught me humility. He also taught me at one point how to walk with a limp, and run like the wind. I can still do the former, but not the latter so much anymore. lol MM RIP
Run Forrest, Run.
I don't know how I missed this... I have to say I agree with what was written in that article.
I would say agreement is pretty pervasive.
"One of Goldman's most significant philosophical reassessments was her shift away from justifying violent action. In her younger days, she fully supported "propaganda of the deed" -- even political assassination. But witnessing ideologically driven violence in the Soviet Union changed her mind. "There is no greater fallacy than the belief that aims and purposes are one thing, while methods and tactics are another," she wrote. "The means employed become, through individual habit and social practice, part and parcel of the final purpose. ..."
Have you ever studied anarchist philosophy? Good place to start, read some Pierre Proudhon (my personal favorite). I suppose there's an obvious distinction between people who like to dress in black & vandalize property vs. people who like a particular intellectual tradition, but this OP seems aimed at anarchist philosophy in general (ergo my question, are you familiar with anarchist philosophy)?
Everything about occupy is anarchist in nature. Ideas like consensus based organizational structures find their root in anarchist philosophy.
I think you touched a nerve. 333 comments thus far.
There aren't templates that exactly fit any group. We all stereotype people into groups and ourselves into groups as well, because that has always been the multiplier and, ironically, the divider at the same time.
We want to know others without fully revealing ourselves and this is made obvious here, as much or more than anywhere else. We hide behind our aliases, some more than others, and we experiment with ideas and positions that we might like to adopt without taking any risk. Ridicule by others, witnessed by still other, other's that stick with us for some time, is something we all like to avoid.
But it also wastes a lot of time, and it makes it really difficult to judge the level of support for positions. The number of people actually participating here is pretty small. The mods have the real numbers, I am sure, but most of us don't. One question is, do the participants here have significant influence on the 99%? How about on the OWS piece (there is obviously a lot of people who protest that aren't card carrying (as they sued to say) members of the OWS). Probably not much influence on either, but we wish that we did.
So, it is predictable that there are those who want to position themselves as speaking for the whole group, or as big a slice as anyone will swallow. And there are the purists who are trying to put pressure on people to accept their particular philosophical slice in order to stay in the boat.
For some of us this isn't our first rodeo, so being stampeded into being led by some teenaged firebrand to act like a mob isn't likely to happen. Nice try kids.
I think it is about time for this movement to notice what isn't working and what is, or if nothing is, to try some new tactics. I don't think after this much (what could politely be called) discussion, the people who are buzzing around this particular light bulb are likely to change their positions very much. We are all milling around and until someone states clearly what they are going to do and starts doing it, this is going to be a "static" rather than a movement. Splintering is not only inevitable, but necessary and a good thing. I have watched Canada geese, and they do this a lot (splintering and recombining) before a flock is formed and a migration happens. Not interested in learning from geese? OK, pick another metaphor. When you look back and don't see anyone, it is hard to call it a parade.
Throwing rocks and such, doesn't seem to be gathering any momentum, thankfully. So, what is next? Hey, don't look at me. I'm just a private.
I hope enough people here read what you just wrote.
Well said brightonsage.
Thanks, yet again. We can hope.
I believe Endgame is correct. You can sense it in the back-and-forth among the readers of this post. There is a palpable division that is apparent now and two sides who would seem to have little chance of finding concensus with each other. These words in particular resonated with me ... "the way this movement began was brilliant. A lot of people were attracted to what was being advertised about the movement and all the important issues that it thrusted into the forefront that needed to be addressed. People wanted to realistically transform the system and fix our democracy and our government."
I know that initial enthusiasm was what got my attention. I also understand that many are too preoccupied with life or have the typical 15-minute attention span that has caused them to fall away. As someone said to me recently, "If nothing happens after that first news-cycle, you're finished."
For the anarchist, I imagine the ongoing resistance is still exciting and vital. But, for those who envision a less complete dismantling of the present system, there is sometimes a sense that anarchist-OWS is alienating those we are supposedly trying to connect with, to get more 'boots on the ground' as it were. I feel the paltry turn-outs at actions, save for 'special occasions. May Day, etc, is connected to the image OWS has cultivated. Sad as it might be, that kind of thing matters to people in this country. They are distanced by the face of it. It is a reality that must be addressed with something besides OWS own kind of elitism and defiance.
The fracture is already there. You can see it. Less numbers. More cynicism from the general public. Yes, it is frustrating. I'm sure we would all like to see the momentum of Zuccotti continue, but unless we engage the system we have, we will continue to spit into the wind. Let's fix what we have. Create realistic goals and follow through. Then people will be drawn in like they were in the beginning.
I really appreciate your comments Pidge. I too have witness the perception shift and the paltry turn outs at scheduled Occupy events and the growing cynicism of the general public. But when events like May Day happen in Zuccotti park the Anarchists use a big event like that to pretend everything is okay with the movement and that we're winning people over. That is a misjudgment. Like I've said many times here it feels more and more like the Anarchists in this movement are living in a bubble and don't see whats going on with the movement outside of their bubble.
And i've also said that Occupy needs to be careful not to go from being an inclusive movement to becoming more of an exclusive club that shuns away any alliances or anyone that wants to have anything to do with changing our country from within. So im really glad you see that too.
But the more I hear from the Anarchists the less I see that happening. The irony of it all is that Anarchists would have more of a shot having an honest open debate about achieving their goals under fixed version of our system where outside money, bribery and corruption were gone from our system (as much as possible). Things that Occupy should be trying to achieve by transforming and fixing the system right now, not destroying it.
Eg if turn outs are so "paltry"What is the worry and why are you and Clara working so hard?And why on earth should anyone do anything under your"system".
And what bubble do you live in?
You wrote... "and the paltry turn outs at scheduled Occupy events"
Did you not see that the scheduled occupy event this past weekend in Chicago turned out to be massive? It grew to proportions that nobody expected.
Here, see for yourself: http://latimesphoto.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/la-nato-protest09.jpg
Does that scheduled occupy event look like a "paltry turnout?"
Endgame wrote.. "And i've also said that Occupy needs to be careful not to go from being an inclusive movement to becoming more of an exclusive club that shuns away any alliances or anyone that wants to have anything to do with changing our country from within."
This just isn't happening on the streets. In fact, it is the opposite of what you are pontificating. Did you not notice the very important alliances happening at Occupy Chicago? Alliances that are truly inspiring. Veterans For Peace standing in solidarity with Afghan Women for Peace. http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/21/us_army_vets_join_with_afghans
Nurses standing together with all stripes of political persuasion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM84sPGV1K4&feature=player_embedded
Did you hear the anarchists telling the Vets for Peace to go away? Did you hear the anarchists telling the Nurses to go away? Did you hear the anarchists telling the social democrats to go away? Did you hear the anarchists telling the liberals to go away? Did you hear the anarchists telling civil rights leader, Jesse Jackson to go away? Did you hear the anarchists telling the communists to go away? Did you hear anything of the sorts where anarchists scoffed at the presence of all these people of different poltical persuasions? Nope, you didn't! The anarchists peacefully marched and demonstrated in solidarity with all of these alliances.
I dunno... Maybe your purpose here is to spread false division... you tell us, because after reading your comments and posts for the past month it really feels more like you are a concern troll than anything else. Your crusade to demonize all anarchists is getting old... and I truly believe your attitude and concern trolling are trying to cause unnecessary divisions in this movement.
Here check out a video clip of a brother who really gets what this is all about. (go to the 10 minute and 42 second mark) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ctEQqlf2xw&feature=player_embedded#!
What this man says is a wonderful example of SOLIDARITY and UNITY... your comments are an example of division and confusion.
Bye.
sigh
mark, I was responding to Pidge's post when he said: "I feel the paltry turn-outs at actions, save for 'special occasions. May Day, etc, is connected to the image OWS has cultivated. Sad as it might be, that kind of thing matters to people in this country."
Keywords " save for 'special occasions. May Day, etc". I agreed with him when I first read his comments. And I agree with him now.
"Did you not see that the scheduled occupy event this past weekend in Chicago turned out to be massive? It grew to proportions that nobody expected."
And mark, I was referring to POLITICAL alliances(and im sure you already knew this but you chose to focus on twisting my words so you could attempt to prove a point). But I think those alliances you mentioned are a good thing. But I want you to be honest when you answer this, do you think those nurses and Vets are Anarchists and wants to live in an Anarchic society? Because I think if the Anarchists there told them upfront what they really stood for I think they wouldn't be so welcoming to the movement. Same with the majority of the protesters there that joined a movement that advertised itself in a populous manor and with populous rhetoric.
But as i've said before I believe 99% of the movement are not Anarchists so I wouldn't be surprised if those Vets and nurses have major differences and ideas for where they want to take this country compared to Anarchists.
"I was referring to POLITICAL alliances"
Are you inferring that Occupy should align with the corrupted corporate Democratic party? As for 3rd parties... the Green party is already at most occupy events, as is the Communist USA party.
endgame asked... "do you think those nurses and Vets are Anarchists and wants to live in an Anarchic society?"
I don't have the foggiest idea of each and every one of their political affiliations. That would be mighty assumptive of me to say so. And would they want to live in an anarchistic society if an anarchist told them upfront what it really stood for? It would greatly depend on the anarchists that they spoke with. If it was a Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn (RIP) or a David Graeber then.. yes, I think they (and most people) would want to live in an society based on anarchist principles, or at the very least want to begin to strive to create one. But if it was a young kid who simply calls himself an anarchist because it seems like the cool thing to do then they probably wouldn't want to live in the 'anarchist" society that the young confused kid tries to explain to them.
I can say this because about 10 years ago I thought I knew what an anarchist was (punk rockers, and mean-spirited kids) and I thought an anarchist society was based on chaos and disorder. But then I started reading stuff by Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Peter Kropotkin, Murray Bookchin, Emma Goldman, and many more and I realized that I didn't know crap about anarchism. Ahhh... educating yourself on ideas is a wonderful thing! You should try it sometime. Or you could continue to live in a bubble. hehehe.
endgame wrote... "Because I think if the Anarchists there told them upfront what they really stood for I think they wouldn't be so welcoming to the movement."
That's really rich coming from the dude who can only copy and paste a simple definition of anarchism, and hasn't read anything beyond that.
Bye
Good bye mark. Hopefully for real this time? Nah I doubt it...
What's the matter... cat got your tongue? All you can muster up is referring to my preferred closing word to signify the ending of my message? Perhaps I should have written check-mate instead of bye. hehehe
We've been through all of this before mark. We both know that this ends with you quoting that long ass definition of Anarchism while ignoring any points I bring up. Then we just go around in circles. Do you think anything that I say to you is going to get you to see any other point of view than yours?
And your ending message is always bye as if you aren't going to comment anymore. But you never really mean bye don't you mark?
But against my better judgment I will answer your questions from your last reply. No I don't think we should let anyone from the outside corrupt this movement. But I think if you're an Anarchists you have a narrow view of what an Alliance is. I think if we can get political organizations on our side believing in our goals then yes we should be welcome those alliances. No matter what political party they're from.
And come on lets be honest with each other, you really think those Chicago nurses in that link you posted are rallying for an Anarchic society? Really? Just because they're ralling for the Robin Hood tax does not mean they are Anarchists. Same goes for me and the large majority of anyone who has ever attended Occupy protests.
endgame wrote... "We've been through all of this before mark. We both know that this ends with you quoting that long ass definition of Anarchism while ignoring any points I bring up."
I think you've got me confused with DKAtoday. I haven't posted any long ass definition of anarchism - ever.
Endgame wrote... "Do you think anything that I say to you is going to get you to see any other point of view than yours?"
Not if it is inaccurate.
Endgame wrote... "And your ending message is always bye as if you aren't going to comment anymore. But you never really mean bye don't you mark?"
That sounds like your perception problem, not mine.
Endgame wrote... "But I think if you're an Anarchists you have a narrow view of what an Alliance is. "
How can you honestly say this if you have never even read anything about anarchism beyond simple definitions, or long-ass definitions posted by DKAtoday? You can't... so stop living in a bubble.
Endgame wrote... "I think if we can get political organizations on our side believing in our goals then yes we should be welcome those alliances."
Of course, I never said otherwise. But you are deluded if you think the two corporate parties are ever gong to believe in the primary goals of occupy. That's not to say that a few smaller local type democratic candidates might believe in occupy. But anybody who has spent time analyzing the current national political system knows that these small voices have no sway when it comes to effecting progressive change. Just ask Dennis Kucinich, or Bernie Sanders... they say wonderful things and mean well, but in the end they can't budge the system. Why is that? (I'm not really looking for your answer here, sorry) I personally think the best analysis for these types of systemic issues and questions is answered by one of the most brilliant political philosopher of our day, professor emeritus of politics at Princeton University, Sheldon Wolin. Check out his book, "Democracy Inc: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism."
Endgame wrote... "And come on lets be honest with each other, you really think those Chicago nurses in that link you posted are rallying for an Anarchic society? Really? Just because they're ralling for the Robin Hood tax does not mean they are Anarchists."
I never stated that the nurses were rallying for an anarchist society. Stop twisting my words. You asked me, "do you think those nurses and Vets are anarchists and wants to live in an Anarchic society? Because I think if the Anarchists there told them upfront what they really stood for I think they wouldn't be so welcoming to the movement."
And I answered: I don't have the foggiest idea of each and every one of their political affiliations. That would be mighty assumptive of me to say so. And would they want to live in an anarchistic society if an anarchist told them upfront what it really stood for? It would greatly depend on the anarchists that they spoke with. If it was a Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn (RIP) or a David Graeber then.. yes, I think they (and most people) would want to live in an society based on anarchist principles, or at the very least want to begin to strive to create one. But if it was a young kid who simply calls himself an anarchist because it seems like the cool thing to do then they probably wouldn't want to live in the 'anarchist" society that the young confused kid tries to explain to them.
"I think you've got me confused with DKAtoday. I haven't posted any long ass definition of anarchism - ever." On that one instance I did confuse with DKA. You're the "You can't say anything about Anarchism because you haven't read books on!!1 guy.
"Not if it is inaccurate."
So saying that there has never been an example of a thriving successful Anarchic society ever is inaccurate?
"That sounds like your perception problem, not mine." Couldn't help but notice you didn't end your statement this time with "Bye" like you always do. You're learning.
"How can you honestly say this if you have never even read anything about anarchism beyond simple definitions, or long-ass definitions posted by DKAtoday? You can't... so stop living in a bubble."
So wait, I don't get to judge the small group of Anarchists in sections Occupy (they by no means even come close to making up the majority of the movement) by what you and others say you believe in and the actions of Black Bloc..because I haven't read any of the Anarchism books you told me to read?! lol what kind of BS is that? I actually have been reading up on Anarchism and I can honestly tell you that I do not have a desire to be one nor will I ever. I respect your views but I completely disagree with your end goals. Because I see them as impractical. And again, there is no proof of an Anarchic society ever achieving success. And also again, if Anarchism is so great why didn't the Anarchist promote the movement as one of its goals being to create a society without government? Because you know...they didn't.
"Of course, I never said otherwise. But you are deluded if you think the two corporate parties are ever gong to believe in the primary goals of occupy."
Its not about getting the corrupted to agree with us. Its about the movement having the power to get them out of power. We do not have that power because the Anarchists refuse for the movement as a whole to have it. Occupy is losing its ability to gain support from the general public. Alot of it is due to the media but alot of it is due to our lack of coherent message and a lack or ability to show any political power. We gain the public we gain power. But only if we are speaking about achieving realistic transformative goals. Not some Anarchic society.
"I never stated that the nurses were rallying for an anarchist society. Stop twisting my words. You asked me, "do you think those nurses and Vets are anarchists and wants to live in an Anarchic society? Because I think if the Anarchists there told them upfront what they really stood for I think they wouldn't be so welcoming to the movement.""
Dude you freaking implied it. I wasn't twi..you know what. Whatever.
"And would they want to live in an anarchistic society if an anarchist told them upfront what it really stood for? It would greatly depend on the anarchists that they spoke with. If it was a Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn (RIP) or a David Graeber then.. yes, I think they (and most people) would want to live in an society based on anarchist principles, or at the very least want to begin to strive to create one."
So again, why didn't the Anarchists from the very beginning promote Occupy as that being one of their goals? Why hide something so important to what an Anarchists believes in if they didn't think people would NOT be on board with it? Its because the Anarchists knew they wouldn't. So they used Populous rhetoric instead.
That is why I believe this movement will splinter. Its not about me being divisive its about Anarchists not being truthful about what this movement was about. 99% of the people marching in those protests do NOT want that. And it is just a matter of time before these huge differences in views will have to be rectified.
Endgame, What I am telling you is to go educate yourself on the ideas of anarchism. It's really that simple, and saying that this is BS is kind of strange. Below you laughed at an absurd comment made by somebody about the Spanish civil war and at what was accomplished there, but you don't know a fucking thing about it. That is just plain ignorance on your part, and shows you don't really care to learn about real history and real human possibilities, and instead would prefer to engage in divisiveness.
Look, I saw a few younger kids at the mayday occupy event who were all punked out, obnoxious and wearing anarchy t shirts... should I judge anarchism as a whole, and all of the other intelligent anarchist folks, because of these kids? I personally think that that would be absurd and keep my knowledge all boxed up in judgmental and ignorant ways of thinking.
Endgame wrote.. "I actually have been reading up on Anarchism and I can honestly tell you that I do not have a desire to be one nor will I ever. I respect your views but I completely disagree with your end goals. Because I see them as impractical."
Great, then don't be. And your entitled to your opinions about the "end goals" of anarchism, but don't expect people who have spent years studying anarchism to agree with your 2 days of knowledge of reading up on anarchism. I will continue to believe the scientific based analysis' of people like Chomsky, Bookchin and Graeber over your grade school level of understanding every single time.
The anarchists didn't hide anything besides not labeling it as anarchist - the message they propagated in the beginning is exactly what anarchists have been saying for a long time now. This is easily proven as true. But we've been through this before and you don't want to hear this side of it, and would rather continue on with your zealous anti-anarchist crusade. Good luck with that. I don't see what you are doing as being very constructive.
And go ahead and believe in what you want to believe will happen with this movement. I'm gonna continue participating and being active with my local movement because these folks are great people of all leftist political stripes, and are trying to effect real positive change here. And go ahead and continue believing you know what every single person in these protests wants - ass-umpitveness doesn't really impress me.
"Endgame, What I am telling you is to go educate yourself on the ideas of anarchism. It's really that simple"
I actually have been educating myself enough on the subject to know that I do not agree with the end goals of Anarchism. I have no desire to live in an Anarchic society. Its really that simple. And I find it funny how you basically say I should just dismiss the actions of the small group of Anarchists in Occupy and even some of the stuff I've read from Anarchists here..because I haven't read the books. That is indeed BS.
"Below you laughed at an absurd comment made by somebody about the Spanish civil war and at what was accomplished there, but you don't know a fucking thing about it. That is just plain ignorance on your part, and shows you don't really care to learn about real history and real human possibilities, and instead would prefer to engage in divisiveness."
Thats ridiculous and you know it. The point of that conversation was when I asked for someone to give me examples of a successful Anarchic society. I was given the example of that and that there was an Anarchic society for..3 years. 3 years as if that changes anything. Because you know what, if it was so successful why hasn't it been brought back? THAT was the whole point. You always claim that people that disagree with Anarchism are twisting your words around. You've clearly just done the same to me.
"Look, I saw a few younger kids at the mayday occupy event who were all punked out, obnoxious and wearing anarchy t shirts... should I judge anarchism as a whole, and all of the other intelligent anarchist folks, because of these kids? I personally think that that would be absurd and keep my knowledge all boxed up in judgmental and ignorant ways of thinking."
No I judge the Anarchists that falsely advertised this movement from the very beginning. Never was this movement advertised about creating some Anarchic society. I judge the Anarchists actions on how they are the ones holding this movement back. We don't have a coherent message even to this day because the few Anarchists in Occupy don't want us to have one and in turn it hurts our ability to bring people on board with the movement. Anarchists are the ones that are stopping this movement from running candidates and showing this movement is more than just a bunch of toothless complainers. Anarchists are the ones that are always vandalizing and clashing with the police. Completely contradicting the whole peaceful civil disobedience strategy. And playing right into the hands of the entities that want to paint this entire movement in the way they want to. But its now easy for them to do that because we haven't even coherently defined ourselves. Thanks to the few Anarchists that we allow to run things. I thought this was suppose to be a leaderless group. So why are the few minority continuing to dictate where this movement goes...
"Great, then don't be. And your entitled to your opinions about the "end goals" of anarchism"
lol opinions?! WTH! II've been told time and time here by Anarchists that there end goals is to create and Anarchic society! Wow...
"but don't expect people who have spent years studying anarchism to agree with your 2 days of knowledge of reading up on anarchism. I will continue to believe the scientific based analysis' of people like Chomsky, Bookchin and Graeber over your grade school level of understanding every single time."
Did what they study all that time teach them to start a movement by falsely advertising itself as populous so that it could get people on board then try to force their "lets create an Anarchic society" dreams onto people?
"The anarchists didn't hide anything besides not labeling it as anarchist" Holy fucking contradiction Batman! You've got to be fucking kidding me.
"the message they propagated in the beginning is exactly what anarchists have been saying for a long time now." That is simply BS. Never once did this movement initially state that it wanted to create and Anarchic society. There is no way you are going to feed me that nonsense and have me believe it. Me and the other protesters out there were not and are not marching for those goals. I don't understand how you can sit their and try to say that is not dishonest.
"This is easily proven as true." You've had plenty of opportunity to prove so. You haven't even come close.
"But we've been through this before and you don't want to hear this side of it, and would rather continue on with your zealous anti-anarchist crusade. Good luck with that. I don't see what you are doing as being very constructive."
Yes we have been through this before. And I hear your side clearly and the more I see you try to feed me this nonsense the more I see how wrong you are. The bottom line is that if you have something you believe in and you want to start a movement around it YOU HIDE NOTHING. Go out and see how many protesters are protesting for an Anarchic society. You'll be lucky if its evne 1% of the total movement. If that is not being deceitful I don't know what is.
And asking people to be honest is not being very constructive? So all of the ways i've mentioned of how the Anarchists are holding this movement back by lack of coherent message, vandalizing and causing damage making us all look bad, and most important of all being deceitful about their Anarchic society goals IS being constructive?! I...I don't even have words for this crap. If this is the best defense the founders of this movement has they are in trouble.
"And go ahead and believe in what you want to believe will happen with this movement. I'm gonna continue participating and being active with my local movement because these folks are great people of all leftist political stripes, and are trying to effect real positive change here. And go ahead and continue believing you know what every single person in these protests wants - ass-umpitveness doesn't really impress me."
Get off your high horse. I've been saying all this time how 99% of the movement are people that want to make positive transformative fixes to our system and rid it of corruption. I don't see how that transfers to you playing the "these are my people and their all great guys" card. So just stop it. You know that my problems here is with the Anarchists that make up less than 1% of all Occupiers and how they are holding this movement back.
And the last thing im trying to do is impress you. All im trying to do is find out the truth of why the Anarchists couldn't just come out with the truth from the very beginning. Why just play on the populous angle and not just come right out that their goal is to have us form an Anarchic society? I don't think thats...ass umptive.. I think its more than fair.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
"Did what they study all that time teach them to start a movement by falsely advertising itself as populous so that it could get people on board then try to force their "lets create an Anarchic society" dreams onto people?"
Well, if you've been reading up so much on anarchism then you should know the answer. But you don't because your an ignoramus.
And falsely advertise itself? That's funny. What the fuck to do you think the subtitle (The Revolution Continues Worldwide) on the main page means? Liberal reform? How fucking dense are you?
Good luck with your anti-anarchist crusade.
I like how you showed proof of all the times this movement was advertised as being for an Anarchic society. I also like how you've proven me wrong by pinpointing exactly where Anarchism is mentioned.
Oh you didn't? Yeah because you fucking can't. "The Revolution Continues Worldwide" means "Hey lets create a fucking Anarchic society! Anarchism fuck yeah!"?. You're a joke. And if the logic of the Anarchists that founded this movement is anything like yours there is no way they are going to be able to continue this deceitfulness for long.
You are a credit to your people lol.
Even though the Anarchists were completely dishonest about what this movement was about and were extremely deceitful I still had and still have an opened mind to what their views are. But it doesn't change the fact that I do not want to live in an untested Anarchic society with no examples of success. And I think everyone of the protesters that are fighting for what they believe in in a passionate way should have that question ask to them in plain English with no deception. "If Occupy's end goals is to live in a Anarchic society with no government at all, would you still be protesting?" How hard is that? Why keep something like that out of the public eye of what the founders wanted to achieve? Seems shady as hell. I don't think that makes me a shallow thinker of someone with a boxed in view to actually want people to be honest.
The funny thing is that its the Anarchists that have proven to be exactly what you just claimed me to be. Maybe you and some others should go read some books on honesty...
You enforce your own views on the issues by being a boxed-in, shallow thinker. So thank yourself for staying ignorant.
mark you have basically enforced my views on Anarchism. So for this I truly thank you. Where there was some doubt now I have none. I say with confidence that I understand your "logic" very well.
So I'm just going to go back to reading the front page where it talks about creating an Anarchic society. Because you know, they just talk about it so much there...
This has been..very telling.
You have only continued to prove how ignorant you are. The word anarchist is NOT on the front page (that's it), but the MESSAGE anarchists have been writing about for years is all over the front page. You would know that if you were actually educated on the matter, but you aren't... you're simply ignorant. The proof is in their literature that dates back over decades and decades, and anybody can read it for themselves to see this as true.
How many times do you hear progressives, liberals, social-democrats, and conservatives calling out for a revolution? How many times do you hear progressives, liberals, social-democrats talking about creating leaderless movements that emphasize bottom-up democracy? None, you fucking ignorant troll.
And you don't have the slightest fucking clue as to my logic... quit pretending you do.. and go get a fucking education! Seriously, you do a disservice to the human race by being as you are - a narrow-minded ignoramus who believes only he is in the right.
Well said.
There is a paradox here. Anarchists indeed were the initiators of Occupy. they did a tremendous service when they did that. They continue to lead. (That's right, they lead Occupy). In order to maintain that leadership they need to earn the respect of hundreds of thousands or even millions of non anarchist 99%ers. That is done by winning battles and demonstrating that they are responsive to the needs of the 99%.
"Occupy hasn't even began to run any candidates. Not one. Anarchists believe we should NOT get involved politically. This is another unrealistic view of hard core Anarchist. If we do not do anything to affect politics in a political way we have no power! We become toothless complainers"
There is an authentic occupier (I guess he is not an anarchist) running for Congress in New York, George Martinez.
http://bumrushthevote.net/about-the-bum-rush/
As a kid, I watched a press conference on the news with Ronald Reagan and other conservative officials talking about welfare Mothers. They said poor people were poor because they had bad values. They said that we were lazy with broken homes, unemployed and on public assistance. They told us that people on public assistance were the worst of the worst. This made me angry because I knew they were wrong, it wasn’t true! I watched my Mother working the grind to take care of her family. They were insulting me, they were insulting my Mother. I realized that day, that these people didn’t represent me, and they didn’t represent my community.
Like many young people in my community, I have been stopped and frisked many times, here in New York and elsewhere. In February 1991, I saw an Asian man get jumped. Six youths were on the train, two separate groups of three. My group were innocent bystanders, witnesses to the crime. The police didn’t care about that. The police came on the scene and suddenly all of us became, ‘them’, and they arrested us and locked us up, despite being identified as witnesses. I went from George to ‘them’ with a flick of a sentence.
Most college graduates of my generation and younger know the burden of student loan debt. I currently have outstanding student loan debt and have been in default. If President Obama’s plan to eliminate student loan debt to people who commit to public service had been implemented, I would have paid my debt long ago. That didn’t happen. Like countless other Americans, I feel the pressure of that debt every day.
My name is George Martinez, and I was born, raised and educated right here in the 7th Congressional District. I know I’m the best choice to represent you in Congress because my story is your story. I was born, baptized, educated and worked right here in our neighborhood. I understand the needs and concerns of our community because this is my home too. Like you, I care about the future of our neighborhood and securing a better future for our families.
My Puerto Rican parents divorced when I was three, leaving my mother to raise me and my sister alone. She worked hard to support our family but we wouldn’t have been able to survive without public assistance. My mother taught me the importance of learning from an early age, and I’m a proud product of the New York public school system. Starting at PS 58 in Carroll Gardens, then IS 88 in Park Slope, followed by Brooklyn Technical High School. I was the first of my family to enter higher education, graduating magna cum laude from Brooklyn College before earning a doctoral fellowship at the CUNY Graduate Center.
While at college, I performed regularly in the NYC underground hip-hop scene and was recognized by Source Magazine as an Unsigned Hype. I was a founding member of the Blackout Arts Collective, a grassroots coalition of artists, activists and educators empowering communities of color through the arts. As a student leader at CUNY I fought against Giuliani’s plans to implement workfare and restrict access to public higher education.
After college I became an adjunct professor at Hunter College and ran many political literacy and organizing campaigns in the local community. Later I ran for City Council and have served as District Leader for the 51st Assembly District. There I led the movement for reform in the county organization and continued to advocate for grassroots political empowerment in our neighborhoods.
I then continued my public service as an assistant director in the NYS Attorney General’s office, advocating for Latino issues. I was appointed a cultural envoy by the State Department and have undertaken cultural diplomacy missions throughout Latin America and Asia. I helped found both the Hip Hop Association and Global Block non-profits, am a civil society partner of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations and award-winning leader in promoting small business and social entrepreneurship. I’m currently an adjunct professor at PACE University and an Occupy Wall St activist.
Throughout my life I faced many challenges and continue to overcome many obstacles. Uncompromised and deeply rooted in my community, I have the Life Experience, a Progressive Vision, & Effective Leadership to represent you in Congress. I’ve walked the same streets as you, lived the same issues as you. Now, with your votes and support behind me, I can deliver the real results our community needs and deserves.
Most of the anarchists who started OWS support the efforts of the black block. They have been praised on the news of this site on many occasions. Most anarchists will also tell you that property destruction does not equate violence.
So then most conservatives (repubs} and Liberals(Dems)Do not equate there Death machines ie the military to themselves.But time and again tens of thousands are killed by there leaders.They are an accessory to MURDER!
This is a great point! Who are the people who support the worst kind of violence? I personally think it is the people who continually vote for the politicians who wage endlessly violent wars that have killed millions upon millions of people and maimed many more millions? Hell, they even praise and support their leaders in mindless ways across a vast array of media outlets and social networks. Most of these conservatives and progressives will tell you it is a necessary evil and that does not equate to violence because their leaders told them so.
I mean, who is really the worst of the bunch here? The people who support the black bloc tactics which have killed zero people, and which resulted in small amounts of corporate property damage, and which has also helped to protect protesters 1st amendment rights **? Or the people who support the US empire by continually voting for and supporting the most violent mechanism the world has ever seen? This question should be a no-brainer... except most peoples brains aren't working too well in this country because they are blinded by their nationalist mind-sets.
** http://www.laactivist.com/2012/05/04/la%E2%80%99s-black-bloc-kept-may-day-march-moving/comment-page-1/#comment-3086
Amen brothers.
They by no means speak for others when they make such a "fascist" assertion. Property can be destroyed because they arbitrarily say so? Creationism is science because Christians arbitrarily say so? Your being just as much bully with your ideology as the people you condemn. For shame.
The analogy makes no sense. Using the word fascist here makes no sense.
Forcing your beliefs on those who do not agree with them through violence? That sounds pretty fascist to me. A violent invasion of one ideology onto another fits well into a fascist support of political violence as a means to an end.
Also, support your statement with reason rather than empty assertion please.
Yeah I know. And it completely contradicts the non-violent, civil disobedience rhetoric that the founders of Occupy used to advertise the movement.
you don't speak for "most of the anarchists who started OWS" Nor do you you speak for "most anarchists". You are simply twisting their beliefs to further your own anti anarchist views. I may not be an anarchist but I don't have to mislead people against them. Support Non violent, peaceful protests! Support OWS!
Well, you haven't been here very long. This site often publishes articles asking us to support the black block. Jart often does the same. Go on an anarchist website and you will see they support the black bloc tactic. I have a feeling you don't even know what black bloc really is.
Here's a clue. Anarchists don't consider black bloc as being violent.
The vast majority of protesters at the the many marches I have been to and seen on news/livestream are peaceful non violent progressives (not anarchists). Whatever evidence you have to the contrary does not change that fact. I have to judge based on my 1st hand experience. We disavow violence. We practice non violence. We are non violent. We are progressives. Even if the "founders of OWS" express differently will not change that fact.!
Indeed, all OWS protesters are not anarchists, and all anarchists do not endorse property damage (although harming humans and property damage is clearly distinguishable). These conservo-trolls just take cues from a script, and they're just too fucking stupid to know better (so seriously, who cares what they think). I mean, you have two types of conservative. Either the wealthy (or semi-wealthy) narcissist, or white trash (either way, the bottom of the human barrel).
I think they may even know better but just want to create distrust within the group. I should ignore them more often.
Again, anarchism and black bloc do not equate violence in the eyes of anarchists, and in the eyes of many other people. This is your interpretation.
It doesn't matter what the majority of protesters think. The only thing that matters is the ideology of OWS. Protesters cannot use ignorance as a defense. When you march for OWS, you support the idea of anarchy. It's that simple. If you don't support anarchy, then you should not march with OWS. You should go home, or start your own movement that represents what you believe in. Similarly, if you march with a group that is pro-life or has any other ideology, you support that ideology by marching with them.
If I had a little tree and choped it down.Would that make me George Washington or Jonney Appleseed.
It would make you Paul Bunyon.
It would make YOU the "tree chopper", not George Washington or Johnny Appleseed.
Oh, and just an FYI-from the Mount Vernon Estate-
Did George Washington chop down a cherry tree?
"Probably not. The story was invented by Parson Mason Weems who wrote a biography of George Washington shortly after Washington’s death. Since so little is known about Washington’s childhood, Weems invented several anecdotes about Washington’s early life to illustrate the origins of the heroic qualities Washington exhibited as an adult. Introduced to countless schoolchildren as a moral tale in the McGuffey Reader textbook, the parable has become a persistent part of American mythology."
A vey nice piece of history Betsy but I belive the comment was directed at Ms.Littletree.
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful, murder respectable, and give an appearance of solidarity to pure wind."-George Orwell
Just replace murder with property destruction, and you'll get the point.
Yes I think you are correct .I belive seek and destroy became pacification Than Wallmart made our life better with the low prices .
[Removed]
you do not speak for OWS. My experience is not that OWS supports violence or anarchists or black bloc. Thats you misrepresenting OWS. OWS is non violent peaceful. protest for change. Against the 1%. For the 99%. I have seen OWS statements stating just that as well as against corp personhood. Support OWS. Vote out pro corp personhood pols
[Removed]
[Removed]
You do not speak for OWS either. It has no leader. And OWS does not speak for ANYONE outside of OWS.
The actions WITNESSED by the public performed under the umbrella term of "OWS" or "Occupy" DO speak for OWS. What people SEE and HEAR influences their decisions and reactions. It's nature. It's reality. There's a maxim that expresses this concept-
If someone has a good experience (watches a great movie, eats at a great restaurant, encounters exceptional service) they will tell 5 other people about it. If they have a negative experience they will tell 10 other people.
Word of mouth and general experience with OWS protestors that is NEGATIVE travels much faster than positive. It doesn't matter how many peaceful, non violent protestors there are at any given demonstration-as long as there are black bloc and anarchist elements welcomed, invited, or included in OWS-they will affect the public's perception of this movement. Just simple fact.
So even though there are a thousand peaceful protesters for 1 moron, we should just give up? Ridiculous!. Stand firm! Be strong in the face of all inaccurate criticism! Don't believe the hype!. Keep your eyes on the prize!. We Will, We will, we will NOT be moved!. Support peaceful protest! Support OWS. Vote out pro 1% pols.
Talking about the problems from within the movement is not saying we should give up. And to be fair its more than 1 moron. Hell even if its 2 morons we need to have enough structure so that those 2 morons aren't allowed to paint an entire group of people in a negative way.
I agree with your support of peaceful protests.
We cannot control every single person it is impossible! I'm so sorry. I wish we could. We need better structure I agree! But no structure can prevent 1 nutjob. We must disavow and move on. Better structure is a great goal. I support that. Open up the decision making sessions to more people! Perhaps some verifiable online voting for OWS supporters to choose courses of action. That might change things and create more structure. but it won't stop the rare acts of violence. Sorry.
Its not about controlling every single person. Its about controlling the narrative of what your movement is about and what it stands for.
Not speaking out publicly against these people for so long have allowed for them to be seen as the public as being an everyday part of the movement. Thats the problem.
OWS speaks out against violence frequently. Enough for me. mainly OWS speaks with its actions when they march/protest with 10's of thousands of peaceful supporters. I don't believe the few violent incidents reflect what the movement is about.
Whether its enough for you isn't the point. The point is the public perception of this movement is sinking. The more we are seen clashing with the police under reasons that are vague to the rest of the public the more sympathy we loose in their eyes.
There is a huge difference between using civil disobedience tactics to protests banks and their fraudulent practices,protesting high education costs and costs spikes in education,etc AND clashing with police while Occupying the harbor..just because.
And I have yet to hear the Anarchists say anything against the behavior of Black Bloc. If they were speaking against violence I would think they would be against vandalizing and causing damage. Something that Black Bloc has done. It does not help our cause and our perception if it keeps happening over and over...
Agreed, it doesn't help. What does help is the vast majority (Thousands in dozens of cities) who engage and espouse peaceful protests, and who disavow violence. That is the truth that must get out. That is the truth that will overcome. We shall overcome.!
Thats a message I can get behind.
I think you are 100% correct(just seen the -82 by BetsyRoss's name..which makes me nervous..but there is truth in that post). Its all about perception and word of mouth. And negative perception does indeed travel faster than the positive.
It is not wrong to talk about the flaws of something you respect and see the potential of. In fact it is a good thing. Occupy needs to realize the facts of how we are beginning to be perceived, whether its all fair or not its the reality of the facts(most of it is not fair but its a mistake to say all of it isn't).
Yep, that -82 says a lot about BetsyRoss. Says tonnage about how that person is perceived on this forum. Must be all sorts of supportive and respective things coming from that mouth to receive such a high karma on this site.
Hey even a broken clock is right two times a day. Im not saying that that poster hasn't trolled or whatever. And im not excusing any of his/hers past actions. But it doesn't mean that the post he/she made in this thread didn't have some truth to it.
One person's truth is another person's delusion. If you agree with -82's idea of truth, that is your prerogative, but don't bandy what amounts to nothing more than opinion as truth.
So for whatever reason, the public perception of Occupy hasn't taken a negative hit at all?
I think you're more infatuated with trying to discredit me because I agreed with a statement of someone who has clearly had a checkered past on this board rather than looking at what that person actually said in THIS instance.
Like I said, even a broken clock is right two times a day.
No, I simply understand there are people who come here for the sole intent to post slander, defamation, and negativity, and in every other way, do everything in their power to destroy the image of occupy because they are anti-ows. BetsyRoss is one of those people. Are you?
How is talking about the problems within Occupy spreading negativity? Talking about the truth should not be seen as being negative. Am I suppose to just keep quite and pretend that everything is just dandy and we should continue as is?
I have always been for what Occupy advertised itself as. I wouldn't have attended various protests and events if I wasn't for it. But I refuse to just be silent about the real problems this movement is facing. Clearly im not the only ones from within the movement that feel that way.
Jaded, what are you talking about? Everything about the corporate owned media you just posted I agree with. I've actually posted about this very subject in the past. I don't even see why what you just said has anything to do with me.
But I will say that even though the large majority of the coverage we get from the corporate owned media is unfair. what annoys me is how some members of Occupy take no responsibility at all in some of the negative coverage we get. As if we have done EVERYTHING right and its 100% the media's fault. We have to admit to ourselves that we have to get some of our shit together. Yes the media is bullshit but not every critique that has ever been said about Occupy in the media is bullshit.
Clearly you are not the only one who feels that way, even BetsyRoss agrees with you. & you two clearly have it all figured out. I hate to contradict someone who is so high on their own horse, but I have read many comments that offer a different perspective on how the media has it in for Occupy no matter what Occupy does. It is a fact jack that the media is owned by the corporate powers, and the corporate powers don't care a whole lot about some occupiers shining the spotlight in their greedy little eyes. It makes them squint.
ClaraSprings wrote: "It doesn't matter what the majority of protesters think. The only thing that matters is the ideology of OWS."
Really. If this is the case, then OWS is no more representative of the majority of protestors than the twin-parties are of voters. This paradigm also makes it impossible to "evolve" the movement into something effective. Perhaps it is just me, but I never saw this as about being about OWS, but about resisting continued and increasing government oppression under the dominance of the 1%. If OWS does not represent the interests of the majority of it's protestors, then is it not, essentially, the same elite/majority paradigm?
But chances are the other 98% of society does.
Anarchists don't consider black bloc as being violent.
Nazi's didn't consider genocide as evil either, your logic amazes me. Destruction of property, setting fires...are violent acts.
Anarchists think of violence in terms of hurting people, i.e. domestic violence or gang violence.
They smash stuff to show that they won't adhere to the order of the system, one which truly causes emotional and physical pain every day, to billions. They target location that are involved in this actual violence, sometimes directly, sometimes symbolically.
You have been conditioned to consider it violence because it slows down the flow of capital, meaning it hurts business, especially for the wealthy.
"They smash stuff to show that they won't adhere to the order of the system". And the result is alienating the very people they need to align themselves with to change that system. It is nothing more than a cowardly, foolish show of power that plays directly into the hands of those who control the system. The 1% loves black bloc. It is the lever that can stunt Occupy's growth.
Smashing windows and setting fires is violence. Who conditioned you to think it's not?
In a perfect world that might be the case, but like in Oakland, small businesses got hit... and that hurts the locals, us. You can justify it anyway you want.... its counter productive.
Clara or sara you have only been here since 5/20/2012.Who are you trying to B.S. You should be ashamed of yourself.Now I would suggest that you repent and tell eveyone here that you are sorry for your little Fibs.
[Removed]
Good post. Perhaps you misspoke about 'what anarchy is' but the folks who want to fix the govt vs those that would destroy it will end up splitting. Just spend some time on NYCGA.Net if you doubt me.
Anarchy cannot work in a country of 300 million people of diverse nationalities, religions, and moral standards. Hell, it's never worked in modern history for any length of time but it's propenents always have some long winded excuse as to why not.
Thats a good point ronnie.
Its not a good point because none of it is true.
Read your history, Nestor Mahkno's Ukraine in 1919 and Spain's CNT and FAI organized Catalunya and Aragon during the Civil War. These ended not because they could not work but because they succumbed militarily to authoritarian systems, fascism, communism and liberal democracy, in war.
If anything, having such a diverse 300 million being run the way it is (without anarchism) is not working, i.e. relying on war to keep going, shameful income disparity, high levels of crime, depression, the list goes on.
Localized power and organization is exactly what we need.
Also saying something can't work because it has not worked yet is the dumbest retort in any kind of argument. If this were true, we would never innovate.
I couldn't agree more. Localization IS the way to go. No-one should have too much power. I'd go so far as to say, if there were a way for countries to remain as countries, but the individual States/Provinces to stay separate from the federal government, it would be a good way to keep governments local and not become the big monster it is today. Sort of a semi-secession.
Learn more about anarchism before attempting to define it.
Anarchism generally means governing from the bottom up rather than from the top down, which means no political structure to separate the rulers from the ruled: true democracy. That does not mean the elimination of bureaucracies. They would still be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the general consensus of people: maintain the infrastructure, defense, etc. etc.
Definition: "a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups"
I don't see how thats different from what I stated above.
The definition is true, but that is not what you wrote: "Anarchists want complete absence of government." Most anarchists don't want "complete absence of government." They want no ruling authority, which indicates top-down government. Anarchists believe in bottom-up government with no ruling authority, no Big Brother, no rulers of any kind.
Thats not what i've been hearing from most of the Anarchists here. But I appreciate your clarification.
Everyone wants a bottom-up government. But when you say no rulers don't you actually mean no authority of any kind? If so that isn't an Hierarchy. I do not understand how any form of Anarchy would be able to exist under any form of Hierarchy.
You would still have police and other bureaucracies. They would not be rulers, but as it should be now, servants of the people. Instead, they are servants of the ruling class, the bourgeousie.
Can't we do all of that in a Hierarchy that is void or bribery and corruption as much as possible? Where no one including the President is above the law?
I don't see why we have to jump to the extremes of Anarchism to achieve this.
I suppose because I and others like me don't consider anarchism extreme. To have rulers automatically sets up a class system: the rulers and the ruled. Such systems have always led to corruption in the past; "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
It's practically impossible to give equal power to every citizen in a society of 300 million people like US. In any case, OWS has already demonstrated that its founding theory does not translate to practice.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-you-think-anarchist-are-hurting-the-occupy-move/#comment-741795
I could say the same thing about ruled societies. They have degenerated to little more than tyrannies or oligarchies regardless of the initial ideals.
To a certain degree, but we must remember that no system is perfect.
The big advantage of anarchy over most other systems is that it has very seldom been tested on the field, so it's easy to pretend that it would be perfect in practice. The truth is, there is always a gap between theory and practice.
Hierarchies come in many shapes and sizes and some have been shown to work quite well over a span of many decades. We can think of Canada, Sweden, Denmark, etc... Anarchy has seldom been seen in the real world and when it has it has been used in only short time frames.
Honestly, I do not think it is fair to compare anarchy with other systems simply because it has not been tested enough. This is the same problem faced with the proponents of RBE (resource based economy of the Venus Project). An anarchist talks about the theoretical advantages of his system, then uses practical faults in other systems like capitalism in an attempt to show that anarchy is the best option. You can't compare like this. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
It remains a fact that we know that an hierarchy can hold a country for many decades in a relatively stable framework and we could still continue to improve upon hierarchic systems. Anarchy is the untested road. We really have no idea what would happen if it was implemented nation wide. Considering the huge logistical problems OWS members had running their camps, it doesn't look very promising when we imagine it nation wide.
Anarchy is fun to talk about around a dinner table or around a campfire, but when you need to get down to business you use some type of hierarchical system.
Catch your breath .And tell me more Ms. Springs.
I don't believe you have a really good concept of modern anarchistic thought. For a succinct overview I refer you to http://www.anarchism.net/.
On that site you can see there are many schools of anarchism, some directly opposing others.
I lean toward anarcho-communism. This site http://libcom.org/thought/anarchist-communism-an-introduction explores the basics of that particular school. On that general site, http://libcom.org/ , you can find and acquaint yourself with many different schools of anarchism.
I ask you to remember that if humans never tried anything new, which hadn't been proven, we would be still living in caves.
Conservative status-quo. Living in caves. Living a nomadic life of find and eat.
con·serv·a·tive [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA adjective 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
Another view: To be dragged kicking and screaming forward.
status quo definition
The existing order of things; present customs, practices, and power relations: “People with money are often content with the status quo.” From Latin, meaning “the state in which.”
The powers that be - are quite happy with how things are.
I am familiar with the various schools of anarchic thought, thank you.
True, but my point was that we cannot compare the positive aspects of an mostly untested and theoretical system like anarchy against the negative aspects of a practical tested system of capitalism like in US. This is not a fair advantage. Political theories are always more promising on paper than in practice since they only meet men and their shortcomings in practice.
We saw how horrible anarchy turned out to be in the OWS camps, it's hard to imagine this working for 300 million people. But, like you say, it's good to try something new from time to time. However, we should try it small scale first.
This brings me to a recommendation. Instead of asking the whole country to become based on anarcho-syndicalism, why not start slowly by forming a few anarcho-syncialist companies. This would be on a small scale, would help us see how feasible anarchy really is in practice, and would permit us to remove the kinks before going full blast with 300 million people. We can't go from OWS camping grounds to full scale country.
Most of the problems in the OWS camps were not caused by OWS members, but by outsiders that came in and took advantage of the situation. Still, in any political system, some will take advantage, which always presents the problem of discipline, which has been a persistent problem in communes.
Anarchism has been tried on a limited basis in the Paris Commune of 1871, which succeeded until the Versailles government ruthlessly crushed the socialist-anarchist alliance.
Trotsky, Lenin, Marx, and others believed the failure of the commune had been caused by the lack of a strong, central organization, which they blamed on the anarchists. That, of course, led to centralized socialist states, like the Soviet Union, which generally evolved into oligarchies.
Anarchists of the day tended to blame the failure on the lack of foresight by commune members and organizers. Many factors led to the defeat of the commune, probably mostly because commune members never believed the Versailles government under Adolphe Thiers would react so quickly and so violently.
Umm, Gary... I think you got mixed up and forgot that you are supposed to be posting under your other screen name ClaraSprings.
lol well said ClaraSprings.
"Some pigs will be more equal than other pigs" - LOL
What's absolutely wrong?
In the American version of a properly functioning republic elected representatives make decisions for the people; they are the rulers, elected or not, which is what we have now, though it has become quite corrupted. We, the masses, are the ruled.
In the American model Congressional Representatives are supposedly the closest thing we have to direct representation. One of the reasons their terms were set at two years was to theoretically make them accountable to their constituents. Less direct representation, meant to equalize the possibility of tyranny by the majority, comes from Senators, two from each state, regardless of the population, all with equal votes and elected once every six years. The Senate is supposed to balance the popular whims of the majority of representatives with a view geared more toward national unity and the republic's well-being.
The President supposedly functions as the most removed representative of the masses, concerned mainly with the needs of the population at large. He, by original intent, has almost no official power to legislate, budget, tax, declare war, etc. He does have the power to veto congressional legislation, but can be overridden. One of his major powers is appointment of Supreme Court Justices.
Finally, to supposedly balance the legislative and executive branches, the judicial branch, comes the Supreme Court, which once appointed and confirmed, has no real duty to the masses at all. The justices are supposed determine issues regarding the general law of the land interpreting the Constitution and how legislation and lower-court decisions agree with that founding document.
Of course this tiny civics lesson is all very abbreviated, but as you may notice the people don't rule themselves at all. And the integrity of the whole system depends on the independence of each representative.
What we have now is an oligarchy. The 1% have basically bought and paid for all three branches of our republic, so the people have very little voice, and regardless of how they vote, basically get the same rulers, just with different names and different slogans.
In our current system the bureacracies do not work for the people at all except through the elected rulers. Most of whom, people on this forum generally agree, no longer truly represent the masses.
TitusMoans is improperly defining what an anarchy is. When he states -
He is defining a properly functioning republic in which the government and the police work for the people, and an ogliarchy when the rich control the government and the police. An anarchy is something else.
If we get money out of politics to end corruption, then we would get the properly functioning republic (what TitusMoans falsely claims to be anarchy).
That's absolutely wrong.
What you are defining is a properly functioning republic, i.e. one in which the government and the police work for the people. If the police are the servants of the ruling class, then it's an ogliarchy. An anarchy is something else altogether.
The idea that the police and government serve the people should have given you the hint. In an anarchy, there are no servants because there are no masters.
endgame wrote.. "Everyone wants a top up government."
What's a top up government? And who is this everyone?
"But when you say no rulers don't you actually mean no authority of any kind?"
A distinction needs to be made about what TYPE of authority. An authority that becomes a source of power OVER others is the type of authority that anarchists reject (which is generally labeled as hierarchical authority). Most anarchists are okay with certain types of authority - depending on how this authority is used.
There is rational authority and irrational authority. Rational authority would be like a doctor using their authority (expertise/knowledge) to tell a patient that they need to get that tumor removed because it could kill them if they don't. The patient can then take this information and make up their own mind about what to do. At no point does the doctor have the authority (or power over others) to force the patient to have it removed. Irrational authority is where somebody, or some group or institution, makes decisions FOR an individual without their consent.
"I do not understand how any form of Anarchy would be able to exist under any form of Hierarchy."
Well, it's pretty clear the reason you don't understand is because you don't really understand what anarchism is.
mark, I edited the "top up" to "bottom up" over 35 minutes ago. It was a typo.
So what types of authority are Anarchists okay with?
And i'll ask you since no other Anarchists seems to be answering the question. What examples is there of an Anarchic system ever working?
Endgame wrote..."So what types of authority are Anarchists okay with?"
Rational authority.
"What examples is there of an Anarchic system ever working?"
In Spain for three years, during the Spanish civil war.
Rational authority can be achieved by ending the bribery and corruption in our government and political system. We don't need to become and Anarchic society for that.
And if Spain had an Anarchic society back then(don't know if 3 years is a very good example of a successful system) why did they move away from that, and why haven't they moved back to an Anarchic system since?
Communists stabbed them in the back, plus Nazi Germany on the other side plus the democracies of Europe leaving Spain on its own against the fascists.
So I ask again, why hasn't an Anarchic society sprung up there or anywhere else since then and thrived successfully?
Perhaps you should go read a thing or two about the history of the Spanish civil war to get a better understanding. My suggestion would be to start with George Orwell's book, "Homage to Catalonia."
The end of anarchy in Spain did not come about because anarchy was a failure, it came about because Franco, the dictator who was an ally of Hitler, took Spain over by force.
Take a moment to read up on Spain's history on Wikipedia, or, better yet, get a good book on the subject.
Taken from Wikipedia on the subject: "Early on, the success of the anarchist movement was sporadic. Anarchists would organize a strike and ranks would swell. Usually, repression by police reduced the numbers again, but at the same time further radicalized many strikers.[citation needed] This cycle helped lead to an era of mutual violence at the beginning of the 20th century, in which armed anarchists and pistoleros, armed men paid by company owners, were both responsible for political assassinations."
No thanks. And again, if it was such a success like you say, why hasn't it been brought back successfully in all this time? If an Anarchic society worked wouldn't we would have had examples of long term success by now due to it being much easier to move to a system with no hierarchy? The reason is because it is not practical.
So because anarchists (who simply wanted to be left alone) faced repression by police and corporate funded armies (and eventually were forced to try and defend themselves), suddenly anarchism isn't tenable? I mean, holy brainwashing batman.
It's not so simplistic.
No my point is that it wasn't successful. I thought that was why GaryAutumn told me to go read the article but I confused him with someone else in this thread that told me to read the Wiki entry because it would show examples of where it had succeeded. But as Gary said, he was making another point.
I think you took what I posted out of context. The fact still remains that there are no examples of success of an Anarchic society.
Over 200 years of the USA is a living example of a successful anarchy.
Problem now is - it is under attack by corporate greedy entities.
We can save the USA if we can get the people to stand up for it.
[-] 1 points by Endgame (303) 1 minute ago
When has there been an example of a successful Anarchic system though?
Of course Syria should stand up against their corrupt government that is literally killing them out in the streets. No one is saying otherwise. But to think that the state of an uprising is something that can successfully thrive in a permanent functioning society is more wishful thinking than anything else. There have been many uprisings against corrupt and brutal hierarchies. So why didn't an Anarchic society successful stem and take root from any of those instances?
↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Democracy when it has not been subverted is an example of functioning anarchy.
When has there been an example of a successful Anarchic system though?
Of course Syria should stand up against their corrupt government that is literally killing them out in the streets. No one is saying otherwise. But to think that the state of an uprising is something that can successfully thrive in a permanent functioning society is more wishful thinking than anything else. There have been many uprisings against corrupt and brutal hierarchies. So why didn't an Anarchic society successful stem and take root from any of those instances?
That Wikipedia paragraph describes the beginnings of anarchy before the more stable period in the early 30's. Read up about anarchy in Catalan.
I never said it was a success, I only answered your question as to how it was brought down (by Franco).
I think anarchism doesn't work. Like I said, it's fun to talk about around the dinner table and around campfires, but that's pretty much it.
Ah, I see.
In Spain, for THREE years. Well, that says it all folks. Since the beginning of civilization anarchy has been used for THREE years with some form of success.
The USA has been around for over 200 years and it is now that it is in real danger of dying.
Over 200 years of fairly successful Anarchy/Anarchism/Democracy.
And now the corrupt greedy corporations want it to end.
It ended because authoritarian governments (communist, fascist and liberal democracy) supported by sarcastic, narrow-minded, brainwashed assholes like you teamed up to destroy it with warfare.
Also I don't know what you consider civilization but the lack of anarchism in larger societies accounts well for what a shitty place the world has been.
Then again, if you actually studied civilization you would find plenty of examples libertarian (non right-wing jerk off libertarian) principles everywhere, such as the ecclesia of ancient Athens, the townships and cities of the high middle ages, plenty of so called "primitive" or "native" cultures.
I simply gave one example of it that has existed within the modern capitalist era. And the short-lived Spanish revolution experiment in libertarian-socialism speaks volumes because it empirically proves that the workers and the masses were quite capable of democratically organizing and managing their own affairs (politically and economically) without the need of coercion from above. It didn't fail because of internal problems; it failed because the dominant top-down hierarchical structures (the fascist and communist governments, and the liberal-capitalist governments to a small degree) destroyed the movement by force. Admittedly, the one thing anarchic organization is bad at is building gigantic killing mechanisms. Regardless, this period is inspirational testimony (at least for those who spend time really understanding the history of this time and place) of the ability of poor working people to manage and organize themselves, very successfully, without coercion and control. And the fact that they did this amongst very hostile regimes trying to destroy them the entire time is even more incredible.
Furthermore, a guy named José María Arizmendiarrieta took much of the organizational principles he learned about from the anarchist movement and created a business called, Mondragon. This business has been successfully operating for multiple generations, currently employs 85,000 people, and is the 5th largest business in Spain. It is a worker co-operative structure that is non-hierarchical and horizontally organized. Just more proof that people and workers don't need coercion from above to constructively function.
A lot of this type of history exists, but it is understandable that more people in the US don't know about it - the American educational institutions are horrible at teaching our children honest history lessons.
As for more examples: There is plenty of anthropological evidence to show that there has been an incredible amount of pre-capitalist societies who were strikingly non-hierarchical in their institutionalized structures. But, again, it's understandable that you wouldn't know about this because most people in the US are victims of our own recent history and believe the current social order is how its always been for every single society that has ever existed.
The guy is a sarcastic jerk who doesn't deserve such an eloquent response from you. It won't change his mind.
I try to focus on people who are willing to open their minds beyond what the state and mainstream culture has indoctrinated them in.
lol
de·moc·ra·cy/diˈmäkrəsē/ Noun:
A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. A state governed in such a way.
re·pub·lic/riˈpəblik/ Noun: A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president...
un·ion/ˈyo͞onyən/ Noun:
The action or fact of joining together or being joined together, esp. in a political context. A state of harmony or agreement: "they live in perfect union".
Anarchy: A Definition
What is anarchism?
Anarchism is the movement for social justice through freedom. It is concrete, democratic and egalitarian. It has existed and developed since the seventeenth century, with a philosophy and a defined outlook that have evolved and grown with time and circumstance. Anarchism began as what it remains today: a direct challenge by the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.
Anarchism promotes mutual aid, harmony and human solidarity, to achieve a free, classless society - a cooperative commonwealth. Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it aims for perfect accord between the individual, society and nature. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign individuals would be organised in non-coercive relationships within naturally defined communities in which the means of production and distribution are held in common.
Anarchists, are not simply dreamers obsessed with abstract principles. We know that events are ruled by chance, and that people’s actions depend much on long-held habits and on psychological and emotional factors that are often anti-social and usually unpredictable. We are well aware that a perfect society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle could last forever! However, it is the vision that provides the spur to struggle against things as they are, and for things that might be.
Whatever the immediate prospects of achieving a free society, and however remote the ideal, if we value our common humanity then we must never cease to strive to realise our vision. If we settle for anything less, then we are little more than beasts of burden at the service of the privileged few, without much to gain from life other than a lighter load, better feed and a cosier berth.
Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards a more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every form of injustice.
In general terms, this means challenging all exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority. If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith then it is that, once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely and fairly.
Anarchism encompasses such a broad view of the world that it cannot easily be distilled into a formal definition. Michael Bakunin, the man whose writings and example over a century ago did most to transform anarchism from an abstract critique of political power into a theory of practical social action, defined its fundamental tenet thus: In a word, we reject all privileged, licensed, official, and legal legislation and authority, even though it arise from universal suffrage, convinced that it could only turn to the benefit of a dominant and exploiting minority, and against the interests of the vast enslaved majority.
Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they attempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute to it practically whatever they can, and also to assist within it the highest possible levels both of individual self-development and of group solidarity. It is possible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning voluntary relationships, egalitarian participation in decision-making processes, mutual aid and a related critique of all forms of domination in philosophical, social and revolutionary movements in all times and places.
Elsewhere, the less formal practices and struggles of the more indomitable among the propertyless and disadvantaged victims of the authority system have found articulation in the writings of those who on brief acquaintance would appear to be mere millenarian dreamers. Far from being abstract speculations conjured out of thin air, such works have, like all social theories, been derived from sensitive observation. They reflect the fundamental and uncontainable conviction nourished by a conscious minority throughout history that social power held over people is a usurpation of natural rights: power originates in the people, and they alone have, together, the right to wield it.
Wherein lies the conflict?
The conflict lies in what Anarchists want to do with the government. There is a huge difference between that and transforming the current system by fixing it. Like i've said before there is no way Anarchy can truly exists in a Hierarchy.
And what examples is there of an Anarchic system ever working?
Americans are anarchists by virtue of the Constitution. Democracy when it is not being subverted by the rich and powerful is a well ordered anarchy.
Government Of The People By The People For The People.
This Government of the USA is supposed to be run by the will of THE PEOPLE. Not by the will of corporate entities.
See the people have never been educated to the fact that they are anarchists by design of the founding fathers and our written instruments of Government/Governance.
As i've said before the reason our government is corrupt and our politicians are corrupt and our democracy continues to feel less like a democracy is because of the bribery in our political system and the corruption of our government. The common sense solution is to fix these problems NOT shift to an Anarchic system that has no examples in history of working.
Direct Democracy would be fairly anarchistic. The definition of Democracy in general sounds a lot like the definition of anarchism.
Democracy and anarchy both involve the participation of the people and do not subject themselves to be dominated by a hierarchy but in the people is the hierarchy. The will of THE PEOPLE.
In theory, but in practice this is very far from being true. In fact, the direct democracy implemented by OWS anarchists give them all the power.
Why you ask? Because they made many decisions prior to starting direct democracy and since everyone must come to a consensus to change anything, it's impossible to change certain aspects like the idea of not making demands. The minority simply blocks it. And, of course, OWS anarchists make many decisions without passing them in a GA.
The truth is, OWS is less democratic than the current form of government you have. Not everybody is represented, only those that make it to a GA day after day, week after week, and those are the anarchists who don't have a job (they get paid with OWS donations). What this means is that these people are essentially your representatives but don't have to be voted for the position nor do they have a term limit.
Look at this website for example. It is run by jart and the moderators and always will be. They make all the decisions and you don't have a say. This is the movements primary site and all decisions should be made in a GA. There should also be a rotation of moderators and a team of people in charge that get rotated. And, these people should not all be anarchists. They should represent all the various tendencies within Occupy. The fact that you don't see this is bewildering to say the least. In 10 years, if this site still exists, jart will still be in command.
The truth is, the implementation of anarchism by OWS looks more totalitarian than anything else.
And, no, please don't copy/paste your long winded definition of anarchy yet again. What interests us is the particular implementation of anarchy by OWS, not a theoretical dictionary definition.
A General Assembly where physical presence is rquired is not necessary. It could be held in cyberspace on this website using some imagination. Polling the OWS membership via webpage is much more effecient and egalitarian.
Damn. Those are excellent points.
Looks like this site.
Put together by jart.
Is awfully generous to you.
Why?
You speak against the site.
Yet you are allowed to continue.
Yep - sounds pretty evil to me.
This is a known problem which has bothered many. You don't notice, because you simply post on this site. You are far from the real action. If you go to GA and talk to various groups you will see the problem first hand. Hell, just go to the NYCGA website and read the minutes. You've done that before right? For example, there was a demand group which was terminated because of this. They complained on many occasions that the anarchists were controlling the movement.
Perhaps nothing bad has happened since jart and the moderators control this forum. However, I think it's important to realize how it works. You can't claim that OWS belongs to its members or, otherwise put, that all OWS members have the same power, i.e. that it's anarchy. Some people have much more power than others. This might not bother you, however it's something to be aware of.
Again, a truly open and communal movement would have a rotation of personnel who are in charge of various things like this website. There would also be a method by which members can show their approval or not. Perhaps you never worked in a non-profit organization? They usually have a comity of outside people who oversee the operations and make sure it's transparent, open, and fair.
All I'm saying is that OWS could be a lot more democratic. Of course, OWS is like a cult and you can never criticize a cult. Because of this, you ignore my complaint and nothing will ever improve.
The only one's who have attacked me are the status-quo supporters.
My Post on uniting in common cause is all about owning our Democratic process and using it to the benefit of the people and our world/environment.
This post has taken all kinds of damage by attackers.
It is Democratic and is complimentary to this site and it's wish to take down the corrupt greedy white collar criminals of WallStreet.
I forward that Anarchists - American Anarchists - support the Constitution of the United States of America.
It is the rogue corporations, fossil fuel, WallStreet Bankers that are trying to steal government. These entities want to destroy the Constitution.
The protests in the streets are by American citizens saying we see the corruption and we want it to stop.
[Removed]
So can you support this?
What are pharmaceutical, biotech, and medical device companies trying to buy with $700,000,000? Massive influence with our government.
Don't allow science to take a back seat to the financial interests of corporations! Urge the FDA to protect the American people from unsafe food, drugs, and medical devices by protecting science from corporate interference.
click here to take action
http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=8b8ALI5UYW-GZaUbw2S22g
That’s the amount of money these companies spent over the last three years lobbying Congress and the Executive Branch, which includes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
And now, with negotiations underway on legislation that will govern how the FDA approves and monitors prescription drugs and medical products, it’s clear that all that money has bought the industry a lot of influence with our legislators.
We can’t allow science to take a back seat to the financial interests of corporations—especially when our lives are on the line.
We have seen many concerted efforts from industry lobbyists to roll back key safeguards at the FDA that protect science from corporate interference. The FDA’s foremost priority is to protect the American people from unsafe food, drugs, and medical devices. That requires the agency use the best available science when determining whether products are safe or not.
It's time we remind the FDA to put safety first.
Take Action Today!
http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=2mBqnMVjesCgLZXBtywTKw
Sincerely, Michael Halpern Michael Halpern Program Manager UCS Scientific Integrity Program
[Removed]
OWS also wants to destroy the constitution. They want to overthrow the government with a revolution and start anew with anarcho-syndicalism. I'm not too sure what you are talking about.
If you truly cared about democracy (real democracy), you would take a moment to assess my criticism of the inner workings of OWS and discuss it with others before dismissing it without a blink.
I don't think real democracy is much of a concern for you. Democracy means that criticism is acceptable. Hell, it's a corner stone of democracy and the scientific method. However, anytime someone criticizes you or OWS all you do is call them a troll.
Democracy means that criticism is acceptable. Hell, it's a corner stone of democracy and the scientific method.
I hate when people misuse the concept of the scientific method for their own needs.
In short:
I. The scientific method has four steps
Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
"The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.
Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view."
In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu:8080/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
There is nothing about the acceptance of criticism in the utilization scientific method. It is a tool to remove bias, plain and simple.
Here you should be able to support this. Take you a moment to participate. Then you can get back to your regular program.
What are pharmaceutical, biotech, and medical device companies trying to buy with $700,000,000? Massive influence with our government.
Don't allow science to take a back seat to the financial interests of corporations! Urge the FDA to protect the American people from unsafe food, drugs, and medical devices by protecting science from corporate interference.
click here to take action
http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=8b8ALI5UYW-GZaUbw2S22g
That’s the amount of money these companies spent over the last three years lobbying Congress and the Executive Branch, which includes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
And now, with negotiations underway on legislation that will govern how the FDA approves and monitors prescription drugs and medical products, it’s clear that all that money has bought the industry a lot of influence with our legislators.
We can’t allow science to take a back seat to the financial interests of corporations—especially when our lives are on the line.
We have seen many concerted efforts from industry lobbyists to roll back key safeguards at the FDA that protect science from corporate interference. The FDA’s foremost priority is to protect the American people from unsafe food, drugs, and medical devices. That requires the agency use the best available science when determining whether products are safe or not.
It's time we remind the FDA to put safety first.
Take Action Today!
http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=2mBqnMVjesCgLZXBtywTKw
Sincerely, Michael Halpern Michael Halpern Program Manager UCS Scientific Integrity Program
Just because the definitions sound alike to you doesn't mean that they are actually alike.
So I take it Anarchists believe that "the will of THE PEOPLE" can't be achieved in any other society other than an Anarchic society? Do you have any examples of success? Or at least something that comes close?
Look at the definitions they are not in conflict. The conflict is in your understanding.
The conflict is in the understanding of people in general.
Elected officials are servants of the people. Not the other way around.
Though for some unknown reason people tend to treat elected officials servants of the people as royalty.
"Elected officials are servants of the people. Not the other way around."
And THAT is why most Occupiers(and people in general) want to FIX the system. Money is at the root of the problem you speak of. As it is most things.
"Though for some unknown reason people tend to treat elected officials servants of the people as royalty"
It all goes back to the money in politics. Until we end the bribery, corporations and other rich and powerful entities will always be able to pay off elected officials to spread lies. And they will always be able to have at least somewhat of a hold on the media.
This is the difference between everyone else in Occupy and the Anarchists. We want to transform and fix the problems in the system. Anarchists wants the whole system to dissolve. Huge difference.
Who said anarchists want the whole system to dissolve and or go away?
See the corporate ( artificial ) people do not treat elected officials as royalty - they definitely do treat them as servants.
What the anarchists want and it is pretty obvious if you look at the contributions of those fighting against greed corruption and crime.
Anarchists want the government working for the people they want the government to honor support the Constitution.
Anarchists want the criminals that caused the economic meltdown prosecuted.
Anarchists want the corrupt politicians out of office.
I could go on but it is late.
Good Night.
They did, many times. It's on the front page of this site. Their plan is to make a revolution and replace the current government with anarcho-syndicalism. Why do you think the news on this site is all about OWS vs THE POLICE and not about Wall Street? Because, they are creating tensions in the hope of leading us towards a full scale revolution. Read the front page of the site.
"Who said anarchists want the whole system to dissolve and or go away?"
Definition of Anarchism: "a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups"
And every other thing you mentioned I completely agree with. BUT we do NOT need to shift to an Anarchic society to achieve those goals.
Anarchy in your feared form happens when the government turns against it's people.
Look at Asad. He is using the country's military to kill the population.
There you have an example of the government failing the people and so the people have turned against the government.
What will happen when Asad is gone?
A new government.
Libya is struggling through this process now.
Egypt is struggling through this process now.
Does the USA need to experience this?
Hell - NO.
Not if we The People can regain the support of OUR government.
How does any of that prove that an Anarchic system is the solution? You just pinpointed why CORRUPTION is the reason for their problems.
You still haven't told me why we need to make a shift to a system that has never proven to work instead of dealing with the root of the problem of why our current system does not work? What will an Anarchic system achieve that ending the bribery in our political system and ending the corruption in our government won't fix?
What I am saying is there is no conflict of interest in Democracy. Republic. Union, Anarchy. If you "look" at them side by side and consider what each is saying about the will of The People.
The Constitution:
Government of The People By The People For The People.
Then " I " ask where is the conflict?
Looking at definitions - I do not see a conflict.
Looking at peoples knowledge I see plenty of needless conflict.
de·moc·ra·cy/diˈmäkrəsē/ Noun:
A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. A state governed in such a way.
re·pub·lic/riˈpəblik/ Noun: A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president...
un·ion/ˈyo͞onyən/ Noun:
The action or fact of joining together or being joined together, esp. in a political context. A state of harmony or agreement: "they live in perfect union".
Anarchy: A Definition
What is anarchism?
Anarchism is the movement for social justice through freedom. It is concrete, democratic and egalitarian. It has existed and developed since the seventeenth century, with a philosophy and a defined outlook that have evolved and grown with time and circumstance. Anarchism began as what it remains today: a direct challenge by the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.
Anarchism promotes mutual aid, harmony and human solidarity, to achieve a free, classless society - a cooperative commonwealth. Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it aims for perfect accord between the individual, society and nature. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign individuals would be organised in non-coercive relationships within naturally defined communities in which the means of production and distribution are held in common.
Anarchists, are not simply dreamers obsessed with abstract principles. We know that events are ruled by chance, and that people’s actions depend much on long-held habits and on psychological and emotional factors that are often anti-social and usually unpredictable. We are well aware that a perfect society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle could last forever! However, it is the vision that provides the spur to struggle against things as they are, and for things that might be.
Whatever the immediate prospects of achieving a free society, and however remote the ideal, if we value our common humanity then we must never cease to strive to realise our vision. If we settle for anything less, then we are little more than beasts of burden at the service of the privileged few, without much to gain from life other than a lighter load, better feed and a cosier berth.
Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards a more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every form of injustice.
In general terms, this means challenging all exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority. If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith then it is that, once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely and fairly.
Anarchism encompasses such a broad view of the world that it cannot easily be distilled into a formal definition. Michael Bakunin, the man whose writings and example over a century ago did most to transform anarchism from an abstract critique of political power into a theory of practical social action, defined its fundamental tenet thus: In a word, we reject all privileged, licensed, official, and legal legislation and authority, even though it arise from universal suffrage, convinced that it could only turn to the benefit of a dominant and exploiting minority, and against the interests of the vast enslaved majority.
Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they attempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute to it practically whatever they can, and also to assist within it the highest possible levels both of individual self-development and of group solidarity. It is possible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning voluntary relationships, egalitarian participation in decision-making processes, mutual aid and a related critique of all forms of domination in philosophical, social and revolutionary movements in all times and places.
Elsewhere, the less formal practices and struggles of the more indomitable among the propertyless and disadvantaged victims of the authority system have found articulation in the writings of those who on brief acquaintance would appear to be mere millenarian dreamers. Far from being abstract speculations conjured out of thin air, such works have, like all social theories, been derived from sensitive observation. They reflect the fundamental and uncontainable conviction nourished by a conscious minority throughout history that social power held over people is a usurpation of natural rights: power originates in the people, and they alone have, together, the right to wield it.
Wherein lies the conflict?
Education or lack thereof.
Show me the conflict of ideals.
The conflict lies in the UN-educated. The stiff and closed minded. The conservative. The conflict is in not weighing all of these descriptions with an open mind and noting the similarities. The conflict is not looking at The Constitution and seeing the same qualities of purpose outlined.
The conflict is prejudice.
Take a real look compare values and purpose.
Your paradigm is incomplete.
The conflict is pushing party politics.
The issue should be pushing issue's.
If you really look at it and see the full contents of belief - then you see that a true Democracy is a well ordered anarchy.
I'm talking about OWS's own coverage of the protest, not FOX news. Read the news articles on this site. They are nearly all about police confrontations and they are written by OWS organizers. There's very seldom any talk about Wall Street and the economy. No solutions are ever offered.
You see that is the one thing that should perk-up your antennas.
OWS has always claimed to be leaderless.
A leaderless movement will be disorganized.
This ( these ) movement (s) point out the ills in this society and in this world - and then leave it up to The People as to how to address these issues. Pretty Insidious.
I mean really?
Let The People find consensus? Find common cause? Allow them to work within their legal system to affect change?
How utterly diabolical.
Why the hell is OWS or Occupy not trying to set-up a regime?
OH - YEAH - RIGHT - I forgot - this is a movement given to the People.
A movement to end corruption not change the hands of corruption.
Sheesh - imagine that movements that want the people to own the process.
How weird.
OWS has done none of this. The only thing they do is enter into confrontation with police and plaster is all over their news. Go read the news on this site for a bit. You'll see, it's all about police confrontations. They seldom talk about economy.
I'm not sure where you get your info, but I've been attacked on this site for posting from OWS's official publication, and YES they do talk about all those things and more.....
You should have this one bookmarked.
http://www.occupiedmedia.com/
Who is not covering the Protests?
Who is not doing any sort of in depth reporting of events?
Who has free reign to spin what they want the public to hear?
MSM = Corporations
Another thing I sincerely believe you are confused in your understanding of Anarchism.
I think what you are afraid of - and rightly so is CHAOS.
cha·os [key-os] Show IPA noun 1. a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order. 2. any confused, disorderly mass: a chaos of meaningless phrases. 3. the infinity of space or formless matter supposed to have preceded the existence of the ordered universe. 4. ( initial capital letter ) the personification of this in any of several ancient Greek myths. 5. Obsolete . a chasm or abyss.
This is a complete break down of society. Chaos.
Then why in the world do you support OWS which wants to overthrow the government and dreams of doing exactly what happened in the Arab Springs protest. OWS is based on the Arab Springs protest, organizers get a big boner when they imagine that they could do this with US.
You are obviously confused.
OWS and all of the Occupy movements are about prosecuting the criminals of the economic meltdown.
Ending the reign of terror by fossil fuel.
Ending wage slavery.
Strengthening the economy and promoting a healthy and prosperous world for ALL.
These are the things I advocate and the forum has not banned me.
Why not?
Equally puzzling is why the forum allows you to continue to attack it.
Free speech?
Huh - so many questions.
So many oddities.
[Removed]
we just talk about the mis-definition of anarcist to fill pages and pass time
That's not correct. Bottom up would also be an hierarchy. If there are levels, it is a hierarchy. An anarchy means without levels, without hierarchy. These is no up and down in anarchy.
[Removed]
The Eloi Anarchy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irSwMr9Zxs0 [right click]
I don’t see how anarchy makes a contribution or a difference. How can anarchy have a future as we understand it as the result of causes and effects? Causes and effects must obey laws.
The Occupy Movements are inspired by Arab Spring. In Egypt there was a period of violent confrontation with the state staging violent opposition against unarmed civilians. Muburak was overthrown. The Egyptian revolt is considered to have successfully overthrown the government. The frustrated protesters are still trying to form a new Egyptian government of their design even after electing the Muslim Brotherhood backed candidate.
They may have been better off under Mubarak. The Arab Spring takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood has run amok, with reports from several different media agencies that the radical Muslims have begun crucifying opponents of newly installed President Mohammed Morsi. The victims can be anyone, including Egyptian Christians. “It’s anyone who is resisting the new government,” Ibrahim, Egyptian news correspondent, said. “In this particular case, the people attacked and crucified were secular protesters upset because of Morsi’s hostile campaign against the media, especially of Tawfik Okasha, who was constantly exposing him on his station, until Morsi shut him down.”
Arab Spring in Jeopardy http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/arab-spring-run-amok-brotherhood-starts-crucifixions/ [right click]
Anarchists and atheists beware. The Bill of Rights has been taken for granted, a mistake that endangers our own situation today..
no hesitate no, participate
No, anarchists aren't hurting Occupy.
Everybody wants to co-opt Occupy so why worry about anybody in particular? Let anarchists be themselves. Maybe the co-opters are all same- anarchists/dems/repubs.
I think Black Bloc and Goldman Sachs 2012 people are hurting this movement.
Whew! See my post "Were the Nazis all bad? Is Anarchism enough?
I'm not sure why anybody is blaming Occupy for the knucklehead violence.
People should keep in mind it's the ruling Oligarchy's policies, that which is screwing the 99%, which created this whole mess. Occupy is just a response trying to clean it up. As for the knuckleheads, they come with the mess. What else does one expect?
If the Oligarchy cleans up the mess they made by making life a little easier and fairer for the rest of us, Occupy and the tag along knuckleheads will go away.
I would agree with your stance on the knuckleheads IF the Anarchist that we allow to run this movement spoke out against the knuckleheads. Have you ever heard any of these Anarchists speak out against Black Bloc? No none of us have because they agree with their tactics. Due to that and the fact that we still haven't come up with a coherent message for the movement allows for the media to characterize us all in the eyes of the extremists few. Im not saying its right for the media to do that but its the reality.
And your statements about Oligarchy policies are screwing the 99% are obvious and most people here would agree with that. But using that as a reason for why we in Occupy don't get our shit together is ridiculous.
And yes a small percentage of knuckleheads do unfortunately come with a huge movement. But if \a movement fails to be able to define itself then it allows others(including its enemies) to define said movement. We have not built a core message for the movement and on top of that we have not come out against the tactics used by the knuckleheads. Allowing us to be defined by others. So what else would you expect to happen than whats beginning to happen now under these circumstances?
I most agree that Occupy should get its act together and focus. It may be that Occupy fully intends to be trouble. But trouble for whom? I hope Occupy can be sensitive to that. But whatever the case, bottom line is that Occupy is only the effect, the 1% Oligarchy is the cause.
Agreed but that doesn't exempt Occupy from its actions and taking responsibility for correcting itself.
But I have no problems with Occupy causing trouble for the corrupt corporations,special interests groups and politicians that continue to be responsible for income inequality and a system that is rigged against the 99% of the country. Thats why I was so drawn to the movement and have been apart of protests. But it starting to feel like Occupy is in danger of becoming more trouble for the movement itself than the entities we're suppose to be against.
why?
Are you asking why Occupy should be against violence?
yes
why should occupy be against violence?
First of all Occupy has always advertised itself as a peaceful non-violent, civil disobedient movement. To turn against one of its most core principals would be horrible for the movement on multiple levels.
Second, Occupy becoming violent is the best way to have the entire country turn against us. The majority do not like violence. It is an instant turn off. The power of any populous movement(or any movement in general) is in the amount of people that supports and or joins the movement.
You lose the support of the people the movement dies.
thanks I will add
if the violent are needed to rule,
the rule will be violent
Permit me to add to this discussion: What I mean by causing trouble in my post above, doesn't necessarily mean violence. One can cause non-violent trouble.
I think Occupy should be a pain in the ass for the oligarchy ruling us today, but we need to be smart about it; we can't allow us to be trouble for us 99%.
Be prepared for the other side make the violence.
Two Gold Stars. Let the corrupt make the mistakes. They have a flair for it - Walker - war on women - I don't care about the very poor etc etc etc
So you are someone that advocates that Occupy becomes violent? If you(and others that feel the same way you do) think Occupy should be resort to violence, why do you go start your own movement? Because like I said that is not how Occupy advertised itself.
But I still don't understand the logic in that. If violence turns most people away from a movement how do you expect said movement to survive without the support of the people?
Permit me to add to this discussion: What I mean by causing trouble in my post above, doesn't necessarily mean violence. One can cause non-violent trouble.
I think Occupy should be a pain in the ass for the oligarchy ruling us today, but we need to be smart about it; we can't allow us to be trouble for us 99%.
Be prepared for the other side make the violence.
Violence should not be in the equation at all. No exceptions.
But yes we should be a pain in the ass to the powers that be that are responsible for perpetuating a unfair system and the corruption in our political system and government. But like you said we absolutely have to do it in a smart way.
ofcourse, I believe in non-violence
demand elections be national and state holidays
Ah, I see.
And I agree with you that elections should be national holidays. Just wish the corruption and bribery in the political system didn't usually give us such horrible choice. I think that is also something we can agree on.
yep
and nepotism
Campaign funding miniscule compared to government budget
Thats also a very informative thread. If anyone ever wondered why entities spend so much on elections all they need to do is read that...
[Removed]
write in NO WAR
[Removed]
No one said anything about stopping the protests. They are and will continue to be the most important part of Occupy.
Im not advocating that anyone vote a certain way but I do think we need to get involved politically. Run candidates across the country that promise not to take any outside money ever. Imagine having Occupiers in office that actually has the power to call out all other politicians that are bought off. Hell even if none of our candidates get elected its still a win for us because it would be more positive publicity for us to show everyone in this country what Occupy really stands for.
We don't need to stop protesting either. Having power on multiple levels would be great for the movement. And we need to start putting more political pressure on the people that are in office now. We do that by being able to appeal to the masses better than we are now. The more people we get on our side the more power Occupy has to put pressure on all politicians. All while never stopping the protests.
Good points.
One could also use that same argument and trivialize any movement. Example: Someone could say enough is enough to Martin Luther King Jr. There's unsanitary conditions, it cost the city too much money, and it hurts businesses where Mr. King's picketing took place. An opposing side can keep painting them in negative light to distract from their message. If we get caught up in a red herring we would miss the big picture of seeking racial equality to improve lives or the fact the majority of protesters were peaceful. It's not much different than Occupy Movement seeking financial equality or addressing certain practices of corporate discrimination.
Thanks for posting but I don't think those examples are comparable at all.
There is a huge difference between peacefully protesting and damaging property. Sure protesting in large numbers in any area will for an extremely short amount of time technically hurt businesses. But I guarantee you that any business rather lose a few bucks for a day or two rather than also having to deal with physical property damage that costs them many times more.
And I don't think vandalizing and causing damage is getting caught in a red herring. It hurts the movement pure and simple. And I think you're missing the big picture if you don't realize that if we continue to get caught in situations were Anarchists are making us look like vandalizers it hurts the movement as a whole because it causes people to be turned off by our actions. The power of this movement relies on the amount of people that support/join the movement.
We can pretend that public perception doesn't matter and that if we just shun it all and just say the media is to blame for everything(and yes the media is part of the problem but thats just the reality) then we lose.
And sure we suppose to be addressing financial inequality and corporate greed, etc but we still lack a core message. Do you honestly think we are still winning t hat battle? Most of the time Occupy is talked about its because some Anarchists is clashing with the police. And NONE of the messages get through. That is a problem.
won't splinter
far to liquid
The threat of anarchy comes not from Occupy but from the banks - when the dollar becomes a worthless piece of paper and there is a run on banks anarchy will most likely be the result - we're trying to prevent that through whatever threats we have to make to induce attention and worry that the situation merits. The Devil's greatest achievement is to convince the world he doesn't exist that we are all just simpletons with body odor and ideas who want to live off of society. This is the furthest thing from the truth we are out front wildly saying - we are educated, we have studied this from every angle we're reading the fine print - we're paying attention to the things the average person doesn't have time to. We're warning you - not threatening - that the banks and Wall Street are stealing from you, that the government is doing their bidding, that they will destroy stability and our way of life and create anarchy the likes of which can not be imagined. Now go and eat your dinner - WHEN it happens you may not get to eat again.
Of course the banks are corrupt as hell and helped dragged this country down. You're preaching to the choir.
But the reason why they were able to do what they did (and continue to do) was because the banks and all the other corrupt entities are able to bribe politicians and craft their own legislation. You take the bribery and money out of our corrupt political system we fix the problem.
The financial sector may be complicated but the solution to fixing all of the BS that goes on in it is simple. Get outside money and bribery out of politics.
But none of what you said proves why we need to shift to an Anarchic society(that most of the protesters don't even want). We know how to fix the problems with realistic transformative solutions, so why don't we do it.
Because if you research anarchism in American history, it was overthrow (violence when necessary) of certain corporate entities corrupting our government and to end the bribery you are speaking of. Mostly it was the corporations violently attacking these protesters who strongly believed in fighting back. Research Emma Goldman - the anarchic references you hear from occupy have to do with this, not in a society without rules as people often think of when they hear the term anarchy. Many in the movement have familiarized themselves of the history of this same fight that is happening again history repeats - back then it brought about the New Deal protecting workers and civil rights from corporations. 8 hours for you 8 hours for me.
The power of this movement is based off of the amount of people we can get on our side. As soon as we turn to real violence this movement is dead. The vast majority of the public will be completely turned off. The vast majority of the people that joined Occupy(including myself) will be turned off by how the movement contradicting what it initially said it was. A peaceful movement.
Is it peaceful when Wall Street tries to overthrow democracy? (even if they do it smiling and laughing the whole time and with the help of the authorities and politicians) One day we will look back on this and say why didn't we do more? when this scale tips it will never ever go back. And each generation to come will ask, "what if? what could have been if our parents had done more to protect our freedom?"
I have said this many times here and i'll say it again, the power of this movement is based off of the people that join/support it. We lose support if we become violent. You use violence as if its a practical alternative. You lose support of the people, the movement becomes weak and dies. And it will be just the small group of extremist Anarchists left violently trying to fulfill some fantasy revolution.
You want to talk about looking back one day? Well imagine we do turn violent and we lose all of our support (which we are starting to do now thanks to the extremist and lack of core message). Imagine looking back and thinking about how we wasted this opportunity because we chose to become violent.
Using violence isn't protecting our freedom, its throwing it away to the entities that are screwing us over.
Yes, I actually agree with a mainstream commentary. "Brats in black"... well-stated. The so-called "anarchists" I've seen among Occupy camps know nothing of anarchism. And, communists are pigs.
where oh where did Saralittletree go?
When you use a general term like "anarchist" you need to be a lot more specific. There are peaceful anarchic movements and violent ones. There are anarchists that believe in social cooperation and organization and then those who don't. It is this inability to separate different kinds of anarchism that perverts the whole idea of anarchy, which is, self-rule, consensus, and non-hierarchical equality. There needs to be a careful conversation about this subject on all fronts and not the stereotypical labeling that has become normal in current discussions.
jusdude - you are talking about the nature of people.
Does not matter the belief system involved - people are people and will run the gamut of personality types from peaceful and reasonable to violent and unreasoning.
This is true of any society and any political party and any social movement.
Monsters are and always will be. The thing is to denounce them and stop their destructive behavior.
They are to be found everywhere.
So it is wrong to blame the 100% of anyone group for the violence of the unruly.
Violence draws attention and is a weapon of propaganda to wield against good people and good movements.
I think that ClaraSprings and endgame are compatible.Does anyone else think so?
Why do you choose to be petty instead of contributing something of substance to the discussion?
It is not petty to belive that you both are working in concert.And the substance is how you both tag team to discredit occupy.Good cop bad cop if you will.Clarasprings is your reincarnation of SaraLittleTree.
I love how when people don't have anyway to back up their arguments they just throw around bogus claims.
I've had a claim thrown at me recently by someone else that couldn't argue their point of view so instead decided to make nonsense claims that I have multiple accounts. And i've told any mod here to check my IP and compare it with everyone else and see for themselves that this is the only account that I have EVER had here. And now im being accused of working in concert with people I don't even know. So cJessgo, if you are a mod or you know any, have them look at my post history and see if i've "worked in concert" with Clarasprings or anyone else at any other point in my history here.
And after you do that and find out that you've made yourself look like an idiot by making baseless claims maybe you will actually add something of substance to this thread in the future.
Nice speech perhaps someday you will run for a politicle office.This thread has no future and like any lizzard you are about to change once again.
I don't even know what that means...
Sorry the Jig is up.
You know what I would like to do? I would like for any unbiased mods we have here to look at my IP address and look at your IP address so we can know who actually has multiple accounts here.
I think the results would be hilarious. You up for that challenge cJessgo?
I do not care what you do son.We all know the feds have a multiple number of ip's at there disposal
Wow...seriously cJessgo? I can't even tell if that is a real response. If it is its kind of sad.
Yes it is sad that anyone who has been here longer than a few months knows your operation.Sad that you and Clara/Sara/whom ever you invent or work with use the same old tactics.You can argue and refute all you want.Change your name whatever.ATroll is a Troll.
So we're back to baseless claims again. I am the one that offered to have the mods check both of our IP addresses and see which one of us has multiple accounts on this forum. Then you come back at me with some even more nonsense paranoia claims.
You're just making yourself look like an idiot. You can claim that im everyone here in disguise for all I care. But all you've really proven is that when you have nothing to back up your argument you try to smear them with no facts at all to back up what you're saying. Classy.
As I said you have been here before in many forms.Your job is to discredit Occupy.You use the good cop bad cop ploy.It is your Job to do so.And yes I would be an idiot to belive anything else.Please give my regards to Clra/Sara/Bonton/Endgame/Etc.
No you're an idiot for making baseless claims. Like I said I have nothing to hide. But the way you shifted away from my suggestion of having unbias mods check both of our IP address to see whos actually lying says more about you than it does me.
As long as we're making baseless claims, im going to say that I know for a fact you're an under cover tea partier, burglar and possibly a pedophile. Do I have any proof of this, nope. But if you can play the game of baseless claims so can I.
You are quite possibly the most idiotic person i've came across in these forums so far. And thats saying alot.
Again, notice how no mod has ever made those claims against me. Its because they can't. You have no way to back up your position so you come in this thread and try to be cute. But you're just showing how simple you are.
Nothing baseless about it.As i said you have been here in multiple forms.Your function is discredit Occupy.Know you can spin it any way you want .And you can cry all you care to .Therefore Bonton/endgame/Etc.I will bring this up to each new BS thread you post So people know what kind of Lizzard they are dealing with.
Anyone hurts the movement who the media portray as violent, and they love to pretend that anarchists are violent, so it's self-defeating to use such a term.
So, after reading this discussion, I feel it is time for the moderates to find a leader who can speak for us in an eloquent fashion.
[Removed]
Suspended Wisconsin Governor Walker is facing a June 5 recall election.
CA primary Elections June 5 Tuesday
demand elections be national and state holidays
Yes, and one way they harm the Message is by using loaded language and the language of anarchy - this hits the buttons of many listeners who react by shutting down, ignoring the message or dismissing it outright (usually because they bring their own loaded assumptions to the table).
OWS must be effective when communicating - that is a threshold issue. IF OWS participants do not communicate effectively, any message is dismissed, ignored, ridiculed and worse.
The choice often becomes 1) To Express Themselves; or 2) To Compromise on the manner in which they deliver their Message so that it WILL be heard (which usually entails speaking in the manner and language of The Establishment). It may be totally unfair that in order to be heard in the first place, participants must compromise and adopt the loaded language of The Establishment - but that is the Political Reality.
This is a classic problem faced by ALL Civil Rights Movements - a problem best illustrated by the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's when thousands and hundreds of thousands of African American individuals and organizations found themselves completely marginalized and isolated because 'The Establishment' refused to recognize their manner of communication.
Unfortunately, participants must compromise in order to BE HEARD (which is not the same thing as Expressing Themselves). Simply Expressing Themselves may be gratifying and an important right, but participants must realize that their message will likely be ignored or dismissed outright IF it is not communicated basically using the language and manner of The Establishment. It's unfair and it's not right, but it is reality.
I think there is a lot of truth to what you say. But don't you think there is a way to speak in a way where protesters can adopt the loaded language of the core messages of the establishment(the movement itself) while still toting the line of expressing themselves in a way that doesn't get in the way of the establishment's message?
If the anarchists were not involved with the occupy movement then police and FBI would simply find another group (socialists, communists, muslims, hippies, etc) to demonize and make this demotic movement look dangerous. So, really it's not the anarchists that are the problem; it's the ruling elite who use their policing apparatus and media apparatus to frame ANY kind of demotic movement as dangerous and extremist. And it would seem more appropriate to focus on this fact, instead of falling into the ruling elites "divide and conquer" trap...
Groups like Black Bloc makes things many times worse. Hell even a Black Bloc member that was being interviewed in Chicago during the protests this weekend said there were some Black Bloc members egging on the cops and making the situation even worse.
I know there is foul play going on. But I get annoyed when portions of Occupy act as if they do no wrong and just blame everyone else for everything.
And again, I will bring up optics. Because of the past actions of the few extremists vandalizing and causing damage, when people see huge clashes with Occupy and the police most don't even feel sympathetic to the Occupiers anymore. Example, today I went to visit my mom and brother. On the news they showed the clashes at the protests. My mom said "What are these kids doing now? They are always getting into fights with the police. I don't even know why they're always out there protesting in the first place".
I had a somewhat long(ish) conversation with my mom to explain everything to her about what the movement actually stands for and how I am apart of this movement but there are extremist that help fuel the negative way people are starting to see us. This movement has been going on for months and yet we STILL haven't came up with a simple core message for passerby's to latch onto.
At this point I truly believe Anarchists are hurting this movement.
Violent acts play into the narrative that the 1% controlled media/police desire. They represent the smallest fraction of the hundreds of thousands (even millions) of OWS supporters. Any violence by attributed to OWS hurts the movement. you are correct. We must keep it in perspective. Vast majority are peaceful and non violent.
VQkag, I agree.
But the reality is that we need more structure and control over our PR so that we don't allow for the mass media to be able to paint us in the same light of the few extremists that make us all look bad. We also need more structure so that those extremists know that that behavior won't be tolerated and does not represent the movement in anyway.
That would be ideal. I suppose that could come. OWS is so anti organization it is hard to see how. Perhaps if they created some kind of verifiable on line voting for OWS supporters we could choose through consensus to proceed on some of these actions.?
I don't know, but its a possible solution. I do know your train of thought of finding a realistic and plausible way forward to work through Occupy's issue is more productive than I can say about the few extremists that refuse to see any other point of view than their own and pretend that there are no problems from within the movement.
Okay... think what you will.
Yes. And continue to disavow violence. Any and all. especially that which is perpetrated against innocent peaceful protesters.!
no,
anarchist are not hurting the movement
It's a popularity contest, anarchy is not popular.
Register and Vote!
Voting won't change the problems we are facing. Voting is a popularity contest for a fashion statement.
Bull Shit! Tell that to Wisconsin!!
http://www.alternet.org/story/155624/koch_brothers%27_americans_for_prosperity_goes_all_out_in_wisconsin_recall--and_denies_it!/
Who is ClaraSpring?.Who pays this act of fiction ?How many forms does she come in?How long will she stay?Is her motivation $$$$.What does she bring to the table except her /His contempt of Occupy?Why do we engage it ?One thing for sure it is very competant at debate.
I believe ClaraSpring is Trashy. Pun intended.
If we don't take the trash out the house begins to stink!
Hilarious! How true.
It"s name changes from time to time but the style remains the same.
Yes it does. It's easy to spot if one pays attention.
No reason to speculate as you can achieve somewhat of a conclusion with a simple SQL query. Ask the moderator or the equivalent to run an SQL query indexed on the twinkles. If the results indicate a significant percentage of concentration in a small number of people who also happen to be anarchist, then you should ask a series of why's. For example, why aren't the moderates represented in greater numbers. In any event, concentration does not reconcile with the mantra of 99%.
When I first saw this movement I thought it was a simple thing and it was going to focus on more economic inequality. I'm not sure if it's doing that any more.
[Removed]
I think you make it look bad.
I dont even know what an anarch is or a leftist or a right wing extremists, etc. I for one appreciate a leaderless movement, as we shouldnt have other men over us, be we are equal, and collectively we are more intelligent than any one man.
As I stated, Im not advocating for the movement to become traditionally structured movement. And im not advocating for the movement to have a leader. Im just saying it needs to be more structured than what it is. Part of the appeal to this movement from the beginning was its creativity. I don't think it would be to difficult for this movement to develop more structure in an unconventional and creative way.
And of course we should all be equal. No one here is advocating otherwise. Its other fundamental differences on how to achieve that is what alot of the disagreement is about.
id like to see our country run more like a village where there is no people over other people, no landlords especially. we can have a commitee whose purpose is to share the resources, who report to the people, instead of the little dictators that do what they want with our taxes and vote themselves payraises.
We especially need to establish a peoples bank interest free if possible.
I become afraid of OWS. It’s becoming more violent every day. Just read a lot of the posts. It seems the term “direct action” is a code word for violence.
I was an early supporter of OWS. Not a member, but at least sympathetic and thought someone had finally started seeing the real problems. I attended on rally in my town and met some good people. I talked up OWS to every chance I got.
Then the problems with the encampments started, even in my town. Just hassling the cops and causing problems for the public. Then OWS kind of dropped out of the news and I lost track of the activities. But still felt OWS was a good thing that just had a few malcontents.
Then a few weeks ago I stumbled onto this forum. Don’t remember how I found it, wasn’t looking for it. Read some of the threads, created an account and made fifty or so posts. I started seeing a different face of OWS. One more ominous and threatening.
After being active on this forum for just a few weeks I’ve become anti-OWS. In spite of what a lot of people say here. I believe OWS is turning violent. OWS seems to have some sense of moral superiority over the masses, thus any actions they take are morally justified; even violence. I have the feeling a lot of OWS’ers think people and property are expendable and worth the price of the “cause”. Even though people don’t like the word terrorist, that’s what has happened in at least two cases. In my mind no different than Al-Queda or Timothy McVeigh.
People thinking law enforcement are Nazi storm troopers who just want to kick your ass. No thought that they protect the public and get real criminals off the street every day. Also, a lot of OWS want to excuse or otherwise defend the people arrested for violence.
Folks, I’m an old retired small business owner. I don’t want to have everything torn down and the country go into a Depression like the 1930’s. A lot of things need to change, but blowing stuff up and looking down your nose with an attitude of moral superiority at anyone who even slightly disagrees with you is not the way.
I’m sorry that the way things are turning out. I believe there are a lot of good, caring people in OWS, but they lost out to the more fanatical views. This is my last post on this forum. The mods have my permission to delete my account. I no longer have any good words for OWS.
"I become afraid of OWS. It’s becoming more violent every day."
Is that so? I watched hours and hours of livestream coverage of the Occupy Chicago/NATO protests and the only violence I saw was perpetrated by police officers. The protesters who were beaten by batons, run into by police vans were simply exercising their first amendment rights and were NOT instigating any violence whatsoever. Would you like to excuse the violence perpetrated by the police for these acts?
The anarchists ARE the " movement".
Then the movement is indeed doomed. But I doubt you have the authority to speak for this leaderless movement, so this empty bravado for anarchy just seems childish.
OWS believes it has the "authority" to speak for the entire 99%. Doesn't danzer have just as much right to claim authority to speak for OWS?
He has the same authority as I do, the authority to speak for himself.
When these protests began, I was under the impression that the point was to demand accountability for the crash in 2008. A legitimate goal that I still support. What I don't support is this anarchist philosophy that wants to over throw the entire system, for the simple fact that an ignorance of the real consequences of doing that is apparent. No health care, protection, or cohesion of any kind. What we have needs work, but it is better than no government at all. As part of the 99%, and a peer to most of these anarchists, this recent swing in the public perception of OWS as an anarchist movement profoundly hurts social progress. Those in power will not take you seriously, and people will continue to be abused by the police for thinking that violence is an answer.
BS - pure BS.
[Removed]
No they started the movement. They aren't the entire movement.
They started the movement with populous rhetoric that went beyond partisan politics. BUT they were not forthcoming about this being an Anarchists movement. Meaning when this movement was advertised initially the word "Anachist" was never used. So people that were attracted to alot of the things about the movement that were advertised joined the movement and the rallies(like myself).
If you go ask the large majority of the protesters out there if they're Anarchists and want to live in a society where there is no government and no hierarchy at all, they will say NO. So you have to ask, why didn't the Anarchists just come out from the very beginning and say this is about achieving an Anarchic society? Its because they know this movement wouldn't have nowhere near the potential has now if they would of came out the gate stating what their real end goals are.
Why do yo still support the movement if it does not espouse the views you share? Why not join a political party, or create a movement of your own?
I can offer a guess. Lots of young people are flocking to it, so large numbers of the next generation of adults are being corrupted by partisan Anarchism, which is a political philosophy despite propaganda to the contrary. It is a philosophy of governance just like democracy or socialism, in the sense that an absolute belief in its principles leads to narrow thinking and unintelligence. It becomes a religion if you take it this far, frankly, for it ignores the positive benefits of the structure of government, such as the infrastructure it provides to society, and only focuses on its human flaws. Judging by your questions, I would ask if you believe in intelligent discussion and debate amongst people who disagree, for it appears as though you do not.
[Removed]
Good question. I liked what Occupy initially ADVERTISED itself as. As a movement that is about truth and not the traditional partisan political battles(not saying that there aren't any that have substance). Occupy were talking about a ton of issues that were not getting talked about. Money and bribery in politics(the root of all the problems), education costs, real financial reform, etc. So I was absolutely attracted to this. And I still am attracted to this part of it.
But now that i've learned that the end goals of this movement is something other than transforming and fixing our political system and seeing how we haven't grown and learned from our mistakes I see a clear divide.
If the founders of Occupy would of came out from the very beginning with their real intentions then things would of been very different. Its not the fact that they falsely advertised their goals to me but to 99% of the Occupiers that joined. THAT is why its not as simple as saying "im going to take my ball and go home".
Because of the actions of the Anarchists and lack of structure in the movement(im not saying the movement needs leaders or even has to develop a traditional structure base, but it does need SOME structure), the movement has allowed for itself to be defined by our enemies and entities that wanted to see the movement fail from the very beginning. We don't control our PR, we don't publicly rail against the vandalizers that inject themselves in the protests, we do not run candidates, we shun away any alliances, etc. And because of this, we are losing tons of public support and we are becoming more like toothless complainers. With no real power.
99% of Occupiers want to fix the system. Not create an Anarchic society. That is not what was advertised.
NO WAR
[Removed]
YES. The MOST EFFECTIVE OWS participants, when it comes to reaching the largest number of Americans with their compelling message, are often the 'moderates' - the regular Americans who have lost their homes, jobs, etc. NOT because of Capitalism, but because of the ABUSE OF CAPITALISM.
When so-called Anarchists speak, they come across as highly aggressive, angry and most Americans simply cannot relate to them or their message.
Is the goal to reach the largest number of Americans with The Message? If so, Anarchists do not achieve this goal.
[Removed]
WHEN SPEAKING to the media, OWS participants must be aware of how they come across. This may be unfair, but it's the reality.
ONE BIG problem is that particular manner of speaking that sounds like the speaker is always asking a question because of their 'upward inflection' at the end of each statement. It comes across as unsure, insecure, very 'High School' and shallow.
FOR EXAMPLE: "Well, the Chicago Police Van just drove right through a crowd of protesters? The just kept driving, you know? It even seemed like the driver gunned the engine?"
Speak assertively and positively. Make the statement, don't inflect as though it's a question or as if unsure of the facts. This is fundamental stuff, but we keep seeing OWS participants who are interviewed speaking this way, over and over, and it's hurting efforts to get the message across.
[Removed]
The most radical elements seem to be what it takes to move a 'cause' forward. I view this as a train ride, and we can all get off where we want. First stop, Bankers in Jail; Second stop a government reresentative of it's people, and so on.
We meet again oh great Odin lol. How have you been?
"Second stop a government reresentative of it's people, and so on"
This is exactly what im talking about. What you say makes sense. Its getting involved in the political process to change and transform a corrupt system. Most of the Anarchists feel that we should not run candidates, or get directly involved in fixing and transforming our system. They want to completely get rid of it and create and Anarchic society. Those are huge key differences.
But I do agree that this will end up being a train ride. The more people in Occupy that see that there goals are much different than those of the Anarchists will decide another path. Its not about shunning the way the movement was started its about finding out the truth, learning from it and growing to achieve the realistic goals that Occupy initially advertised itself as being for.
Lol...I've been good, Thanks...just got back from Vermont for a visit with one of my daughters. Lots of beautiful moon-lit nights on top of a mountain, and glorious days driving on mountain roads, etc. I even split a cord and a half of firewood...not bad for an old guy, eh? It was a good time to reflect. No internet service, just my cell. I ended up liking it though. lol
I do realize that hiearchal power corrupts, and I understand why people would want to get away from it. I just don't think that anarchy could work today. One word you seldom hear on this forum is 'accountability.' Anyway I believe if we set up an acountable system with clear severe consequences for people who broke the trust of the people, well that might work. I am becoming more convinced that we need something other than capitalism to deal with all of our problems. 'Scary'.... considering that's all we have ever known? Hell yeah it is.... but no more so than continuing on the destructive course we have been on for so long. So I guess that makes my 'train ride' a little longer than some, but not as long as others.
At this point, I also believe that we should stay out ot the political process as far as endorsing canidates because I think that just sullys us, and it makes us more docile-like. It would also probably mean that we would have to make compromises, and I think it is way to early for us to think about that. I want this movement to grow in numbers, and in anger at a corrupt system, not at any one particular party. When we have accomplished that, then we take stock, and see where we go from there.
There is no telling how this movement will evolve, but just the threat of some of us wanting a whole lot more than others gives us a bargaining chip. Just like it did in the Roosevelt years when a major transformation occured. It wasn't as much the so called 'extremist' wanted, but nevertheless it was a sea change that Americans benefited greatly from.
Glad to hear you had fun while visiting your daughters. And yes spliting a cord and a half of fire wood is impressive...but did you take down a bear with your bare hands? I kid lol.
I think you or anyone questioning Capitalism is just fine. But I honestly don't think we will be able to have a genuine discussion about it without the fear mongering from bought off politicians and the power entities that give them their talking points and the corporate owned media. Which again leads me to why bribery and outside money is the root of the problems.
But I do disagree with you about how we shouldn't get involved in the political process. I think it is imperative that we do. We don't need to be conventional about it. Hell we can even run candidates that promise never to take outside money knowing full well that if they are elected they might be serving one term. But it makes a powerful statement if this movement can run candidates, change the political discussion on a long term basis and force the career politicians to have to address Occupy issues(which are everyones issues).
We don't have to compromise what we stand for or let the process sully us. We can not only change the discussion but change politics from the inside. Even the optics of the types of candidates we run will have a huge affect on how we are perceived by the public and it will show everyone that we are serious about addressing these issues.
We already get publicity from the rallies(even though I think this movement has some serious work to do on how we stop letting the crazies injecting themselves in the protests distort what we are about and having better control over our PR). Imagine Occupy candidates at large Occupy rallies with the national news with the cameras on him or her talking about Occupy issues.
You can't tell me that isn't appealing Odin. We potentially have real game changing power. We have to use it. We must not become toothless complainers that are failing not only in public perception but failing to put fear in the heart of Washington and the special interests that bribe them to get what they want and continue to screw our system as a result.
"Imagine Occupy candidates at large Occupy rallies with the national news with the cameras on him or her talking about Occupy issues."
It's a wonderful imaginary. Unfortunately, it is one that is highly unlikely to happen because it ignores the systemic issues of how national news coverage frames anybody who opposes the corporate state.
Did you happen to watch the Democratic primaries in 2007? There was a stand up politician (with a very progressive, anti-war voting record to prove it) in that race. His name was Dennis Kucinich. During the debates for these primaries Dennis was easily marginalized, rather than giving him the airtime to voice his progressive position.
I will never forget a debate on MSNBC. The entire debate Chris Matthews and Tim Russert mainly kept asking Obama, Clinton and Edwards all of the main political and economic questions. Dennis quietly stood there for nearly 30 minutes. Then finally Chris Matthews looks over at Kucinich and asks him his first question. Matthews said (and I paraphrase), "Dennis, we heard that you have been on record that you saw a UFO... did you in fact see a UFO?" Dennis answered honestly by stating he saw something that was unidentified to his knowledge. At no point did these media ass-clowns allow Dennis to put forth his progressive positions.
After the debate, Matthews single-handedly berated Kucinich over and over, calling him a kook and a nut for saying he saw something that was unidentified to his knowlege. Damage done... a progressive candidate was "assassinated" by the media. This same type of thing happened to Howard Dean in the primaries before this one.
In sum... The media structure is a part of the same problem that Occupy is against. So getting an Occupy candidate is a wonderful idea (one I would support), but expecting them to get honest airtime on the national news is.... naive. I'm sorry to burst your bubble about this imaginary.
And I do agree that occupy has a "real game changing power"... but the national news will never, ever, ever show it in a positive light. To do so goes against the very interests it serves - the corporate state.
So because they wouldn't get honest air time we just do nothing politically? Thats weak. Of course our media is garbage but that doesn't mean we just cry about it and pretend they don't exist. Part of it is the media but if we get the people on our side(which we are starting to do a bad job of..and its not ALL because of the media even though they play a big role in it) and run candidates that refuse to take outside money and bribes from anyone and we do this on a national scale in combination with a clear core message of the movement, Occupy will be seen as a movement with actual teeth.
Also I just posted this in regards to the media but I think it needs to be said here too.
And about the corporate owned media playing apart in how we are viewed, of course they are. I agree with you there. But where I disagree is the fact that Occupy just blames ALL of the way their covered on everyone else and doesn't own up to the fact that we hold some blame as well. Not equal blame by any means but we need to take some responsibility.
Here is a quote from another poster here that posted about this subject. I think his post was completely correct on analyzing this issue. Here it is: """""The reason that the media tends to focus on the sensational accounts of domestic terrorists instead of Occupy's message during these protest events is that Occupy does not have a coherent message to send, whereas the law enforcement agencies who are investigating the suspected terrorists have spokespeople and media contact points and professional press release writers who can articulate a clear and focused message. A professional PR person's message is going to beat no message any day.
The result is that a simple meme is being repeated nearly daily in the news: Occupy harbors domestic terrorists. Since Occupy would rather defend those accused domestic terrorists than ostracize them, and since there is no other competing message frm Occupy, that becomes Occupy's message: "We support domestic terrorism, because... Why not?" """"""
Endgame wrote... "So because they wouldn't get honest air time we just do nothing politically? Thats weak."
I never stated nothing should be done politically. So really what is weak is that you are putting words in my mouth. Please stop doing that. I was simply telling you that your national news imaginary just won't happen, and gave an empirical example of what they do to marginalize a progressive who goes against the corporate state. I would love to see Occupy candidates start running for the House and Congress. And I would support them 100%, but we need to be realistic in how the national news will cover these candidates.
As for the rest of your comment: I agree, something more needs to be done about clear and focused message that all occupy groups throughout the country can agree to. And then to designate a few people in each group to handle helping to get the message out through the grassroots mediums.
I could have sworn you are many of the Anarchists here that have told me repeatedly that they think we should not be apart of the political process at all. If I got you confused with any of them it is my mistake.
I don't see how what I said is "imaginary". The fact of the matter is that the Occupy rallies have been getting national news. Now how alot of that coverage goes is another story. But what im saying is you combine running candidates with Occupy developing a coherent core message and the national attention of the rallies, our candidate will get air time. They already have a movement of people behind them. Then we would have to use the coherent message of what Occupy is about to bring more people onboard the movement so that the candidates become stronger.
Alot of why we get covered in such a lame way(I know there are other reasons besides this) is because of our lack of core message. Fixing that is extremely important.
"I don't see how what I said is "imaginary". "
Read your own comment. You stated, "Imagine Occupy candidates..." You just created an imaginary. It's not to say that you can't try to create this as a reality, but as of right now it is still only in your head. Capeesh?
If you are interested in expanding your understanding in the systemic issues of the media system, I highly recommend reading "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" by Chomsky and Hermann. It's based in scientific analysis and gives an insane amount of evidence to prove why their hypothesis is true.
I agree with everything you said.
I am agreeing with you agreeing with mark.
Cool, I had just returned from the east coast version of utopia, Vermont, and hence still had that warm and fuzzy feeling in my first couple of comments here. I started to harden a bit more in my last comment. Pret'it soon I'll beback to being my old abrasive self. lol
Back to hardball, eh? Oh alright.
Yes...NJ will prepare you for reality real quick.
Q: Why does California have the most lawyers, and New Jersey, the most toxic waste dumps?
A: New Jersey got first pick!
Lol...One of the really beautiful traits of a New Jerseyite is, he will not try to defend the indefensible...New Jersey. Just do not denigrate our tomatoes, and Springsteen. I agree on the lawyer thing for the most part, but there are some exceptions, and one of my daughters is one of them. After graduating from Fordham Lincoln Center Campus, magna cum laude, and then again from VT Law School, she turned down an offer of help from an extended family member who is a partner in a DC law/lobbying firm. She has also stated to me she would never work for corporate law. She battles prosecutors as a public defender, who are more interested in notches on their belt than in pursuing justice, and often gets her clients off trumped up charges by filing very extensive motions. Anyway, I would like to think that the apple does not fall far from the tree.
Your daughter sounds like a wonderful Public Defender. I hope you did not name her Odinette? Please tell me you did not. Anyway, let Odinette know if she ever starts practicing corporate law, Springsteen and I are coming to throw tomatoes at her.
If you enjoy 'dishing it out' as I do, you should be able to take shit too. ;-)
Yes she is a wonderful PD, and a beautiful person too. And no, I did not name her Odinette, or afters Hagar's wife, Helga either. lol
You have a good sense of humor. I couldn't help but poke fun at the mighty Odin. See you around in the comic pages.
LOL - whats a 100 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean? Not even a good start.
Please excuse me those of you in the profession who are actually trying to do good work. But you've got to admit the professions reputation in general really sucks.
Wow, aren't you politically correct. Here's my way:
Ounces of brain for sale:
A man went to a brain store to get some brain to complete a study. He sees a sign remarking on the quality of professional brain offered at this particular brain store. He begins to question the butcher about the cost of these brains.
"How much does it cost for engineer brain?"
"Three dollars an ounce."
"How much does it cost for programmer brain?"
"Four dollars an ounce."
"How much for lawyer brain?"
"$1,000 an ounce."
"WTF? Why is lawyer brain so much more?"
"Do you know how many lawyers we had to kill to get one ounce of brain?"
If this offends any blood-sucking lawyers. GOOD!
Yes the corrupt should take a good long look in the mirror. The profession does not have a dismal and hated reputation for no good cause. The system in which you work sucks.
Interesting point and accurate. Thus I support withdrawing our consent to be governed under the Constitution in all Representative and Senatorial elections in order to force Congress to call a long overdue Article V Convention.
Stick your Article V up your (x) traitor.
You want the Koch's and their corrupt buddies to be able to steal and trash the Constitution.
Ah, my own personal troll is back...
Nope, no bear this time. I don't like messing with those black bears. I'm waiting for the grizzlies in Alaska next month when I will be there. lol
We have accomplished much from being outside the corrupt political system, as we both know. Political discourse has changed greatly, and towns and cities are responding to people's concerns by not dealing with some of the big banks that have caused so much harm to their citizens, etc. Running our very own canidates is something that i could endorse, but the constant promoting of dems over repubs, I do not agree with. Many of the moderate repubs are people that can be brought to our side, if we do not make this a partisan battle. In the end this is about right vs. wrong, not dems vs. repubs.
Yes I agree that promoting something different from capitalism will hurt us while we are trying to bring people to our side. But grandma, and grandpa are asleep now, and they don't have to know everything! At some point though the mere threat of some of us wanting something different than capitalism might cause those in opposition to the reasonable core goals that we all want, to capitulate. Because they would know if they didn't cave, what was around the corner, anarchy! This dynamic was in place during the Roosevelt years, only then it was communists, and like I said it resulted in a sea change in the way our institutions were run.
On the whole though, this movement has to remain defiant. That is what got us to this point, and for the forseeable future, that should remain the main thrust of this struggle. That means waking up a lot of people, educating them, and then getting them out in the streets.
But thats the problem Odin, we are losing people as time goes on. We are losing the public perception battle and its because of the clashes with police, the vandalizers, lack of structure and lack of core message. We lose the people Occupy looses its strength and looses its potential.
I agree 100% that this movement should not turn into a strictly left or right movement. I agreed with you the first time we spoke about that and I agree with you now.
But I still disagree with you about us not getting involved politically. Part of the reason we are losing our battle of public perception is because there are tons of people out there that do not know what we stand for. They see the clashes with the police and "Occupy the harbor..." and ask, wth are they doing and then just move on. I think we have to a strong core message and put political fear in politicians and the system as a whole. I think politicians fear Occupy's potential but they do not fear Occupy. That is a problem.
And yes I do think we've accomplished much but those are short term accomplishments that can easily be wiped out. There is no long term threat of Occupy because we have shown no political power. We looked like we were at first and thats when we seen some politicians and political pundits(even the far right ones) show some fear due to our potential. Not anymore. And on top of that when we have Black Bloc and others making us look bad Faux News and other entities are able to characterize us the way they want. Its wrong but it works.
I posted this earlier in this thread but I think it should be posted here so you can see it as it kind of further proves my point:
"""" "[Yesterday] I went to visit my mom and brother. On the news they showed the clashes at the protests. My mom said "What are these kids doing now? They are always getting into fights with the police. I don't even know why they're always out there protesting in the first place".
I had a somewhat long(ish) conversation with my mom to explain everything to her about what the movement actually stands for and how I am apart of this movement but there are extremist that help fuel the negative way people are starting to see us. This movement has been going on for months and yet we STILL haven't came up with a simple core message for passerby's to latch onto.
At this point I truly believe Anarchists are hurting this movement." """"
If we don't define ourselves clearly we allow for others to be able to define us in whatever way they want.
And about the Grizzly bears, I think its unfair to the Grizzly bear if its a one on one fight. :p
Fair enough, I have not kept up on things as much as usual this past week. I do not see us as losing "the public perception battle," or "losing people as time goes on," but if that were true, it would be because of the corrupt corporate-owned media is only reporting on the sensationalists aspects of this struggle, and in a very skewed way at that. That is why one of our tasks has to be to get people onto other sources of information. This movement has the power to reach out to people on an indidual basis, and it has the potential of growing exponentially.
I only have a good idea of what is going on in NYC, and I can tell you that there are tons of affinity groups who have been planning all winter long. They are in all five boroughs, and several in the same borough as some are regional, and other groups promote a specific cause. I also know that there are Occupy groups in NY and NJ on several of the college campuses, and there are many more that I do not know about, I am sure. For the most part, they are bright young people who are doing a tremendous job of reaching out to the mainstream, and their resolve to see this through is unbelievable. I feel very fortunate to be in one of these groups called Occupy Town Square.
No offense, but your views seem defeatist to me. You seem to imply that we should get what we can, while we can, as this movement is dying. I strongly disagree, and would argue that by entering the political arena now by supporting one of the two parties would only bring about change that could easily be watered down, or overturned by smart lobbyists. And like I implied, it would belittle us. I also feel that it would take the 'heat' out of this revolution. On a personal level I know how hard these lobbyists work as I have one of 'em in my extended family, who is a partner in one of Washington's most powerful law/lobbying firms.
This movement is in its infancy. Yes, it has made mistakes as all previous ones before it did. We cannot control how the media portrays us, nor can we control everyone within this movement. I believe the core people of this movement are intelligent, and they are not only learning from their stumbles, but I know they are getting a lot of advice from people in past struggles from both here and abroad.
No, I'm down to one grizzly at a time now. :-)
On the public perception topic I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree because I see the exact opposite you are.
And about the corporate owned media playing apart in how we are viewed, of course they are. I agree with you there. But where I disagree is the fact that Occupy just blames ALL of the way their covered on everyone else and doesn't own up to the fact that we hold some blame as well. Not equal blame by any means but we need to take some responsibility.
Here is a quote from another poster here that posted about this subject. I think his post was completely correct on analyzing this issue. Here it is: """""The reason that the media tends to focus on the sensational accounts of domestic terrorists instead of Occupy's message during these protest events is that Occupy does not have a coherent message to send, whereas the law enforcement agencies who are investigating the suspected terrorists have spokespeople and media contact points and professional press release writers who can articulate a clear and focused message. A professional PR person's message is going to beat no message any day.
The result is that a simple meme is being repeated nearly daily in the news: Occupy harbors domestic terrorists. Since Occupy would rather defend those accused domestic terrorists than ostracize them, and since there is no other competing message frm Occupy, that becomes Occupy's message: "We support domestic terrorism, because... Why not?" """"""
And Odin, I have no doubt that the Occupiers that you are around are the ones that make this movement special. The ones that are doing the hard work to achieve positive goals. But unfortunately the same can't be said for all of Occupy anymore. Its starting to feel like its more about confrontation with police than anything in small parts of the movement(which unfortunately gets more coverage..but the quote above explains my views on that).
Also my views about this movement aren't defeatist views, I think they are realistic views. When it comes to this movement being falsely advertised as populous movement of substance and NOT advertised as a movement trying to achieve an Anarchic society..you can kind of understand why me and tons of others are taken aback and may have a few questions as to what the hell are we really doing. If my tone comes off as kind of defeatists its only towards the Anarchists that I feel hold this movement back. But in terms of the potential of this movement im still very much optimistic about it if the movement becomes about what it was initially advertised as. I think it eventually will be. 99% of the protesters out there are NOT fighting for an Anarchic society. So there is a huge difference in goals and its just a matter of time before we are going to have to openly talk about that.
And again, in no way am I saying this movement should become a left or a right partisan movement. Entering the political process does not mean this movement ends. Why would running candidates and forcing politicians to truly listen to what the people want belittle us? I think we are belittling ourselves by coming across to the majority of America as not having any real concrete goals. Our messaging is a mess and the corrupt politicians nor do the corrupt entities that pay them off fear us anymore. Because we becoming less threatening to them as time goes on because just Occupying everything without any real political power does nothing to change the overall power dynamic. If you get outside money and bribery out of our political system we won't have to worry about ANY lobbyists overturning anything no matter how smart they are.
And finally, that last grizzly you took down was actually a baby dragon. You don't know your own strength old man. :p
I disagree. I do indeed think that your views are defeatist, concerning where this movement is at, and where it is going. There would be no quicker way to defang this struggle, and make it impotent than to turn it into a political one with promoting the 'right canidates' as being the near ANSWER-ALL to all of the problems we have before us. The main problem is the rotten system itself.
It should not be our goal to compromise our principles to make ourselves more palatable to the people who we want to attract to our side. We do not want to follow in the foot-steps of the politicians who we detest. Rather our purpose should be to educate people to a better understanding of what has been going on in this country for the last thirty or more years....since the advent of neoliberalism...and how that has affected most of us in a negative way.
As I have said before in other posts, good government, altruistic groups like Common Cause, and Public Citizen have not accomplished as much in all their years of existence as Occupy has in the last eight months. So I simply do not agree with your CC or PC-like approach, and I obviously don't agree for good sound reason.
I think we have talked this subject out. We will not agree on this, I can see. You can have the last word.
I don't see how if we enter the political process in an unconventional way and run candidates that don't take any outside money is compromising any of our principals. In fact I think it shows we have power. Just because run candidates doesn't mean we have to have traditional politicians that run for office. Once they're there their only purpose is the purpose of achieving Occupy's goals. And these candidates will not and should not have a desire for a long political career. They are there to get a job done by spreading Occupy's words and nothing more. That alone will bring this movement more positive press.
The direction the few Anarchists that are in this movement(that we are letting run this movement..even though it is suppose to be leaderless) are taking us is not a good one in my opinion. And I think its fact that our public perception is being hurt by the visuals of the clashes due to vague reasons and lack of core message. Hard to educate people on what the majority of the movement is about when we continue to let the Anarchists that end goals are to live in a fantasy Anarchic society.
And yeah I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. Because respectively to you I think your stance is the defeatist stance. Without our willingness to get involved in the political process and our lack of core message and PR control we start to come off as just powerless complainers. But I do respect your views.
Good talking to you Odin.
I have nothing against running our own canidates, but the few that we could elect could not make a difference amongst the sea of neoliberal politicians from both parties..Simply i do not want the main thrust of this movement to get bogged down in politics as usual. The pressure that is being put on this corrupt system from EVERYWHERE is a wonderful thing though.
That was a good conversation. Thanks
I got to respond to this and then i'll leave you alone lol.
Im not saying our whole movement has to be about running candidates and entering the political system. It will be just a portion of the strategy. And its not about successfully crafting and passing legislation at first. Its about getting Occupiers in Congress and showing what Occupy is about. And for the public to see and hear from real honest members of Congress that takes no outside money is a powerful thing. Occupiers in Congress will speak plainly and prove to the American people that our political system does not have to be about choosing between the lesser of two evils. The Occupy way is the way of a government that is truly for the people. Where EVERYONE is held accountable.
Can you imagine Occupiers in Congress that gets to call out every other corrupt politician there? That is power. Maybe not legislative power but its public perception power. The thought of this gives me kind of a hard on..sorry. >_> But while all this is going on and the Occupiers that got elected into Congress are spreading the message of Occupy, all other portions of the Occupy movement get stronger because we would have more people on our side.
".. this gives me kind of a hard on..." To each his own, but I think you have wasted that one. :-) You gotta think about taking a break from this, and get some fresh air. lol OK, all kidding aside: If you want to organize an affinity group with the sole purpose of getting an OWS canidate elected for office, please do. Any and all resistance is welcome, and it is not near as taxing, or even dangerous as protesting, or marching. I will even vote for that person if he/she is in my district. They will just be another lonely, ignored voice though, much in the way that Sanders, and Kucinich are. All I am saying is that we do not want to turn this movement into a controllable political one.
This movement is about awakening, and educating people....and getting them to feel outraged by what has happened to this country.....not by giving them false hope that the change we need can be accomplished in the voting booth. The SEA CHANGE we need will only happen by getting people out in the streets, and by performing acts of peaceful civil disobedience. There is simply NO ALTERNATIVE to that, not at this point anyway. For every ounce of energy that goes to getting people elected, it takes away from the strategic goal of getting people out in the streets.
The corrupt status quo has a lot to lose when this corrupt system comes down. It will not fall by us playing on their designated ball field that they have been able to control us on. We need a new field, and the only way to get that is to be defiant of the system that has kept us fighting amongst ourselves, while they raped us of the things we hold most dear.
Gandhi knew that he had to stay outside the system, because the system itself was corrupt. Only when he knew that he had the British by the balls did he reenter it, not on his knees asking for anything, but on his feet demanding an end to the tyranny. That too has to be our blueprint. It's that simple.
This may be our last chance to wrest control of our country away from corrupt special interests. I do not want to waste it by doing the same kind of ineffectual things that we have done for the past thirty years or more.....all while things have gotten worse, I may add. Once again, the main thrust of this movement has to be, in your face....defiant....recalcitrant....and a basic refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the cesspool of a system that governs us.
"They will just be another lonely, ignored voice though, much in the way that Sanders, and Kucinich are" But the difference between Sanders and Kucinich is they don't have an entire movement behind them. Having power on the streets and in Congress is something special.
"All I am saying is that we do not want to turn this movement into a controllable political one." I agree with that.
I also agree that it is not just about the voting booth. We need to use all the tools at our disposal. But the fact is the voting booth is what gets you respect in this country. People feel and know that if you can't make changes in the political sense your power is limited.
And I also concur that this movement is about awakening and educating people. But its kind of hard when your movement lack a core message and when it is seen its always about extremists clashing with police. That is not how you change minds.
The corrupt status quo does indeed have alot to lose with this when this corrupt system comes down. But I honestly believe that it will not come down until we get outside money out of politics. That is the root of their power. In order to change that power we need to get involved in the political process in an unconventional way.
I don't see how running candidates that will not take outside money sullies us in any way. Its one thing if we decided to play politics as usual to keep them in office no matter what. But thats not what im advocating at all. I think you underestimate the type of power an Occupier would have in Congress when literally he or she would be the only member(s) in Congress that don't have to worry about threats of big money. Because the end goal of the Occupier Congressman/Senator isn't to get elected any way he/she can but its to spread Occupy's message while hes there while having a movement behind him/her. But I guess we are at a stalemate here because I don't think either of us are changing each others minds on this one.
And you say you don't want to waste our opportunity to wrest control of our country away from corrupt special interests, but to be honest I feel the Anarchists that are leading this movement is doing just that. They seem to be more interested in clashing with the police and vandalizing while causing our public perception to worsen. And as you know, the power of this movement is based off of the people that join/supports the movement.
Odin, of course being out in the street is the most important part of this movement. I think this is part of why you aren't seeing where im coming from. I never once suggested that protesting and using civil disobedience on substantive issues and situations was not the key part of Occupy. How did you come to the conclusion I felt otherwise? I never said we should stop protesting and shift our focus ONLY to other things.
no
there have been fewer articles about abuse discussed here
those that do occur are justified by camera
The only way that i can answer this is to be repetitive. All of my answers can be found in my previous posts to you. All i can add is if this is how you want to devote most of your time in this movement, then you should go for it.
Let me ask you though, just out of interest. Do you have the ability to be out in the streets, and if you do, will you be out there? Do you see this as being necessary, and even the most important aspect of this movement? I do. I suspect that you don't, but maybe I am wrong. Anyway whatever course of resistance to this corrupt system you choose is better than nothing, but you will never convince me that the real heroes of this revolution are not the people enduring the hardships of being out in the streets. That is where this revolt against this corrupt system will be won. Like i implied though, you can putz around doing whatever you choose. It all helps.
humans are the best long distance traveling land animals in the world
Maybe so, but bears are faster, and they especially like yummy people who are running away. I know that I have logged many miles in Manhattan from my participation with OWS.
Oh great Bonton shed your light upon us and let all mankind know your truth.
Im not following. Whats a bonton? And are you mocking me because you think I was mocking Odin? I was joking with him...
Your the only one who can joke? Did you see the chicago cop with a bandana on his face.Young protester almost craped himself.Was that you?
[Removed]
[Removed]
I don't think anarchists are hurting OWS. OWS is destroying their own reputation. OWS is full of assault, illegal drugs, excessive use of alcohol, public nudity, public sex, vandalism, property damage and much else. If you have to designate "rape-free zones," you know there is excessive crime. Do you really tolerate this? To compare it to others, take the Tea Party. They started out as a few upset hard-working taxpayers exchanging e-mail addresses. OWS started with vandals slashing tires and crapping in public. Over 60% of the population is fed up with you freeloaders.
I actually thought you were going somewhere with your statement Common, but then you basically just went in the toilet. You didn't add anything of substance, you just blindly trashed the entire movement and turned this into left vs right nonsense.
Now about the Vandalism and property damage, who do you think is responsible for that? Black Bloc and Anarchists. All the other stuff including "rape free zones" are due to Occupy lacking the structure of keeping people out that have nothing to do with Occupy. People that are there just to cause trouble and nothing else. But I wouldn't be surprised if you're the type that blindly follows Faux News and other mainstream media outlets to get all of your "facts" about Occupy.
Should have stopped after your 1st three words. You had something there.
Anarchists understand social reform like car manufacturers understand global worming. Just because you feel to be an authority on an ideology or process in no way makes your opinion credible on other topics, such as governance or the science behind climate change. In the case of Anarchists, they may understand technology and the internet, but have no clue of how to properly ask for peaceful social reform.
If you want to participate in history, vote your mind, and encourage others to do the same. Maybe then we can actually amend the constitution to get the money out of politics, rather than wasting our time with these marches and demonstrations that, though affecting the national dialogue, are not nurturing any positive change.
You're right, anarchists don't emulate sheep very well.
OWS should splinter because it has already been co-opted by Truthers.
Do you mean splinter like you and endgame?
Looking at definitions - I do not see a conflict.
Looking at peoples knowledge I see plenty of needless conflict.
de·moc·ra·cy/diˈmäkrəsē/ Noun:
A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. A state governed in such a way.
re·pub·lic/riˈpəblik/ Noun: A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president...
un·ion/ˈyo͞onyən/ Noun:
The action or fact of joining together or being joined together, esp. in a political context. A state of harmony or agreement: "they live in perfect union".
Anarchy: A Definition
What is anarchism?
Anarchism is the movement for social justice through freedom. It is concrete, democratic and egalitarian. It has existed and developed since the seventeenth century, with a philosophy and a defined outlook that have evolved and grown with time and circumstance. Anarchism began as what it remains today: a direct challenge by the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.
Anarchism promotes mutual aid, harmony and human solidarity, to achieve a free, classless society - a cooperative commonwealth. Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it aims for perfect accord between the individual, society and nature. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign individuals would be organised in non-coercive relationships within naturally defined communities in which the means of production and distribution are held in common.
Anarchists, are not simply dreamers obsessed with abstract principles. We know that events are ruled by chance, and that people’s actions depend much on long-held habits and on psychological and emotional factors that are often anti-social and usually unpredictable. We are well aware that a perfect society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle could last forever! However, it is the vision that provides the spur to struggle against things as they are, and for things that might be.
Whatever the immediate prospects of achieving a free society, and however remote the ideal, if we value our common humanity then we must never cease to strive to realise our vision. If we settle for anything less, then we are little more than beasts of burden at the service of the privileged few, without much to gain from life other than a lighter load, better feed and a cosier berth.
Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards a more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every form of injustice.
In general terms, this means challenging all exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority. If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith then it is that, once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely and fairly.
Anarchism encompasses such a broad view of the world that it cannot easily be distilled into a formal definition. Michael Bakunin, the man whose writings and example over a century ago did most to transform anarchism from an abstract critique of political power into a theory of practical social action, defined its fundamental tenet thus: In a word, we reject all privileged, licensed, official, and legal legislation and authority, even though it arise from universal suffrage, convinced that it could only turn to the benefit of a dominant and exploiting minority, and against the interests of the vast enslaved majority.
Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they attempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute to it practically whatever they can, and also to assist within it the highest possible levels both of individual self-development and of group solidarity. It is possible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning voluntary relationships, egalitarian participation in decision-making processes, mutual aid and a related critique of all forms of domination in philosophical, social and revolutionary movements in all times and places.
Elsewhere, the less formal practices and struggles of the more indomitable among the propertyless and disadvantaged victims of the authority system have found articulation in the writings of those who on brief acquaintance would appear to be mere millenarian dreamers. Far from being abstract speculations conjured out of thin air, such works have, like all social theories, been derived from sensitive observation. They reflect the fundamental and uncontainable conviction nourished by a conscious minority throughout history that social power held over people is a usurpation of natural rights: power originates in the people, and they alone have, together, the right to wield it.
Wherein lies the conflict?
Education or lack thereof.
The only one that killed OWS is OWS. It tried to become a movement like the Tea Party but failed. The media and general public were quickly turned off by OWS's arrogance. The drugs, murders, stealing, and not to mention the filth at their get together s is what did them in.
So - U like to slam OWS - not a problem - people like you are always trying to announce the death of OWS - know What(?) - that death has not happened - NOR WILL IT !!!!
You try to attribute the ills of society to OWS - Well - U can SHOVE IT where the Sun Don't Shine.
The ills of society is what we are addressing and working to heal.
Not trying to be disrespectful but it is the truth
Bull Shit
In comments on Chicago NATO. Black Bloc and SEIU Nurses do not a movement make. This is just an open example of social anarchism and will be squashed quickly and violently at the DNC and RNC conventions. The opportunity of OWS to be relevant was lost when you refused a full scale support of the "Occupy the White House" movement. It was then proved that OWS was irrelevant and basically over except for the continued support of SOROs and SEIU . GA was co-opted and the movement was over. Just another stupid socialist / Communist rant was all that was left. Now, those remaining are about to get an ass-whoppin that will not be televised. Go home jokers..while you can still walk Haha
The Anarchists are correct,pro-Democrat/Progressive interests on the forum and in this movement as a whole are hurting it tremendously.
The Progs/Dems here are basically aligning OWS with the Democrat party with the public embracing from Obama and other prominent Democrats this movement is perceived by most of the public as a re-election PAC for Obama.
It may not be too late. The true Anarchists within OWS should do all they can to censure and expel all Democrat operatives and shills from this forum and OWS.
The clock is ticking........
You can exclude the natural supporters (progressives) from this movement, but what will you be left with? Movements gain power with inclusion and growth! No consensus exists on anarchy as a workable solution!. Not here @ OWS, and not ever in human history. any discussion I've witnessed here or @GA's inevitably becomes an argument regarding the definition of Anarchy. Spinning wheels. No discussion of the issues that affect the 99%. How many months have to pass before we realize there is no consensus on this fundamental issue.?
There is no common definition of anarchy because anarchy has always remained a theoretical concept. Anarchy is not a solution, it's a cheap escape from talking about the real problems.
Agreed. anarchists should look @history and realize that something about this concept is unworkable. what? I don't know. I don't care!. Lets discuss the issues and how to fix them. If I say work within the system, to fix the system. They disagree. Well then we disagree!. That happens. so continue trying to explain anarchy. It is your right. I must discuss the issues, I must agitate to pressure our govt to change. This system is too powerful to be completely undone. a slow process of co opting one of the 2 parties might work. But even that is difficult.
If you disagree with the fundamental concept of OWS which is anarchy and the idea to work from outside the system, why do you come on this website? Are you here to be part of the movement, to support it, or to try to co-opt it and start your own splinter cell? Just curious.
I disagree with your assertion that 'the fundamental concept of OWS IS anarchy'. While that may be your fundamental concept of your own participation and it may be the fundamental concept for a great number of OWS participants, it is NOT a universally held belief by all OWS participants.
In fact, one fundamental principle of the movement is acceptance and integration of ALL ideologies that share the core belief that They System / The Establishment has become so full of abuse and abusers, dishonesty, unethical behavior, inappropriate Governmental access and influence, etc. etc.
It is antithetical to the entire OWS principle to EXCLUDE the voices and messages of those participants who are not anarchists or don't support the tenets of anarchy - excluding anyone in the 99% who shares many core beliefs and principles goes against that which the OWS stands for.
I do not disagree "with the fundamental concept of OWS" That is you twisting my words. And "anarchy" is not the fundamental concept of OWS. That is you misspeaking for them! hows that?
David Rovics "If Only it Were True" - Occupy the Music - Bend Oregon - 02-11-12
Thank you for your reply.
The anarchists serve a useful purpose, as a foil to make Obama look like a moderate.
Obama's
Winning
Strategy
[Removed]