Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Why are the Anarchist and Communist logos flying over OWS?

Posted 10 years ago on Oct. 31, 2011, 7:40 p.m. EST by hillary (252)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

How bizarre that Occupy wants to get popular support and yet they want to portray that they are open to various solutions including the extremist regimes of Anarchy and Communism.

Wow. I await the reps from these clans to give one example of a country working under either regime, or better yet, show me that OWS has adopted it and can "showcase" it 'cause all I see is a democratic approach.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Chris3141 (34) 10 years ago

I want OWS to succeed, and I want it to usher in fundamental change. But if OWS is going to be successful, it needs majority support. And if it wants majority support, it needs to disassociate itself with the anarchists and the communists who are scaring away middle America. Only a leader has the power to do this. http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-is-becoming-increasingly-unpopular-heres-how-t/

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

Chris, here is why OWS will not have a leader.

A women on our media team, I am not going to put the name here, is now believed to have been targeted for arrest at Wall Street on Thursday.

She was been on TV, radio, and youtube representing our issues. She had authorization. People who saw her arrest saw the police were pointing at her and then a number of officers approached her when the pushing began. She was just there, not actively involved in the pushing. They went into the crowd and beat her up and arrested her.

This is why we will not have a leadership. It would make some things easier, but when you stick out, the capitalists state locks you up.

Do not forget we are fighting a massive terrorist police state apparatus. As dumb as they have been, they are not as dumb as al-Assad in syria, but they are far more violent if need be. They are nervous about us, a little scared, but do not see us yet as a major threat. Be ready if you are an occupier when they do.

When the troops rotate back next month, they may move this movement to the next level. We have a lot of support among the soldiers coming back from Afghanistan. They want payback on this government.

At this point, the Establishment may really begin a bloody crack down.

When I asked my deceased grandfather in the 1980's how his WWII generation got all the social benefits in the 40's and 50's, he said, "the government understood that about 12 million of us knew how to fight in a militarized manner. They were scared shitless, they gave us everything, they were afraid. That is the problem with you kids (in the 1980's) is the government is not afraid of you."

The returning soldiers may change this, but that remains to be seen.

[-] 1 points by Chris3141 (34) 10 years ago

I'm going to make these two points in the most supportive way, as someone who supports the broader goals of OWS and who wants it to succeed: First, even if a potential leader is assassinated, the benefits will far exceed the costs. MLK and Gandhi were both assassinated, but they were able to accomplish their goals. Civil rights for African Americans are better than they were before 1964, and India is no longer under British rule. I don't think these goals could have been accomplished without a leader.

Second, I really think you are overstating the threat of a police state in America. Yes, some members of the police have used excessive force, but by and large the interactions I have seen have started with unnecessary provocations by protestors. I think it's possible that some of the police action is dictated by establishment figures, but most of the time I think the police action is based on legitimate public concerns (i.e. letting people get to work, preventing traffic gridlock, etc.) In fact, since brutal police action has typically leads to public sympathy for OWS, I think the smart establishment figures would prefer to let OWS just fizzle out naturally, and they only reluctantly authorize police force for the legitimate public interest reasons I mentioned above.

Finally, I am very skeptical of your story that at potential OWS leader was brutalized by police for absolutely no reason. If you have some credible documentation of this (not just hearsay), then please post a link.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

Chris, I cannot confirm how badly the spokesperson was hurt. I will be leaving for the Park to meet with people soon and will get more info.

As far as the state. I know at this point, I seem somewhat melodramatic. But consider this, the beating of the solider off site in Oakland. I think his name is Kayvan Sabehgi, though I am not sure. I am sure there are many examples of petty violence by the state that are not generally known. I see how the cops act at time, provoked or not. Some of these guys just want to get into it.

Also, I know for a fact, one of our lawyers had the shit beaten out of him offsite in NYC by four undercovers. He is also recognizable having been on TV.

I still stand by my assertion they have not really cracked down hard because it is simply not time. As this movement continues to grow and starts to seriously impede the ruling class, I firmly believe they will get brutal.

I have an uncle who is very deeply tied to the financial, oil and coal industries, I am 45 he is close to 70, for over 40 years, and he also argues that when this movement becomes a threat to people like him making money, there will be a crack down.

I also think if you look at the history of the American Establishment, they have no problem using violence. I still cannot get over Rockefeller Center is called this. Here is a guy who hired thugs to murder American Miners and never did a day in jail.

But I hope you are correct. I am of the opinion, having worked in the financial industry, that this leopard will not change it spots.

I do not trust the Establishment and full expect them to turn much more violent, especially if the soldiers start joining up.

[-] 2 points by Dionysuslives (170) 10 years ago

To answer your question, it's to make uptight reactionaries such as yourself feel uncomfortable.

[-] 2 points by Idaltu (662) 10 years ago

One thing is certain; if OWS succeeds in finding a way to rid politics of money, this movement will have won a major battle. And for some there would no longer be a need to Occupy. At that point OWS will become a small notation in history books.

However, removing the money from politics does nothing to change the current status quo. Poverty will continue, and a living wage for workers will continue to be nothing more than a pipe dream. If you want equity, then you have to cultivate a society based on something other than capitalism and that is not the business of OWS.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

I think most people want equal and fair representation and opportunity. I think when we get the money out of the political process, then our government will be more responsive to the 99%, enacting policies that will be more supportive of the middle class. Which will lead to the opportunities that will reduce poverty and increase the wage stagnation that has hurt the middle class. Of course poverty will not be eliminated, but it can certainly be reduced.
All of this can happen without changing the capitalist system we have today.

Not sure what posts you may or may not have seen above. But the real intent of the founders of OWS is to create an anarchistic society based on Direct Democracy. See above.

[-] -1 points by hillary (252) 10 years ago

Actually we don't want absolute equity. Basically we are equal, but I don't want to encourage freeloaders by giving them all the benefits of our society while the rest of us work hard to obtain our rewards - kinda like what we do now....

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

I think that many of the so called "freeloader" programs are a reaction to the declining opportunites of the middle class and middle class wage stagnation that has been in effect for 30 some odd years. We need policies that will be supportive of opportunites for the 99% to make it on their own , without government assisstance.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

This experiment in Direct Democracy by anarchists has been effective in attracting alot of attention. This movement has managed take advantage of every social/political/economic frustration to gain attention.

However, Direct Democracy in a park will not translate to the government of a country that is the greatest country on earth and leader of the free world.

Our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, gave us a Representative Republic. No way is a group of anarchists going to improve on what our Founding Fathers gave to us.

I suppose the 98.99% should give proper credit to the anarchists for launching this experiment. It has helped us to discuss and speak out about many legitimate frustrations and problems in our country.

However, no OWS GA will ever take up the legitimate demands of the majority (ie: campaign finance reform, financial reform, corporate personhood) with the purpose of affecting change through government. Because this is not their goal. Their goal is to use the majorities legitimate frustration to gain support for one thing: Direct Democracy.

I believe that 99.99% of people will reject Direct Democracy beyond the park. It is up to the 98.99% to move our legitimate issues with government out of the park. To work with government and through government to enact the positive changes that we want for our country.

[-] 1 points by ltjaxson (184) 10 years ago

Anarchy is not chaos. In fact, anarchy is much more supportive of direct Democracy than our current sytem of a representative republic. As for our founding fathers, I believe you give them too much credit. The ideas of the real revolution came from the enlightenment of Thomas Paine, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Benjamin Franklin, etc...those who had no political affiliation.

Anarchy advocates for the reduction of unjustified authority by any system of centralized govt/monarchy/oligarch/etc. I think OWS has a lot in common with the call for reducing the hugely accumulated and inherited authority of our central govt. in Washington. Furthermore, anarchy, real anarchy as explained by Noam Chomsky, and the influential characters of the enlightenment, calls for more direct democracy on all levels. When was the last time we had a national referendum? The two main points are: woker-led industry and community-led govt.

1.) worker-led industry allows the labor force to have direct access to the compnay's direction while sharing in the profits. It calls for removing the 'masters of mankind' from the equation (ie shareholder, capital venturer, investor, etc- anybody with accumulated or inherited wealth) and giving those voting rights, profit sharing, and direct access to the company's books to the worker. Just think: no worker will vote to send their job overseas just because it improves their bottom line - a shareholder wouldnt think twice! The system we have in place is nothing more than an extension of feudalism - an economic system where the capital controls the labor force, when we all know that our problems wont be fixed until the labor force controls the capital.

2.) Community-led govt. reduces the amount of unjustified authority of the national govt and gives it to local jurisdictions. This allows more direct access to the democratic process and allows local communities to legislate how and what they see fit, while reducing the role of the national govt. from legislator to referee.

Remeber - anarchy is not chaos.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 10 years ago

Your founding fathers also never heard of this thing called Internet :p

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

Seriously?? Thats so inane. I cannot even go there.
Did you every hear the phrase - You can't argue with stupid. I'm sorry if that sounds rude. But I'm just sayin'.

And they're Your Founding Fathers too. I'm assuming you're from this country. If you can so easily cast aside that fact and have such little respect for Them, you are Free to leave this country. It's a beautiful little thing Freedom is! You are Free to leave.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 10 years ago

Maybe you failed to understand what i tried to communicate. Let me try again. Those guys lived in a totally different world. They could not possibly imagine how technology would change everything. I'm not questioning their reasoning for that point in time. It's just outdated now.

And don't worry about sounding rude. I don't care for insults. They tend to say more about the person doing the insult then the one receiving them.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

You're right about the insult thing. I am sorry. I was not trying to insult, but I know it was rude. I should have spent more time to get my point across in a better way - instead of being rude!

I do understand your point. But it makes no sense. Using technology for the sake of using technology. Yes, sometimes it makes sense. But sometimes it doesn't. We should always use technology in a measured way. It's like an ethical dilemma. Just because we may be able to clone human beings, does that mean we should?? How about nuclear technology? We were able to advance nuclear technology to the point of making weapons. But should we have? Many of the scientists that worked on the Manhattan Project later regretted their breakthroughs in science because it is so dangerous.

Our government was created as a Representative Republic. There simply is no reason to change that, just because we have the Interenet. The Internet can and should be used as a way to stay in closer contact with our Representatives. In that respect it is very useful and helpful. Using the power of the Internet to be more informed about government is invaluable. But changing our form of government because of the Internet? No. It's simply not necessary. We can improve our government by fixing the problem. The problem is that there is too much money sloshing around in the political process. We need to fix the problem, no up-end our form of government.

If your finger is bleeding, do you rip your heart out of your chest to stop the blood from flowing - even if you have the best medical technology to do so??

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 10 years ago

"Our government was created as a Representative Republic. here simply is no reason to change that,"

Representative republic only made sense in a world where communication across large distances was slow. But to think that a few representatives are better at decision making then the whole of humanity is pretty unrealistic if you think about it. And look at what those representatives are selected on. Mostly it's nothing more then a popularity contest. Is that really the best way to have a smooth running society. I think we can do better.

We don't have a bleeding finger. We have cancer spread through the whole body of humanity. And if we don't find a cure, we will die.

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

I disagree. It's a bleeding finger. Maybe its a little infected too. But seriously, its not that bad. Nothing that Campaign Finance Reform can't fix. I think you are blowing the problem out of proportion. We have some problems. We will fix them. And this whole thing will be a blip on the radar screen of history. Just like many other problems this country has faced in the past. This is not the first, worst or last. We fixed the problems then and we will fix them now. And we don't have to gut our form of government to do it.

The internet is not a solution. It is a tool. Not something to replace our form of government with. No, I do not think direct voting would make things run more smoothly. I think it would be a disaster.

How on earth would you ensure that people have the proper information to make informed decisions?? Also, people would naturally be inclined to vote for things that are in their own narrow self interests. Kind of like what the 1% do today! And we all know how well that has worked out! This does not produce a good result for society as a whole.

I want to elect an uncorrupted Representative to do his job, let him make informed decisions in the best interests of the constituency, and our country as a whole.

It's not so much a popularity contest as it is a who can raise the most money contest. It's entirely unproductive, uneccessary and unfair. I think we can do better too. I know we can. By getting the money out of the political system. Not by gutting our form of government.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 10 years ago

"I think we can do better too"

At least we agree on one thing. That's a start at least :)

I do understand your worry. And it can be a scary thought to give people more responsibilities. But i disagree that it would turn out disastrous.

It's easy for us to claim that it will or will not work. But how can we prove our points. The only way to be sure is to figure out some test first. I think what the GA does is a good start. It does show people can take responsibility. If that can be extended on a larger scale, it could show if it can work or not.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

Frizzle, I appreciate that you have stuck around, even though I got us off to a bit of a bumpy start!

The methods of the GA will not scale up. Even with the internet. Our Founding Fathers gave us representatives, because they knew this. The internet does not change that.

The GA is a tiny, tiny group of people voting on practically nothing more substantive than getting more blankets for the cold weather. Think about it. You want about 150 million people voting on the complexities of trade policies in a global world, for example. What may work for blankets (?) you think will work equally well for global trade policies??

The GA is not representative of the complexities of our government. Whatever success the GA might be having, has ZERO relation to the complex inter-connectedness of the types of decisions that our government makes.

I don't have to test this theory. Because simple common sense tells me it will not work. And even if I thought there was an outside chance that it could work on a larger, more complex scale - there is no way I would be willing to risk gutting our form of government in order to find out. That is an enormous risk, that I am not willing to take. Especially since there is a much simpler way to improve our government. Campaign Finance Reform.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 10 years ago

"Frizzle, I appreciate that you have stuck around, even though I got us off to a bit of a bumpy start!"

I'm glad we got to have a disagreement and still talk civilized with each-other.

I'll probably start repeating myself if i continue. So i'll leave it to this for now. Maybe we'll meet again at another discussion :)

good day

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

Ditto! Twinkle fingers up!

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

So do you suggest that any person breathing, with or without access to the internet, should be allowed a say in the running and operation of "the people's" government?

[-] 0 points by Frizzle (520) 10 years ago

What i suggest is that we don't look back at the time of the founding fathers. Because they lived in a completely different world. Not in the least because they didn't have the technology that we have today.

There are several idea's about how we can organize society in a better way then is done today. Some of which might include direct democracy. At least the people should have more control over decisions then profit based corporations imo. I'm interested in any idea that makes that possible.

[-] 1 points by velveeta (230) 10 years ago

"No way is a group of anarchists going to improve on what our Founding Fathers gave to us..."

So let's hand it all over to a bunch of corrupt, greedy financiers instead? Whatever the representative republic can accomplish, right now it's accomplishing a global economic meltdown. I'm sure George Washington would approve (NOT).

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

We already handed it over to the greedy financiers. It started about 20 years ago when Wall Street paid Washington for their deregulation. The meltdown was the result. Now we need to take our government back from those greedy criminals on Wall Street. Our Representative Republic form of government did not cause the economic meltdown. The monied corruption of government caused the crises.

[-] 1 points by Socrates469bc (608) from New York, NY 10 years ago

In a way it's very much the Position of people in the Tea Party who want less government. Strange bed fellows I know. With anarchist thought, there is no government not even State government, but everyone votes on everything all the time... that will become a chore quite quickly as you surmise.

I understand that the plan is to have OWS direct democracy elections on July 4th 2012...

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

Sort of. But I would distinguish by saying the Tea Party, wants less government programs. But I think the increase in govt programs is a reaction (partially out of necessity) to the declining opportunities for the middle class and wage stagnation of the middle class. For instance, I don't thinks anyone really wants government run healthcare. But when middle class wages have been stagnant for 30 some odd years and insurance cost has risen exponentially, the government is forced to respond to that crises by creating a program. I don't believe govt run healthcare would have been necessary, were it not for the corruption of our government.

I don't believe there is any plan by OWS to run candidates. I think what you are referring to is the splinter group known as the 99% Declaration. I think this group split off because it believes in working with and through government for change. Unlike OWS.

https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/ http://the99delegation.forumotion.com/

[-] 2 points by Socrates469bc (608) from New York, NY 10 years ago

Yes you make an important distinction that was an oversight on my part: Tea partiers wants less government programs. I might add that mostly they want less regulations so that Koch Industries might act with greater impunity.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

Yes, I think they like the types of policies that Koch and Friends has in mind! Because it works oh so well for the 1%.

Tea Party MAY be well intended, but so misguided.

Did you get a chance to check out the 99%Declaration thing? There is also another group http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=11

I haven't checked that one out for myself yet. Not sure what it is about.

[-] 1 points by Socrates469bc (608) from New York, NY 10 years ago

There are a lot of people in the Tea party with genuine concerns, but they got manipulated.

The 99% thing? No, sorry no time! I'm already trying not to respond too much on this here..

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

yes, I know the feeling. For that same reason, I missed the Goldman Sachs trial on LiveStream this morn! Ugh. Do you know, is there a way to like re-wind to see it??

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

April, i find your point(s) thought provoking.

Yes, Founding Father's gave us a Republic; They also gave us Slavery. When the American people decided they did not want one of these institutions, it was abolished. So why can we not, if we decide too, get rid of the other?

A significant number of the Founding Fathers were also very suspicious of large corporate and government entities, and their power, especially Banks, Hamilton and Washington being two exceptions. When they were dead, Jefferson and the government got rid of the bank at the first chance.

As for your opinion about the 98.99 percent not being in favor of Direct Democracy, I am not so sure.

50% of this country does not even vote for the President, 60-80% does not vote in the other elections. Considering so many obviously do not think this system provides them with choice and control, and does not provide them with serious alternatives; why would you think this large number would be opposed to a system where they would have direct input and control, that being Direct Democracy?

When I explain to people what Direct Democracy means, and how with current tech we could have Direct Democracy, I have yet to encounter one person who disagrees with the possibility.

So where have you been meeting these people who give you the impression that they would reject Direct Democracy? I mean, it seems so anti-American, not to want to have a choice and control of your own life.

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

I have no problem with improving upon our Constitution when necessary. But I don't believe that we need to up-end our Representative Republic in order to make the kinds of changes our country needs. There is ALOT of low hanging fruit. Campaign Finance, Financial Reform, Corp Personhood. Lets DO these things, before we unwind our Representative Republic. I believe that doing these things will create significant positive change. I agree with your comment about large corp entities. I believe that our anti-trust regulations have been eroding. Lets work to strengthen anti-trust. Big corps have gotten too BIG, and whatever (supposed) benefits have been offset by a higher overall cost to society.

About my %. I do not have statistics. Just my general impression. I should have disclosed - my numbers are not statistically accurate!

The vast majority of the population is not involved with the movement. Many people that are here and on the streets are here to support anarchy. So naturally, they would be for Direct Democracy. It's causal. Not coincidence.

Have to wonder, when you explain Direct Democracy to people, do you also explain the reasons why our Founding Fathers gave us a Representative Republic?

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

Well, the constitution should be amended to replace the word man, with person. However, it should be noted that it mentions the term "reasonable" many times and that is the shortcoming of direct democracy without any proving standards that a participant is reasonable and should have a say in the running of "the people's' government.

I'm certainly for bringing back the original 13th and abolishing all legislation, acts, treaties, etc that were written above the level of reasonable persons, by attorneys.

I'm also for using today's technology to eliminate our bi-party crap and give all constituents direct and binding access to their representative as opposed to how things operate now.

If a majority of constituents say, "DO NOT VOTE for the bailout, etc", and their servant defies them, the servant's vote is nullified and said servant is dishonorably relieved of duties.

Constituents should have a right to petition/lobby their representatives, but, bribery should remain, according to our original Constitution, as Treason and a hanging offense.

Representatives should also be allowed and encouraged to appeal to their consitutents and attempt to persuade them on issues/potential legislative concerns, NONE of which should be beyond that of a reasonable person NOT holding law or other higher degrees, much less very specifically specialized law degrees, as all legislation should be written in plain English, not highly esoteric or tedious legalese.

I'm for the use of technology to advent an efficient and effective way to take money out of political campaigns. Public channel, step up and have equal time. If a person is reasonable, they can articulate their causes to the masses and even have some knowledge of htmls!

This way non-elite or mega-wealthy persons could actually be elected and bring common sense back to our government's foundation.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

I do not recall one instance where your last question has come up.

If asked I would reply, "It was the best system for the Establishment of the 1780's to assert control."

After the Rebellion against England ended in 1781, the Confederation was a revolutionary place. As I recall, many states had their own currency, army, weights and measure, and, of course, tax policy.

The financial Establishment was not happy. All the different laws and rules made the cost of doing business higher. So, the moneyed interests got together in Philly to create new rules. They locked Working Class people such as myself out of the proceedings.

I am not suggesting they were in agreement on all issues, but the selection of those who wrote the Constitution is not a topic often discussed, at least i have not heard a lecture on it. I know Jefferson was not there, and I believe, though do have no evidence it is factual, he was not wanted. He had already spent a good deal of time in France, and had been influenced by the ideas that would create the Revolution.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

You say that you have explained Direct Democracy to people. I guess I should first ask - In what repsect are you explaining or advocating for Direct Democracy? Are you explaining it for the purposes of reaching consensus in the park? Or for the purposes of replacing our Representative Republic with it?

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

It is usually in the context of discussion about the origins and structure of OWS, and rarely at Liberty Park. I assume most there know what is going on. Most people are not aware of the Anarcho Syndicalist background of the OWS.

I have been speaking to many people who, along with me, where there on September 17. I have not yet met one single person who did not understand the concept of building new psychological superstructures regarding organizational policies.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

I have so many questions for you about what you have said - I don't know where to begin!

When you say - "new psychological superstructures..." I assume you mean Direct Democracy and Anarcho-Syndicalism. Correct if I am wrong. And just so I'm clear - Do you believe we should replace our Representative Republic with Direct Democracy and some form of anarchy?

Assuming that is the case - wouldn't it be fair to say that the people you have been speaking to, who were there from the start , were there precisely because they believed in some form of anarchy and wanted to promote that idea and gain support for it? So naturally, they already understand it.

Why are most people unaware of the Anarcho-Syndicalism intent of this movement?

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

April, "new psychological superstructures" is not just a political system, like DD.

When I use this term, I am thinking in terms of politics, cultural and social issues as well. How we relate to one another. Bourgeois society enhances differences. Class division is a warn topic so I will not go into it. But it is these differences that the society embellishes, it is competition, not team work.

Most of the people who were at Liberty Square on September 17 were of an Anarcho-Syndicalist background, in my opinion. I do not recall one single person saying they were a Democrat, Republican, Liberal or Conservative. And yes, there is no doubt the Anarchists see this economic failure as their chance to create a Working Class Society, because that what the Anarcho-Syndicalist movement is all about: the Working Class in power.

I think most people do not know this because they did not read about the background of the movement. I did. I do not come from an Anarcho-Syndicalist background. But Trotsky was not a Bolshevik until after the revolution.

But if you talk to people who have been at Liberty Square, and I am one of them, we noticed a big change after Oct 4 when the unions came out. But educating people takes a long time.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, honey. But you are part of an experiment.

Someone got you all whipped up into believing your anarchist views could get you somewhere. But don't get too carried away with the anarchist group think. There is a reason why anarchy is a subculture. Because the VAST majority of people denounce it. Whatever time you have in the sun right now, will be short. And then you will go back to becoming a little subculture again.

Of course the unions came out to support. Direct Action is their bread and butter. They were born of Direct Action.

I'm not saying you're wrong. You have every right to your beliefs. And I respect that. But, try as you will, the reality is, you don't, and never will, be a majority.

You may have better luck in Egypt though with Direct Democracy. Where it might be an improvement over Dictatorship.

But this is the USA sweetheart. Anarchy is not going to work here.

[-] 0 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

April, One, do not think all people in this country are close minded to new ideas.

Two, Experiment?? I am lost. If you mean the concept of Direct Democracy the study is done. No experimentation necessary.

Three, no one has me whipped up for anything. There is no emotional hyperbole on my end. I am watching what is going on and following the events as they unfold.

Four, Anarchism is not my background. Not at all. I just did my homework when this movement was forming and knew who I was getting involved with. I figured the market and political systems of the capitalist and so called communist states has failed in the West. Let us see

Five, I have not seen vast majorities of people denouncing anything in the last couple of years but capitalism. A BBC study, I think 20,000 people around the world, found 80% plus identified as anti-Capitalist.

Six, the process of changing the way people look at themselves and the world almost always begins when an establishment world view fails them. If you do not think a significant number of people in this country feel this way, I would argue you are wrong. The old economy is not coming back. It is gone.

Seven, I have not talked with one person at OWS who thinks the "revolution" is coming this afternoon at 3pm. The revolution happened twice in Russia last century, look at the mess that resulted both times. Especially this last one in the early 1990's.

Eight, I think it was Charles Beard who did the study in the 1910's that determined, one, only 30% of the Colonists supported the rebellion against England. Only 2% of the population actually participated in the rebellion. Changes usually occur among a small section of people, most do not care. What the Anarchists are arguing for is a system should have large scale participation, and it should be on a accumulation hierarchical basis, not the pathological system we currently have.

OWS is putting forth old ideas in a modern context. If these ideas come to some political fruition in a generation, or next week, it will not be called Anarchy-Syndicalism. AS is not a governing system, DD is a govern system, it is a concept of a process.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

tb, you sound like a nice and reasonable person. Which is why I don't mind talking with you. But you need to understand, the reality is - there is a whole world outside of the park who are living very comfortable lives, and could not care less about the nonsense of this movement. Are there some problems in this country? Of course. What we are experiencing is a cycle. The pendulum has swung too far in one direction. Maybe this will help the pendulum swing back the other direction a little. It would happen with or without this movement. Maybe this movement is helping it along. But it would happen anyway, because thats how cycles work. Thats all it is. You are spending too much time in the park.

Capitalism has not failed. And half the world of course would be against capitalism. Bad survey. This country has a problem with corporatism run amok perhaps. Easily fixed with stronger Anti-Trust regulations. No need to scrap Capitalism in its entirety. I hope the old economy will be gone too. Too much corporatism and corruption. Again, easily remedied with Campaign Reform. No need to scrap our Representative Democracy.

The Colonists did not have a strong established government in their back yard. They had the benefit of being isolated and self-sufficient, an ocean away from their government. The USA is the most powerful country in the world. It is a behomoth. Not something that the Colonists had to contend with. Our government knows exactly what this movement is about, how it started and who's behind it. I'm sure there is CIA and FBI all over this board and in the parks. Maybe I'm one!

You also should consider that history is littered with so called "revolutions" that never amounted to a hill of beans. Which you never heard about, because they never amounted to anything! The idea that "this" could be the 1:million chance that will amount to Anarchy taking over the world is simply not realistic. Not next month, not next year, not in ten years. The odds are against you for a million reasons. You are allowing yourself to get caught up in a fantasy. And the park is like your Disneyland. I'm not trying to be mean or condenscending. I don't want to kill anyones dream! But I'm just sayin' - get out of the park for a little while.

The best you can really hope for is some nice Campaign Reform legislation out of all of this. And if that happens, the Anarchists should give themselves some credit for it. Then go back underground to their little sub-culture, the protesters go home, and we all continue on - until the next cycle runs it course.

[-] 3 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago


What we are experiencing is a cycle. The pendulum has swung too far in one direction. Maybe this will help the pendulum swing back the other direction a little. It would happen with or without this movement. Maybe this movement is helping it along. But it would happen anyway, because thats how cycles work. Thats all it is.

end quote

I think there is a kernel of truth to that - but it fails to take into account other cycles that are evident throughout history; the unprecedented growth of what are essentially kingdoms within the U.S. - some of them complete with their own small armies of mercenaries; or the stark fact of global warming, it's principle causes, and how that ties directly into considerations of how we will shape our own future.

The kids in the park are providing an outlet for widespread frustration around the country. This in turn has helped focus media attention on some of the issues OWS has been pointing to, bringing more information out into widespread circulation - stories that otherwise might have been passed over by timid editors in news rooms owned by large interests who at best may be said to be reluctant to rock the boat.

[-] -1 points by leoneo (76) 10 years ago

Do you mean Al Gore's global warming?

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

Don't even start. the evidence is right outside your window. If you're having trouble seeing it, I recommend glasses.

[-] 0 points by leoneo (76) 10 years ago

You mean beside the fact that it has been all but completely disproven.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

April, There is a lot above, so let me hit the high points. This is to long, so I will do two posts.

First, I am not camped out in the park. Also, I do not consider what is happening in the park to be nonsense, I consider it to be a conscious expanding exercise, at least for the majority of us. What I also see is young people in that park beginning the process of changing the form and construction of how people think about themselves, and their place in the world, or maybe just looking at things in a different light. This is why we are a major threat to the Establishment, and they want to stop us.

The will not succeed. The police stopped us from taking the Brooklyn Bridge a month ago. On Thursday we took that bridge with 35,000 workers. Our movement is growing.

The Establishment took away the movement's tents in Liberty Square. Yet every night people hold that square. We will retake that square in full when we are ready on our time table.

Two, as to hanging out with family and friends more, I am, and was, and will continue to, in Liberty Square. I have made many new friends and family members in the Square. Men and Women who agree in general with the views of the Movement, we are a family, with all the dysfunction and the like.

Three, as to the hockey game, I would love to go to a hockey game. Unfortunately, I need every last dime I have to buy food and stay alive. I cannot find steady work, even with multiple university degrees. I have to borrow soap and toilets from friends and family. I have not paid my rent in full in seven weeks. Fortunately, my landlord can relate to my situation. He has lost two businesses and his house this year. In the house I live in, we had seven working adults in February of 2010, we now have three people left. One full time worker, and me, a part timer when I can find work. My landlords wife is very ill.

I am taking your above statements as truthful, but, with respect, I really think you do not know how bad it is out here for many of us, for most of us. Most Americans, the majority, do not have the resources to go see the NJ Devils play a game.

The cheapest of the cheap seats is 20, there are only four sections of the 60 plus sections in the arena where you can get these tickets. Parking was 20 last year, and admittedly, I do not own a car, I do not know what it is this year, but with all the construction, it seems to me it has gone up. A hot dog is 7 a beer is 9.

To take a family of four to a game on the cheap, it will cost you 200 easy. Maybe you have that type of money, I certainly do not, and most Americans do not. 200 is more money than I have in a month to buy food. I wish I had 200 to spend on a hockey game.

When I say you are out of touch, with no intended disrespect, I know that there is a large minority of people going through their lives and this large minority is still making it. But this will not continue for much longer.

The brutal and long terms effects of this economic collapse have yet to be felt in full. What is coming in the next 24 months is going to make the 30's look good. When Euorpe collapses, and it will, the Fed will not have the machine captivity to keep printing the bailout money. The long term and systemic failure of this system will be in everyone's face. No one will be able to get away from it. There will be no walls high enough to protect even those at the top. With the number of people who are making it slipping, and will continue to slip, the pain is going to be felt everywhere.

Look at it this way: 35% of the work force is contract labor, no benefits. When including temp and staffing work, most Americans are not in a good position for their long terms needs. These jobs have no health care, retirement, no sick days, no vacation, and lack other benefits. As an example, you can be laid off at a moments notice without unemployment for contact workers. You have a shit paying job one day, the next day you are on the street.

Most of these jobs do not pay well and is why only 25% of Americans with access to a 401K can use it. 90% of us will work until we die, retirement is a pipe dream.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

Four, as for the pendulum swing back: When you lose a loved one because under the current economic situation you could not afford to take care of them, the pendulum swinging back in a generation means nothing to you. When you have to spend years without proper nutrition that creates long term health effects, the pendulum swing back is meaningless. When a child, and we have the highest rates of child poverty in the industrial world, cannot get an education because he or she is hungry, the swinging is meaningless. That child's potential is lost forever.

When I visit blood relatives who live in the middle of NJ, in wealthy areas, THEY live in a Disneyland. I have an Uncle in Lincroft. I know with complete certainty, the wealthy are isolated. Yes they know it is bad, they have no idea how bad it really is out here.

If they did, and I do my best to show them, they would be even more scared. When they see all the weight I have lost because I cannot afford food, you can see they are starting to see the light.

Five, as for the Revolutions failing, I could not disagree more. The questions that come to mind, is what is a revolution, and what does it mean when it succeeds? Sometimes success of social, political, and economic change is measured over a long time period, sometimes shorter.

I have a brother-in-law from Cuba. The Cuban Revolution succeeded in terms of the economy. His family owned sugar plantations in Cuba before the Revolution. The standard of living for Cubans is higher in the aggregate. Some other aspects of their society are more challenged, but that is a result of a dirty war conducted by the capitalists in this country.

But it is how you measure success. As my Brother-in-law has told me, the older Cubans measure it in terms of quality of life. The older Cubans do not measure it in terms of material goods, like the younger people, but in health care, housing and working conditions. As an example, the Cuban health care system is now ranked ahead of the US in the WHO's world rankings. Why? The US fails because so many people, like me, do not have access to health care.

Also, revolutions in Anglia, Algeria, East Timor, Guatemala, and so on were successful. I do not believe most Americans are aware of this type of situations because they are not broadcast on corporate outlets and when they are, they are not explained.

This does not include places like Peru, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa and the like where social movements have created revolutionary social change.

Six, as far as Congressional Reform legislation, I think is a joke. What Congress does with every round, in every area of legislation, is to leave gaping holes so the corporations and the wealthy slide through with new ways to steal. I have no faith that Congress will do anything constructive.

Seven, as far as the comfortable people, to return to this point. You may be one of them. But I can assure you the majority of people in this country are not in that situation.

Here is one more example. I was at a conference in NYC last march. I met a women named Jennifer Coco. She worked on the census out of Princeton, NJ. NJ has the highest per capita income in the US 54,000 plus.

The median income in the US is 34,000, down 7,000 a year since 2001, this is a sample of all incomes, not based on the number at those level, but each value of itself, each instances only counts once. The average income in the US is 26,534. This is the federal government number, but it is skewed because the Federal Government includes the "possibility" long term social security benefits as part of the income into retirement. In other words, the Fed adds 5,000 a year to the average income amount, which is the average amount you would collect if you made it to retirement and collected SS benefits, even though many people do not live that long, based on your demographic.

However, what the NJ Census team did, regarding average income, was to include all part timers, temp workers, along with the 55% of people in Jersey, and the country, with steady job. The average income in Jersey for 2008 was 15,900 a year. This is before the economy tanked.

You do not see this on CNN.

Seven, I see you have kids, I was just speaking to a friend of mine who owns a dry cleaner, he is my age 45. He was asking about OWS in NYC. During the conversation, it turned to kids. His partner has two teenagers. In referring to the costs to raise them, he stated, "the best decision I made in life was not to have children."

I thought about that, and said, "what the hell kind of system do we live in, where someone would say the best decision in life is not to have kids." His response, "a system in that is failing, and needs a revolution."

[-] 0 points by LarryBudMelman (55) from New York, NY 10 years ago

Funny how Anarchists can't show a glowing example of the "system" being used to govern a country.

[-] 3 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 10 years ago

Spain in the 1930's

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 10 years ago

Well that's what anarchism is.

A city here a city there.

The size is irrelevant.

[-] 0 points by LarryBudMelman (55) from New York, NY 10 years ago

A city here, a city there.

You OK to scale that to 350M people now... LOL


[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

Argentina, the worker owned and operated companies that took over in the 1990's when capitalist fled from their failing economy.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

I'm starting to feel a little sorry for them. The group think is making them more and more delusional.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

April, I think you need to go to a GA in NYC, or where every you are near. You can hang a lot of monikers on OWS, but Group Think is the last one on the list.

Last night, the GA went on for five hours. Why? The question of allocation of funds for Egypt had so much input they had to stop.

The best thing, and the worst thing, about DD is everyone has a right to speak. There is no such thing as group think when all opinions are heard. What usually happens when everyone speaks is people who though they agreed on an issue see the different nuances in their opinions, and THEN start disagreeing.

[-] 0 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

Sorry April, you are the one coming off as delusional. You spend your time trying to shout down people actually making a difference in the world, while you do what exactly? Time will tell what change comes from this movement, but much has already changed, and more will inevitably be changed by the people building community, and working to create the new world.

[-] 2 points by Socrates469bc (608) from New York, NY 10 years ago

Quote: 50% of this country does not even vote for the President, 60-80% does not vote...

If 50% does not vote for the president and they only have to do it every 4 years, do you really think they will increase their participation rate significantly with direct democracy where they might have to vote every month?

Democracy started with direct democracy, but people soon realized that there was no time to assemble and vote all the time on every issue. Granted we have computers nowadays and that would assuage the pressures of assembling, but our time is ever more limited. Reinventing the wheel, or more appropriately, destructing the wheel, is not the way to go.

Direct democracy claims to give power back to the people, but I believe that it will paradoxically put power in the hands of the few. Those will be the few dedicated political extremists who have all the time in the world to vote on every issue. I think Thoreau had it right when he said that the vast majority of people live lives of quiet desperation. The 99% are just trying to make a living, putting food in the table for their children. They are spending all their time trying to make money and to make ends meet. They will end up abstaining from voting, and the 1% will have all the leisure time to vote.

We already have a wheel, why don't we make an engine instead of tinkering with the wheel?

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

I see your point, but in my mind the wheel is broken, or at least in very bad shape.

As for increasing the rate of people voting, I know many of my neighbors do not vote because they do not think it matters. Obama brought a lot of people out with the change thing, then just dropped the ball.

However, if people believed their vote mattered, and their participation matter, thought a series of results they have participated in, then yes I think the numbers would grow.

Also, I think there should be penalties for not voting, but that is another story.

I can see your intrepidness about DD, and I have the same concerns. However, since it is an obvious issue, hopefully a political structure will form which will avoid the influence falling into the hands of a few, like we have now.

I do not think DD is some sort of panacea, but I do see it as an evolutionary step toward greater democracy.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 10 years ago

How can direct democracy work in a nation of around 300 million and a world of 7 billion?


[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

Well that is a good question. I have thought a lot about it.

I can envision a "Congress off Facilitators." Through a process of emails and other forms of notification, on a time period basis, weekly, monthly, a set number of bills could be introduced through the Congress.

From there, we can all vote. With the electronic tech we have today, it can be done. 300 million people can vote on one or two set days a week.

Also, yes, I know there a lot of holes in this, but I still think Direct Democracy is better than the current system.

[-] 1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 10 years ago

ANYTHING is better than the current system.

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

Our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, gave us a Representative Republic. No way is a group of anarchists going to improve on what our Founding Fathers gave to us.

I don't understand this argument. Why do you assume the fondling fathers are infallible, and that the system they have given us cannot be improved upon by anarchists, or anybody else?

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

Because they had good reason for instituting a Representative Republic and those reasons are as true today as they were then. I don't think anything is infallible, thats why we have Constitutional Amendments. But I don't think it's necessary to change our Representative Democracy. Our form of government is not working as the Founding Fathers intended it to. There is too much money sloshing around in the political process. That's what needs to be changed. We don't need to up-end our form of government to fix the problem. We just need to fix the problem.

If you finger is bleeding, do you rip your heart out of your chest to stop the blood from flowing??

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

So your just providing an opinion. You don't have any facts to prove an argument of merit.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

Thrasy - you always make me put my thinking hat on and do more work! : )

The Framers of Our Constitution fought against the excesses of democracy, to create a Republic, which is a sounder system and protects the minority against the whims of the majority. If 51% go on a crime spree, they can decide that their crimes are not crimes. Kind of like what the 1% do now!

http://www.garymcleod.org/republic.htm http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

Hows that?

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

Much better. By the way, I absolutely agree a Republic is a better system. And yes, direct democracy is the tyranny of the majority.

And, sorry I called the founding fathers the fondling fathers. That was uncalled for.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

I knew you were testing me!

About the Fathers, I overlooked that. Because I like the way you make me do my homework! And I think I owe you a response to another homework assignment you gave me on another topic somewhere. I need to go through my bookmarks to see if I can find it!

[-] 1 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 10 years ago

They once thought the world was flat. You were an extremist if you dared to say the world was round.

They once thought that religion was the most honest truth. If you dared to speak about science, you were deemed an extremist.

The advancements of modern theories do not happen in regards to what is in the center but rather the outliers that define various parts of the exterior.

Most changes have happened due to radical ideas. The term radical is even used in the capitalist business press, namely in regards to new innovations in technology and so forth.

You look to the outside to find new and innovative ideas. You look to the center if you want things to stay the same and follow trends.

It's not simply about what works and what doesn't. What works will often depend on the overwhelming forces at bay. The market structure has ways to make it much harder for alternative ideas to prosper. If so many smaller businesses can't seem to find ways to make themselves prosper in spite of the draconian nature of things like WalMart and Home Depot, at least without resorting to an even more draconian nature, then how can so many alternative businesses flourish?

Mondragon has shown considerable success in Spain, despite having to rely in part on the market structures. The events that happened in Argentina due to the economic collapse has shown more positive events than in many other areas. Credit unions still thrive, despite the nature of banks. Many areas of the United States are currently undergoing economic reorganization, right under and outside of the public eye.

And I bet those were likely started by "anarchist" principles, or principles of alternative, egalitarian ideas.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 10 years ago

They like to jump on any movement that might be perceived as anti-capitalist, but they'll be disappointed. I think OWS should try and distance themselves from these people, they're not helping.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 10 years ago

Many OWSers are anarchists and communists, especially the initiating and most active elements.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 10 years ago

Because, obviously, some OWSers are anarchists and communists. And your point is?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 10 years ago

The fact is the initiators of OWS are profoundly influenced by anarchist thought, a fact that they make no effort to hide, but which is so far outside the comprehension of the MSM and even most OWS supporters that they don't have the vocabulary to discuss it.

[-] 1 points by TheKing (93) 10 years ago

Lots of commies, anarchists, socialists and other misguided morons down there.

It's a freak show.

[-] 1 points by ltjaxson (184) 10 years ago

Anarchy is not chaos. In fact, anarchy is much more supportive of direct Democracy than our current sytem of a representative republic.

Anarchy advocates for the reduction of unjustified authority by any system of centralized govt/monarchy/oligarch/etc. I think OWS has a lot in common with the call for reducing the hugely accumulated and inherited authority of our central govt. in Washington. Furthermore, anarchy, real anarchy as explained by Noam Chomsky, and the influential characters of the enlightenment, calls for more direct democracy on all levels. When was the last time we had a national referendum? The two main points are: woker-led industry and community-led govt.

1.) worker-led industry allows the labor force to have direct access to the compnay's direction while sharing in the profits. It calls for removing the 'masters of mankind' from the equation (ie shareholder, capital venturer, investor, etc- anybody with accumulated or inherited wealth) and giving those voting rights, profit sharing, and direct access to the company's books to the worker. Just think: no worker will vote to send their job overseas just because it improves their bottom line - a shareholder wouldnt think twice! The system we have in place is nothing more than an extension of feudalism - an economic system where the capital controls the labor force, when we all know that our problems wont be fixed until the labor force controls the capital.

2.) Community-led govt. reduces the amount of unjustified authority of the national govt and gives it to local jurisdictions. This allows more direct access to the democratic process and allows local communities to legislate how and what they see fit, while reducing the role of the national govt. from legislator to referee.

Remeber - anarchy is not chaos.

[-] 1 points by HenryofPrussia (9) from North Bergen, NJ 10 years ago

The reason is that the Monarchist are not that well organised as the Communists and Anarchists.

[-] 1 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 10 years ago

This is not about anarchy or communism. It is about everyone getting together to address the problems we all face. Are there anarchists and communists here? Probably. But there are far more democrats, republicans, independents, Methodists, Catholics, Protestants, Quakers, atheists, gay, straight, tea party, young, old, nazi, klan, college educated, non college educated, Greeks, English, Asian, etc., people here. Everybody is here because everybody is being played by the 1%. Everybody is hurting. Worldwide. The movement is staying vague because it is only 60 days old. It takes time to build consensus, but, if this movement is truly successful, it will represent a major change in the economic and political systems of the US.

One major factor keeping the population under control are the artificial political, class and race barriers that have been erected by the ruling class. (Howard Zinn's A Peoples History of the US has the best explanation of this.) By the way, I include union leadership in the 1% ruling class.

OWS tries to be a classless, raceless movement. This frightens the ruling class to no end. One of their major social control mechanisms is on the verge of failing.

To counter this in the short term, they have encouraged hatemongers to post on this forum, and to express sympathy with OWS. The racist right has been insistent on denying OWS any cooperation. These forces of hate have felt threatened since Obama's election, anyway, and they sense the power of this movement. Without an artificial political, racial and economic divide, many of these hate groups would have no reason to exist.

Many poor whites make up the bulk of these hate groups, but others, specifically recent immigrants (East Indians, Russians, etc.), belong, too. The poor whites have been more negatively impacted by the financial crisis than most, so the risk to the ruling class is two fold:

  1. Hatemongers might just wake up and realize they have been played by the 1%, and actually join the movement. This would be a nightmare for the ruling class.
  2. Many of the exploited poor white folks who are hate group members or sympathizers are also members of unions and the police/armed forces. Without a reason to protect the 1%, the 1% would suddenly become quite vulnerable physically.

If the ruling class can paint this movement as anarchists, communists, racist and antisemitic, they can lower the attractiveness of OWS to the bulk of Americans, who believe in fair play above all else.

Do not believe the hype. I suggest occupiers remain peaceful and positive.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 10 years ago

Communism offered criticism, but no practical solutions, therefore it failed, for the same reason anarchy has failed: See below the post on anarchy.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 10 years ago

Anarchy is defined in political science terminology as "a power vacum." Without the concerted effort of men and women of conscience to from a just government that vacum usually ends in tyranical dictatorship. Anarchy also doesn't take into account the very real dangers of those with unstable minds, who often exert more influence in unregulated sociey through sheer fanatical determination. It is a nice idea, impracticle in light of the factual aspects of human nature and ambition.

[-] 1 points by FoxKnox12 (1) 10 years ago

Because if you get past you socialized induced fear of the word of "communism" you would find that it actually makes prefect sense. And that whether you like it or not OWS is the peoples movement Marx and Engels were talking about. Get past the fear of Communism comrades.

[-] 1 points by ReoMcL (2) 10 years ago

some people have small minds. the founding fathers founded what??? a doctrine to implement on the land of the indigenous? Once again folks think outside the box-we can rewrite the constitution-dare to be free. use your brain-you could really rewrite history-if we don't now there will be a generation that does later.

[-] 1 points by JonoLith (467) 10 years ago

America is heading towards Anarchy that will result from tearing down the Oligarchy that currently exists. After a period of Anarchy, we'll decide whether we want to build another Oligarchy, or a Republic.

My vote is for Republic.

[-] 1 points by bugbuster (103) from Yoncalla, OR 10 years ago

Try to understand that Occupy is not monolithic or centrally managed. If you spend any time reading posts (and not trolling) on these forums, you'll find many different viewpoints. The one thing everybody holds to in Occupy is non-violence. I recently had a good discussion with two anarchists. After a while we came to the conclusion that both of them would be fine with government by mediation through local people. What they don't like is anonymous big shots controlling their lives. Do you?

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 10 years ago

There's also support from people waving American Flags and even Ron Lawl supporters..

It seems as long as you oppose racism, injustice, and inequality in any form, than you support OWS. And you don't.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

Such a funny troll this hillary!

[-] 1 points by TheKing (93) 10 years ago

Doesn't surprise me. These are the usual suspects that show up at G8 summits, Republican conventions and other protests. They are a pack of uninformed losers.

[-] 1 points by dan85slv (8) from Philadelphia, PA 10 years ago

people are encouraged to share their personal ideologies by the movement, the movement doesn't have to adopt them. No one's opinion or ideology is so wrong that movement will forbid them to express it. Just because individuals are expressing their ideologies at the park doesnt mean the movement as a whole must adopt them. The movement encourages sharing opinions in order to facilitate important conversations... like this one.

[-] 1 points by HappyLove (143) 10 years ago

Oops. 99% of Americans are a whole lot of people.

Didn't figure out yet that includes a lot of different streams of thought and ideas?

Back to school.

[-] 1 points by michael4ows (224) from Mountain View, CA 10 years ago

The red/black artwork and the raised fists on the 'strike' flyer (on the front page now) strikes me as 'socialistic' inspired... not exactly my cup of 99% tea.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

The black represents anarchy. The red represents socialism. And you're correct, the raised fist was entirely intentional. It represents anarchy. Dislaimer! I had to Wiki it. It's not like I knew that already. I am not an anarchist nor socialist!

[-] 1 points by Teacher (469) 10 years ago

Anyone can show up and express any view they want. That doesn't mean that anyone agrees with them.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 10 years ago


we dont have to be afraid of the kochs and the murdochs - but we must be smart and not give them the noose to hang us with. We can ( and should ) espouse any position on any subject - without using stupid labels.

Consider the hundreds or thousands of times the rushes, the sarahs, the cars, the dicks have used our words to lie to the lemmings. We must act and speak - prepared for their attacks - DONT GIVE THEM THE AMMO!

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

Hillary, I am once again am surprised by this misunderstanding of the nature of OWS. I have been on a number of threads where a similar misunderstanding exists.

The entire General Assembly structure of OWS is right out of the Anarchist Syndicalist handbook, if in reality there is a single book. The direct democracy of OWS is Anarchist in nature. One Worker, one vote.

As one of the original participants in OWS, as in I was there on September 17 when we took Liberty Square, I did my homework before joining and considering myself a member of this Working Class revolutionary movement. I do not think at any level that OWS has tried to hide or mask it is Anarchist in nature.

So the question is, why is it "bizarre" that the Anarchist's flag would fly? It is an Anarchist and Working Class, apologizes if that is redundant, Movement.

As for our brothers and sisters in the Communist's Movement, god bless them. The more workers and their organizations the better for us all. The Communists, the rank and file, not the Stalinist State Capitalists, have always been with the Anarchists in the struggle for Working Class liberation, i.e. The Spanish Civil War, where we fought Fascism side by side.

As for the need for your example, Chile under Salvador Allende. In Chile, Allende was elected in a democratic election. The Revolutionaries that voted him into power were rewarded with a civilized Socialist State. Health Care for all; a dramatic drop in crime, and unemployment. The standard of living started to rise. So much so that this government of and by the people was a threat to the capitalists.

It was so successful that the Corporate Capitalist Terrorist and War Criminal Henry Kissinger said:

"It is firm and continuing policy that the democratically elected government of Allende be overthrown by a coup. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestine and securely so that the USG [United States Government] and American hands be well hidden."


"The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves. I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people."

So what OWS, with it's Anarchist leanings, is doing at every General Assembly is teaching the next generation that Democracy is possible. Every GA meeting teaches all of us "What Democracy looks like."

The Capitalists, the Stalinist, the Fascist, and the Corporatists have brought us nothing but war, debt-slavery, and poverty; it is time for a new way, the time is now.

[-] 0 points by hillary (252) 10 years ago

Sure, you've been running it as an Anarchy but let's see what happens when you need to apply some rules to deal with theft, rape, freeloaders...etc. It's cute to do ANYTHING within a few 10's or 100's but you need to show you can scale it, and the different messages at all the Occupies shows that you can't.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

Hillary, I am not trying to be difficult, but I do not believe you understand what I meant regarding Anarchy.

Anarchy is not a noun. It is a verb, adverb, or adjective. You cannot "run" something as Anarchy.

I do not think you are clear on Anarcho-Syndicalism. Seriously, read on it.

This may, i could be wrong, but it may be you have a corporate view, which most do, of Anarcho-Syndicalism. I am aware the corporate press portrays the movement as having no rules or order, nothing could be further from the truth.

However, based on your comment, I can assure you, it is not a bunch of hippies smoking pot and fucking all day. That is not the point of what is going on. But, I am not arguing that this does not occur. I can assure you most at OWS look askance at this type of behavior, especially if it appears to be pathological and occurs on a regular basis.

[-] 1 points by QuietDay (59) 10 years ago

How do rules and order operate in an anarchist society? How are the socially and politically marginalised protected from those with more social, political or even simply physical power? Those who we have seen time and again exert that power regardless of what political system or social order they live under (including OWS)?

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

The question of rules and order is up to the people. It is my hope that people will develop a new conscious about rules and order when they can directly participate in the creation of the rules for society. Under the current system, people have lost power and have removed themselves from the process.

The GA and the facilitation process is the beginning of creating a new social dynamic to eliminate the rule of the few, which has been the basis of all human civilization and social order. No more Bosses.

Once freed from the psychological constraints of bourgeois capitalist society, the people will have to decide the direction themselves. I do not know specifically what that means. But I can envision something much better than what we currently have in the West.

I know one thing, as OWS continues to grow, we will have to use the GA's to develop a set of social relations. But these relations should be decided by the people, not elected representatives.

We can see at all levels of human interaction hierarchies develop. But I feel that all because death is inevitable, we should nonetheless struggle against it.

Ken Wilbur's concept of accumulation hierarchies, as opposed to pathological, seems to me to be the beginning of a new concept of how we make the decisions as to what the rules will be and what order looks like.

In the overall aggregate, the decisions of how to proceed on anything should be decided by direct democratic vote, at all levels of government and production. However, at that point, facilitators must be chosen to enhance the cohesion of the process.

As an example, if we decide in Jersey City, NJ to build a housing complex. We do that by direct democracy. But then we need to find someone at all levels to facilitate each level of production. So the people with the experience and education in the process will move the project along. We each find our place and participate in an accumulation process.

But before this becomes reality, we need to change the way people think about their economic and social relationships to one another. We need to build a movement that is outside the current system. If we incorporate to much of the system into our movement, we will be psychological cooped.

One thing is certain to me, we need to expand the guarantees of the fruits of society and production to everyone. We need to expand our definition of basic rights to include housing, education, health and dental care, and food to everyone, without question. Once basic needs are guaranteed, I believe many of our social ills will be eliminated.

[-] 0 points by hillary (252) 10 years ago

I think I just peed in my panties.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

Hillary, I am sorry if I contributed to this event and it was not intended.

[-] 1 points by Tryagain (300) 10 years ago

Because they're anarchists and communists.

[-] 0 points by raines (699) 10 years ago

anarchist s and communists,..that ows for ya.



[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 10 years ago

One word: "Solidarity." Thank you very much, I rest my case.

[-] 0 points by Jimboiam (812) 10 years ago

Because the leaders of the OWS are Marxists and Communists.

[-] 0 points by QuietDay (59) 10 years ago

Anarchy would be no less oppressive and unjust for people who are marginalised and relatively powerless. We've already seen the 'leaderless movement's' leadership usurped by the middle class, white male. We've already seen assaults and reported rapes in a supposed anarchist utopia. Power operates on the personal level as well as the governmental, state level. Anarchy benefits the powerful as much as any other political system. I imagine that's why so many privileged, educated, middle and upper class white men are so into it.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

Do you have a clue what anarchy means?

[-] 0 points by LarryBudMelman (55) from New York, NY 10 years ago

If you're going to quote the Spanish Civil war AGAIN you can at least talk about how Anarchy was just a rebellion against a dictator. It never operated as a normal system in a non-war environment.

But why bring facts into this, right?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

I never mentioned the Spanish anarchist movements. There are many anarchist organised communities, do you have a point, or is it just that you can not wrap your head around freedom. A hierarchic top down model is all that you can imagine?

[-] 0 points by LarryBudMelman (55) from New York, NY 10 years ago

Because you want to use "us" as your little experiment yet you can't show one instance where your system produced a peaceful society.

At least build a city where your "system" can be showcased rather than sitting in your chair spouting theoretical arguments or just admit you're trolling.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

A republic is a representative form of government, you vote once for some representative and they then go to the halls of power and do whatever the hell they want in your name. This is what we have been experiencing, these proxy representatives get corrupted and controlled any number of ways. You only need to look at public opinion poles to see this system does not even come close to representing the will of the people. If all the people have a say in the decisions that effect them, they will not let the few continue to take so much from the many. People will not support decisions that destroy their communities and their environment, they will not support wars over seas that make profits for the few while killing so many that had no say in the matter. The idea of a representative republic is a control by the few over the will and lives of the many, it is a bad system, and we have ample proof of this fact.

Saying we need more anarchy is simple saying we need to remove the top down hierarchic control, the will of the few imposed on the many, and replace it with a horizontal system where everyone get a say in the decisions that effect them.

Why do we need to show you a working example? Anarchy will never exist, as the free market will never exist. These are only theoretical models, ideas to be strived towards. It is not the destination, it is the journey. Nothing is ever finished.

[-] 0 points by LarryBudMelman (55) from New York, NY 10 years ago

So Anarchy doesn't promote any "plan", it simply lets the dices fall where they may. Can you see civil war and bloodshed in that scenario as the lawless elements of the society try to steal homes from people who earned them?

Also, the issue of corruption is ironic considering the GA just voted to spend $29K to send 20 people to Egypt while your fellow OWSrs freeze to death. It raises important questions as to how decisions can be skewed when there are no rules on "stacking" the vote with your friends.

You have a long way to go before you can start throwing stones my friend.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

You can not stake votes when there is no voting. GA is done through consensus. One person may block a decision.

Why do you think using the money is corruption? Monitoring the Egyptian vote is a good idea, it will strengthen ties between people, and educate people in both places. If you do not like what the GA does with the money don't give them any!

How do you get from non-hierarchical social organisation, to violent lawlessness and civil war? You seem to have this idea than "anarchy = chaos" (as the corporate media has portrayed) and no amount of reasoning seem to help you change this false image.

[-] 0 points by LarryBudMelman (55) from New York, NY 10 years ago

1) Consensus is voting. In the GA, in fact, there were very few people there during this "consensus" and someone actually said "I think we don't have enough people" and the "leaders" said "we don't have a quorum rule". You are seriously disillusioned if you think the GA system is fair and not prone to bringing in your friends to do TWINKLES UP.

2) If you don't see that Anarchism is synonymous with chaos then you really need to edit the Wiki here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Fight_against_fascism.2C_the_Spanish_revolution_and_World_War_II

[-] 0 points by KahnII (170) 10 years ago

Because they try to hijack any movement they can to further their causes.


[-] 0 points by OccupyWallStreetButtons (16) 10 years ago

OCCUPY WALL STREET Pinback Buttons! ~~ only 99c !

A portion of proceeds will go toward our local movement in the form of food and drinks. If you have a few extra bucks, drop off a box of apples or anything you can to the folks outside in your community!

Free Shipping Offer! http://buttonbasket.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=25

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 10 years ago

Just like "DoNotLoot", "GaiaGirl", "Metoo", "MattLHolck", "Tednugent", "OccupyEverything", "brianobx", "Hilscher", "HilscherBanned", "blkflg", "gr57", "Badhornet', "Earnit", "thebeach", "Jonas", "americanfreedom69", "uslynx81", "therealdeal2011", "1percenter4life", "superspiff", "suwata", "sudoname", "Momcalled", "justfactsallowed", "AntiCorp", "MikeyD", "MovingTwoChina", and "DukeNukem299", "dukeNukem347", "Moving8China", "MovingToReelection", "Rob", "angelofmercy", "AllThe Way", "CoffeeKick", "hahaha", "MisguidedYouth", , "RicoSuave", "Uriah" , "RichardGates", "The1Capitalist","brianingrandy", "owsrulez", "weeicemon", "MisguidedYouth2", "ArrestAllCEOS", "SSJHilscher", "Joeschmoe1000", "hillary" was outed as a TROLL ages ago...

To understand WHAT MAKES A TROLL TICK - AND have a chuckle while you're at it - go to:


[-] 0 points by hillary (252) 10 years ago

Hey buddy, time for the OCD meds, mkay?

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 10 years ago

NOTE : When pestered by A TROLL, please DON'T WASTE your valuable time arguing with them, simply serve them "The American's Creed", as it drives them batty because they are Un-American TRAITORS opposed to all efforts to uphold the Constitution.

"I believe in the United States of America, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies."

(The American's Creed is the national creed of the United States of America. It was written in 1917 by William Tyler Page as an entry into a patriotic contest. It was adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives April 3, 1918.)

[-] 0 points by guest (68) 10 years ago

we need all groups- that the system has blackballed to join us and fly there banners to show everyone that we are for human rights.

and we support the rights of everyone- and that all humans have a voice that will not be silenced-

[-] -1 points by hillary (252) 10 years ago

Anarchists and Communists have NEVER been known for supporting human rights. Show ONE country that succeeded


I'll wait..

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

Hillary, that statement is completely false.

Also, would you seriously argue that someone such as Batista of Cuba, Pinochet of Chile, Hitler of Germany, Stalin, with his supply side State Capitalism, or Nelson Rockefeller, who funded the massacre of American miners at Ludlow, Colorado were human rights supporters because they adhered to a Capitalists economic platform, not to mention the current reign in China?

Granted there have been access among some so called Communists Governments, but I do not see a broad brushed argument as academically defendable.

[-] 1 points by tbone34 (1) 10 years ago

We're talking systems, not the maniacs which oversaw them...there is a big difference in who leads each particular ism...

[-] 0 points by hillary (252) 10 years ago

Of course I don't want to talk in absolutes, the point is that some regimes have never worked in practice to support human rights, so without a full understanding of why this was so by the ones who promote it then they're just blowing smoke....

[-] 1 points by guest (68) 10 years ago

it doesn't matter if someone or group respects human rights or not. we must respects there rights- unconditionally. without exception.

and to answer you question- this country will secede first and the rest of the world will follow our lead.

[-] 0 points by hillary (252) 10 years ago

Follow our lead? I doubt any country will follow our economic advice ....

[-] 1 points by guest (68) 10 years ago

you are right-- but their people will bring down their government 's with our help--- you know Facebook twitter- and the new software we just developed that can pass thru any firewall- it worked great in and out of china-- we are unbeatable.

[-] 0 points by hillary (252) 10 years ago

Eagle Eye

[-] 1 points by guest (68) 10 years ago
[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 10 years ago

Actually, Lenin and the nepalese maoists had rather vast human rights legislation; most of it was overturned by Stalin (although the administration in between only tended to pay it lip service)

[-] 0 points by harry2 (113) 10 years ago

Because its a political discussion? Its all about Democracy and the realization that we actually don't have one!

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

We have a Representative Republic based on Democratic principles that has been corrupted by money. We need to fix the political process in order to end the corruption.

[-] 1 points by harry2 (113) 10 years ago

Yes, now is the chance for change - we can - despite billions in election donations for the 2012 election. Current structures have failed the people no matter where.

What will stay are communities like OWS because they are not build on big greed, rather by people with common goals.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

If we get a little Campaign Reform out of all of this it will be a big victory. And the Anarchists can take some credit for that. But at the end of the day, the Anarchists will go back underground to their little sub-culture, the protesters will go home, and we all continue on - until the next cycle runs its course.

[-] 1 points by harry2 (113) 10 years ago

Campaign reform, elimination of lobbing, making politicians not for sale.

Then we may get better quality in candidates and free thinkers, innovative in finding solutions, rather puppets that are guided be repeating commercial media nonsense.

I think politicians are the first that need to get educated when talking about education.

But what ever I am so glad that there are people in this country with the courage to stand up. The real heros, If they get some homecoming veterans from Afghanistan and iraq with experience in "nation building" then OWS has a real big chance.

[-] 0 points by hillary (252) 10 years ago

We don't? Explain, but please leave out the pablum about the govt forcing loans onto you, that's just childish.

[-] 1 points by harry2 (113) 10 years ago

Did I say that? Government forced the country to pay for a bailout that the people did not want! Government accepts lobbyist donations that don't serve the people, rather serving there own interests. Banks and wall street committed a violation against consumer protection laws, against the lenders as a group of risk takers. Banks also violated to serve in there investors invested (bonds). Not to mention the insider deals on deviates (AIG). Government knew where the market is going since 2006 (see political speakers and the warnings at the time). They closed there eyes and let there voters drown into under water equity.

That is what happened and if there where a serious investigation, you know where it would lead us. And thats where we should be.

[-] 0 points by hillary (252) 10 years ago

1) Everybody wanted de-regulation 2) Everybody loved the idea of HELOCs on future house value 3) The uneducated masses who claim to love Lady Liberty and the freedom of this country are now behaving in a TRAITOROUS WAY because they ASSUMED that the free-market is impervious to falling out of the sky.

I'm shocked at the lack of understanding of what freedom means. Shocked.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

I think Wall Street and those most immediately connected to it and most immediately benefitted from it (Washington) sold the deregulation idea to the public. Wall Street paid for their de-regulation and Washington sold it. There's that pesky corruption again. What better way to SELL it than tell everyone they get to own a HOME! And borrow money against their HOME! Banks and Wall Street LOVE other peoples debt! Politicians love increased home ownership because it brings them more votes. It is how they both stay in business. We are all partially to blame for being sucked into their debt trap.

[-] 1 points by harry2 (113) 10 years ago

Yes, but remember who said "Everyone should have his own home" ! And who was afraid to let the economy run it's cycle. And who kept interest rates low just to achieve good ratings?

Yes this real estate bubble was obvious to explode. And who charges 250.000 $ for an education? why wonder being where we are?

There is not healthy society without: Healthcare, Shelter, Free Speech, Free Education. This are necessities not a luxury.

If missing this out is the price for greed then this is not a society, but.... You name it

By the way real state value increase has always been the savior of the economy, the provider for equity, the personal retirement saving, … now this that is taken away, there is noting left then the victims of capitalism and the small crowd that owns them! Back to the future the new kind of slavery, or the time for a new beginning.

Thanks for your comments

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

because it is an inclusive movement

[-] 0 points by hillary (252) 10 years ago

Sure, no problem. Can you see why we will never get any traction from the general population? Having Communists, Anarchists, anti-semites, rapists, robbers, cop-car-defecators isn't doing much for the movement. Maybe you feel you have the high road but giving a voice to people who wouldn't think twice of harming someone else isn't a glowing endorsement of your capability to keep people safe. But then if the intent is to just have an asset transfer of the haves to the have-nots, then let the games begin......

[-] 1 points by tbone34 (1) 10 years ago

I think you need to ask yourself the same question. "...giving a voice to people who wouldn't think twice about (your grammar corrected on my part) harming someone else..." So the people in power, many of whom you probably support, have never harmed anyone? Really? Unnecessary wars? Class warfare? Thievery? You have no argument...

[-] 0 points by hillary (252) 10 years ago

Human nature is always a variable, but promoting regimes that have a 100% failure rate is just stupid, and at worst, criminal.

[-] 1 points by karai2 (154) 10 years ago

The Occupy groups have been camped out in the middle of urban areas for over a month now. It would be odd if crime did not happen... As for the communists, Europe actually has a sizable communist party with seats in government and this has been the case for decades now. Communists are not considered to be the boogeymen that they are here and no one thinks they trying to transfer all the wealth to the "have nots". As for the antisemites, they are mostly called out immediately for what they are. These poor souls probably hang out on white-supremacists forums and get lonely once in a while for human company. So they come on here for attention knowing they can pick a fight with anyone who takes them seriously. The anarchists are mostly kids who will fall in love, get married, have kids and become liberals, conservatives, socialists or possibly cop-car-defecators.

[-] 1 points by guest (68) 10 years ago

in the usa the government -which controls the media-- has conditioned us the hate one another-- its the way they control their slaves (all of us)

keep us fighting among ourselves-- christian against arab- white against black. it make us easy to control. but the OWS movement will put a stop to that shit

[-] 0 points by hillary (252) 10 years ago

I don't care about a party, I just care about a working example of a Communist or Anarchist regime for an entire country.

[-] 1 points by Uriah (218) 10 years ago

Yeah, it didn't seem to take long for that element to get involved.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

Take long, they were here at the beginning!!

On day one, September 17, there was not one single identified Capitalist, Democrat, Republican, Liberal or Conservative.

The entire movement was started this summer by Anarchists.

I am stunned people do not know this.

[-] 1 points by Uriah (218) 10 years ago

I didn't and have been trying to find it's roots.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

Uriah, I am sure you have heard that Ad-busters coined this whole concept and idea. I know, they get money from Seros :(

Ad-busters in its foundations was/is Anarchists.

Kalle Lasn, who is one of the founders comes from Vancouver, and a Anarchist movement in that area. She is a serious person, who just was just feed up years ago with consumer culture and the rest is history.

Ad-busters does not have any control, but they did spawn the idea. This is why, in a point above, I said I did my homework before getting involved. I had to take a leap of faith. I knew what I was getting into. I have not considered myself an Anarchist, but the rest of the systems have failed, in my view, and I am now giving this a shot.

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 10 years ago

Are you seriously equaling anarchists and rapists?

Can you also go fuck yourself. I know you can.

[-] 0 points by hillary (252) 10 years ago

Anarchy does respond to authority (like the police), so yes they are dangerous people.

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 10 years ago

You have no idea what anarchy even is.

[-] 0 points by hillary (252) 10 years ago

Every attempt to implement it has ended in war. But sure, THIS TIME will be different.......

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 10 years ago

Yes, because I'm sure we should base our moral and ethical standards on the fact that a movement was crushed by the combined might of three fascist states.

[-] 0 points by hillary (252) 10 years ago

How arrogant you must be to bring your solution to our society along with convenient explanations for a 100% failure of your regime.

People are smarter than that and your smoke and mirrors won't work - thankfully.

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 10 years ago

You must be very popular at funerals.

[-] 0 points by hillary (252) 10 years ago

At least you admit you're a troll.

God Bless.

[-] -1 points by stevo (314) 10 years ago

anarchists...now called "direct democracy". As always liberals and progressives need to change labels as soon as people are wise to who they are.

Fucking mask wearing coward anarchists would be calling themselves, The New Boy Scouts of America if they could. Only difference is, their boy scout manual shows how to make bombs, break windows, and overturn cars, and spit on police.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

Are you saying Anarchists used to be Boy Scouts? Yeesh!