Forum Post: Will the Looming American Police State Unify the Resistance?
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 23, 2011, 10:51 a.m. EST by goodvibespromo
(8)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/11/will-looming-american-police-state.html
link above contains hyperlinks to all specific occurrences listed in this article
J.G. Vibes Activist Post
The recent police crackdowns have brought an interesting new dynamic to the Occupy Wall Street movement. With scenes of blatant and unprovoked police brutality going viral on the web almost daily now, it is becoming apparent to everyone in the streets and even at home that Wall Street is just one of many institutions run amok in the American establishment.
OWS has now turned a corner; the movement may still be about Wall Street corruption at its core, but it has now exposed the existence of a police state that rivals the most authoritarian dictatorships in the world. This is a glaring fact that the entire activist community needs to recognize and point out to the world so that this police brutality can take center stage in the public dialogue.
In the past week we have seen an escalation of the American police state as Homeland Security Coordinated a 18-City Police Crackdown on Protests. In the crackdowns that have taken place so far there has been an obvious and aggressive effort to use intimidation and force on peaceful protesters, almost as if it were policy. As the whole world was watching veterans were shot at by police at critically injured, senior citizens have been assaulted, sit-in protesters have been showered point blank with pepper spray, women have been punched in the face and a pregnant mother miscarried a child after being attacked by police. These are just a few of the harshest abuses of state power that we have seen regarding the Occupy movement.
Even if you disagree with some of the politics that seem to be involved with the Occupy Wall Street movement, that certainly doesn’t justify the kind of violence that these protesters are being subjected to. I myself have been vocal about staying away from political demands, especially those involving taxation, but when I see this kind of force used against nonviolent people, all of those minor political disagreements automatically take a back seat.
History has shown us that tyranny marches ever onward, and this brand of authoritarianism will only get progressively worse if it is not relentlessly opposed by a large portion of the country. When you give the government or the elite an inch they always take a mile, so we don’t even want to give them a centimeter. This tragedy has played out many different times over the generations, as Martin Niemöller highlighted in his legendary poem “First they came for the Jews”.
All of the revolutions that have happened around the world in the past year have gained immense amounts of support because of the scenes depicting oppression and brutality that were filmed in the streets. The support that these movements gathered had very little to do with their demands or political agenda, but was simply a result of the empathy that people feel when they see goodhearted people being terrorized by their alleged “protectors”. Unfortunately, many of these worldwide movements have been co-opted or met with harsh military force. However, there is certainly a lot that we can learn from observing what is happening in these other areas of unrest, so hopefully we don't end up becoming victims of the same pitfalls.
"but it has now exposed the existence of a police state that rivals the most authoritarian dictatorships in the world"
Yes. From the very beginning of these protests, I knew that the above would be one of the most important outcomes and functions of OWS.
Yea, it may not be accurate to say we're on a par with the worst repressive regimes, but we are more repressive than we are supposed to be, more repressive than we used to be and we are headed in a very dangerous direction.
Every day, every year, for the past 15 to 20 years, peaceful protestors have had their freedom of speech & assembly infringed and since 2001, they've frequently been treated as terrorists.
On top of that, ordinary citizens have their rights trampled on by our militarized police every day.
No-knock swat raids (on the wrong house, sometimes!), taserings, harassments and arrests simply for taking photos, TSA abuses at airports, naked scanners...I could go on and on.
This isn't what our country is supposed to be about. This isn't freedom.
Some links:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/10/protesting-nuns-branded-terrorists/?page=all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15YExclX4Gc
http://www.photographyisntacrime.com/
http://gothamist.com/2008/07/28/cop_caught_on_video_assaulting_cycl.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/police-militarization-9-11-september-11_n_955508.html
There's no such thing as a "free speech zone", friends, I don't care how many Supreme Court justices say there is.
This entire nation is a free speech zone.
The police are currently doing the job of the military.
The military are currently doing the job of the heirarchy.
The heirarchy are currently bending you all over a barrel.
The barrel is currently wondering why it is being mistreated in this fashion.
This is a bit like the "shall we spank the children" debate. I think if the child is doing something of great danger to themselves or others, they should be spanked. If they are simply throwing a tantrum, justified or not, then let them wail! One of two things will happen, either the child will learn a lesson or the parent will change their terms. I am thinking, if the police let the protesters do their peacful thing, the politicians will have to reacte in a more meaningful and just way. Right now, police are just shutting it all down and politicians don't have to deal with it. Remind me again where the officers fall ...the 99% or the 1%?
Would it be prudent to reach out to family members of authority figures to help in the movement? Wouldn't that put a face on this and help remind the officers in the streets that there is reason for restraint?
excellent post. The core important truth here is that so long as the evil overlords reveal this hand; attempt to contract their control system; it reveals them as controlling; and demonstrates the actual removal of and ignoring of the bill of rights. Every single ticket, every single assault, only prooves a corrupt government that has no regard for the USA constitution, and which holds the will of the people in contempt.
In their efforts to tighten down control, the hand reveals itself, and now it becomes impossible to deny that the USA is anything other than a fascist nation.
The oligarchs missed the point of the reality test and epic failed. Had they ignored the occupy and allowed it under supervision, the main complaints of the occupy would have been tested out as untrue. But by reflexing with their corrupt power; they instead demonstrate transparent corruption, and with their corrupt media, they demonstrate media abuse and signal control.
These moves on their part are self defeating. Bloomberg tries to tell us the police moved reporters out to protect them; transparently lying; the real reason is to give police the ability to brutalize and assault the innocent without proof of such crimes being created in the process.
In short, hes transparently lying, transparently involved in a cover up, transparently using the police in an illegal and fascist manner, transparently having them remove reporters as part of a conspiracy to conceal the evidence. The game is over; because the evil overlords revealed their hand. This is why the occupy itself is no longer crucially important. Re moving it with such violent force PROVED the point and made the occupy a reality test and meter of the corruption. Point proved. Our freedom to assemble and express our grievances as according to the first amendment is a dead and archaic law, which has been replaced by an open unsecret caste system which allows us all to be herded as cattle and treated as property or as meat, depending on which is more convenient to the state.
How does that look to those paying attention. ? Great job oligarchs! Don't bother asking yourself why this will continue to grow at a geometric rate.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/OccupyThisWiki:About
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Police_Abuse,_Corruption,_Misconduct,_and_Treason
Assume with me for a moment - Lets say there were 2000 people blocking access to a hospital and 100 police officers showed up to clear the entrances, what tactics would you find acceptable for them to get those subjects off the property?
I know this will be difficult, but please try to focus on the question at hand - and not the politics around who should be where. Lets just assume that the officers have the right and authority to make this happen.
see that's one of the fundamental issues that i have to begin with...i dont believe the police have any kind of authority or right to do what they do
they are hired thugs...even if they happen to be hunting down a murderer
Let's say your Mom or someone else you love was in an ambulance dying and the ambulance couldn't get through. Then what would you want the police to do?
BTW, I do disagree with the pepper spray incidents - that was uncalled for. But we do need policing at times.
Who then should be maintaining order in the community? Who should be tasked with "hunting down a murderer?"
people who were trusted and elected in the community... i feel a more decentralized and accountable law enforcement system is necessary in this country
what we have now is pretty outrageous, we just have a corrupt government hiring goons to enforce laws that they dont obey themselves
we need objective law based on non aggression principals... enforced by people from the community who are elected on account of their virtues
More decentralized? Police departments already exist at the smallest level - the normally work for the Mayor or City Manager. Unless you want police officers hired by neighborhoods, I'm not sure how much more decentralized you are going to get.
As far as elected police officers? That is a horrible idea. Don't you think they would be affected by election year antics just like the politicians. You are better off insulating them from the political process so that they are less likely to be influenced. "Vote for me and I will drop this ticket."
Finally, what are non-aggression principals?
Indeed. How do you get more elected than hired by an elected mayor? Who of us, as a citizen, has time to read a ballot for 1,000 police positions in a city each year with two or more names for each position in order to decide whom to hire. This is why we elect the leaders and then let the leaders do the hiring.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
hey i wasnt emotionally attached to this idea or anything...it was just a suggestion... for the sake of argument... what we have right now obviously insnt working... and we cannot trust the people that our so called leaders pick to "maintain order" ...we cant trust the government.. we cant trust the local government...
but we NEED police officers that are trusted in the community and are seen as equals with the community...not hired goons
what about a volunteer community police force...it works with firefighters
decentralization is key..because when things are centralized they are extremely easy to corrupt..thats the very reason we have these elites controling everything.... we have seen a steady increase in centralization over the course of the rise of the anglo american empire...it is something that we need to reverse on all levels
thanks so much for asking about non agression principals..extremely important stuff :-)
http://common-law.net/nap.html
dont hurt people and dont take their stuff...that should be the law of the land that applies to governments and police as well as citizens...everyone is held to the same standard
The principal of non-aggression is sound in many ways. The place where it breaks down is when people can't agree on what is harmful to others and what is not. That being said, if people did the right thing - treated each other with dignity and respected the rights and property of other people - then we wouldn't need police to begin with. Unfortunately, people aren't wired that way.
I'm afraid I cannot agree with you, Good, well intentioned as you may be. A volunteer police force is likely to be far worse. What is to stop the worst and most abusive people from being your highest number of volunteers just being a cop gives them a place where they can Lord over others. Some people gravitate toward becoming police for just that reason. So, you'd be back to having to have a leader or counsel who reviews all the resumes and decides WHICH volunteers are best suited, which ones have no track record of abuse that is known, etc. And those leaders would be no different than an elected mayor and an elected city counsel. The only difference in the quality of police would be that they are not paid and so not nearly as dependable because their personal needs are not met and must be attended to on their own so they can support their families. You'd only get a very limited amount of their time, so would need many more volunteers than what you need to find in hired police.
I know you're only trying to throw out some good ideas for something you feel isn't working; but anytime you give someone the authority to police others, you're going to have to watch out for abuse AND have the authority to fire the abusers. Who would have the AUTHORITY to fire the abusive police. Would it have to be put up to a vote of all the people? Who of us has time to look into each situation and decide. Better to have judges and leaders to attend to those things and to hold the leaders responsible.
If communities are very small to where everyone knows everyone else (like a commune), they can be self-policing and need no cops, but such communities usually have a great deal in common that binds them together. Cities of millions of people have too much going on to have things decided by a more pure form of democracy; scarcely anyone knows anyone else; and people are so diverse that they have little cohesion compared to a commune that is built around shared values.
I think the best solution is what Occupy Wall Street is doing -- protesting to the leaders we have that we think they are all doing a lousy job.
If you don't want to get hurt, don't break the law. I have no problem with properly chosen and trained enforcers hurting others in order to get them into compliance with the law IF those they are hurting will not come into compliance any other way but ONLY if they will not or if they are hurting others and must be quickly stopped. The one breaking the law intentionally always has the choice to stop if they don't want pain. I, like most people, have a huge problem with police that abuse people who are NOT resisting arrest or who are NOT breaking the law. That is where police can be abusive and where they need to be fired and go to jail themselves.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
+1 The more localized the better. But most of OWS want an even bigger, more powerful federal government. And now they complain about how mean they are.
Assume with me for a moment. A small group of college students are sitting down outside protesting a big increase in tuition. They are creating a small inconvience. How should the police deal with them?
Lets play out my scenario first, and then we can discuss yours.
Isn't yours a bit of a red herring? I mean you're trying to draw an analogy between situations that are hardly analogous at all. It's dishonest to invoke an emergency situation (blocking a hospital) as an analogy with some tents in a park and try to pretend they are alike. Can we stick to honest analogies instead?
Actually, I was just trying to avoid a discussion of whether or not police should take action, and focus instead of what action is appropriate in your view. I figured that we could agree that if people are blocking access to a hospital, that the police should do something about that.
But we can use your analogy if you like. Since we are going this route, I guess we should first figure out what a "small inconvenience" is. To me, that would be blocking one entrance, while leaving other doorways open - or maybe forcing pedestrians to walk around the seated group. If it truly is a "small inconvenience" then the police should do nothing. Let them sit there as long as they want.
Of course, I haven't seen any calls for "Lets go make a small inconvenience at the Quad."
Sure, the police have to act sometimes. If the sports fans are rioting and burning down the stadium, send in the cavalry, by all means.
I'm glad you can agree that here are times when the police need to take tough action. What do you do with the minor infractions of the law when the people breaking it tell the police to get lost? Just ignore it and let them break minor laws because we should have no minor laws anyway? Let anyone who wants to break minor laws do so and make them all voluntary requests, instead of laws? The question is what do you do when after many days the people just won't cooperate?
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
This is a bit like the "shall we spank the children" debate. I think if the child is doing something of great danger to themselves or others, they should be spanked. If they are simply throwing a tantrum, justified or not, then let them wail! One of two things will happen, either the child will learn a lesson or the parent will change their terms. I am thinking, if the police let the protesters do their peacful thing, the politicians will have to reacte in a more meaningful and just way. Right now, police are just shutting it all down and politicians don't have to deal with it. Remind me again where the officers fall ...the 99% or the 1%?
The police aren't helpless automatons enslaved to the law and bound to act by the book without exception. No police force in the world is like this. They apply the law with discretion, every day. Even as regards true crime - they don't even attempt to stamp out crime, what they do is manage it and mitigate it, and when it's practical and serves that end, they let people off on far more serious offences than sitting on sidewalk. This happens literally daily. The law is just a tool; police know this, believe me. When they say they have to club people down for sitting in a park because it's the law and therefore they have no choice, they're hiding behind the law and not being very honest or honourable at all.
What if they aren't sitting on the sidewalk or sitting in a park - what if they are sitting in the street? How much discretion should they use then?
How much discretion do they use when people are sitting (or walking) in the street for, say, a sporting event? If the crowd becomes violent or starts destroying things, they respond. If they don't the police usually just monitor the situation. Common sense would say that it should not matter why the crowd is there, it should matter how the crowd is behaving - this is how the police act in nonpolitical circumstances. They seem to operate by a different set of rules with regards to certain political gatherings though ...
Why would someone be sitting or walking in the street for a sporting event? I'm not sure why you keep bringing up sporting events as if they get some sort of pass. Do I need to remind you about the Vancouver Stanley Cup riots or the Boston Red Sox riots? Deal with the question - if a large crowd of people are somewhere they shouldn't be, how should the police remove them?
I don't know why they do it because I don't participate, but when there's a major victory (or sometimes a loss) that's what they do. It isn't always violent. Whoever wins the Stanley Cup, the city often goes pretty nuts, there are crowds in the streets. The instances you've mentioned are exceptional - and go back to my previous statement:
If the crowd becomes violent or starts destroying things, they respond.
That covers those instances, yes? The police do not attack the crowds in the streets every time there is a Stanley Cup playoff. There are crowds in the streets, they stand ready in case things get out of hand, but they don't create a riot by attacking. If a riot happens, then they move in.
Does that answer your question?
No, you still have not answered my question. If a large crowd of people are somewhere they shouldn't be, how should the police remove them? It has been my question from the start.
The same way they handle Stanley Cup crowds, that was my answer.
They handle Stanley Cup crowds by being ready to respond, but they don't "remove" them at all ... they just stand ready in case there's a riot. Your question carries the false premise that police remove every crowd from the street, they do not.
While I'm sure that police will allow people to walk in the street as the venue lets out - they will not let them "take over" the streets and block traffic as people are trying to leave the area by car. At some point the police will clear the streets, and it doesn't require anything near 'riot' conditions.
My question carries no such false premise, because I didn't say anything about removing EVERY crowd. But congratulations on your continued avoidance of the question.
Knave - as you can see, I'm having a problem getting people to discuss that very thing.
Aye. I can see that police do have some leniency under their obligations to use discretion. I certainly think that people sitting across the sidewalk when others walking around them is not that big of a deal. It goes in almost and insant, though, to people lining up across a street to block traffic. Soon, traffic is so balled up that no one can get through town at all. When that happens, the protestors of Occupy Wall Street or any other movement ARE blocking access to hospitals and ARE engagingin life-threatning activity. Gumming up the arteries of a major metropolis is VERY likely to cost a life or injury as it will cause accidents and prevent ambulence, fire trucks, and police from getting through to save people in danger. So, blocking streets CANNOT be tolerated. It is too life-threatening, as it takes very little time for the traffic to turn to total gridlock. It is also completely unfair to the general populace, most of whom have never engaged in any of the behaviors that are being protested.
--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-now-unoccupied-but-stronger/
The point he was making was a good one - we need cops. The pepper spray incident was awful as were the few.others, but that has hardly been the norm during these protests. What were the numbers for the Oakland strike? N17? Those had major turnout with very few incidents of brutality. There are some fucked up cops for sure, but we are hardly a police state. And yes, I do want the cops shoving people out of the streets if I am in an ambulance dying and the road is blocked.
Who said we didn't, and who said they don't need to act for things like blocked hospital doors or ambulances? This is a strawman. It has literally nothing to do with pepper spraying people for sitting in a park. Apples and oranges.
You've disregarded the rest of the post. The police have done a fairly decent job with these large protests.
I don't disagree with the rest of the post, what do you expect me to say about it?
You lost me at "assume".
Let's say we have the right to assemble peaceably and to hell with your flights of fancy.
Who is blocking access to a hospital anywhere? Try again.
Fine, I'll retract my hospital example...
A group of 2000 Occupy protesters are sitting down in the roadway at a major intersection obstructing traffic. While these protester are peaceful, they are in violation of the law and they are impacting the rights of others to move freely on the roadways. 100 officers show up with the intention and authority to remove the protesters from the roadway.
What tactics do you think are appropriate for this task?
Instead of dealing with the simple question above, responders will focus on why the officers are there, or that the protesters have the right to block traffic - anything but engaging in a discussion about what the officers should do. If the example above isn't sufficient to get you to talk about police methods- please fill in your own scenario where you would find it reasonable for officers to take action against a crowd and then tell me what action you think would be appropriate.
I think the whole point that you are missing is, the protesters are assembling peaceably to protest a massive and yet fundamental abuse of personal responsibility, in that individuals, acting as a group, are wantonly and willingly destroying a currency and an economy, and a country.
Remembering that over 300 million people will be affected by the greed of so few individuals in their personal interests.
Back to you.
It is obvious to met that no one here is willing to discuss what is and what is not appropriate behavior for officers. From reading posts and watching youtube videos it is obvious that occupiers believe that ANY action by the police against them during a "peaceful" protest is brutality. That is simply not the case. With the increasing number of conflicts between police and protesters there will be officers who cross the line - and I believe they should be dealt with harshly. But if you only read this forum you would think the police show up randomly and start immediately bashing in heads. That simply isn't the case. The vast majority of officers are showing great restraint and are acting appropriately in the face of great adversity. Your response was exactly as I predicted in my post above.
It is obvious to me, too. NO ONE who has spoken against the actions of the police have said what is and should be allowable in the form of tough action for police to take when people refuse arrest. Your questions keep getting evaded. Your example of blocking streets is right on, as it is no flight of fancy. It has already happened a number of times, and it is completely unfair to jam up an entire city just to make your point. Most of the city may well agree with your point. Should you simply be allowed to bring an entire city to its knees. I know some protestors would love that because of the sense of power it would bring, but it is abusive to those who are kindly going about their lives, not living in a greedy manner, just living and letting live, to find themselves trapped in their home unable to get to a hospital because of gridlock.
--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-now-unoccupied-but-stronger/
[Removed]
[Removed]
arent marxists and anarchists in totally different camps?
lol im more or less an anarcho capitalist...but i still fully support the OWS movement and what they are generally about...allthough i dont happen to agree with many of the demands
im well aware the establishment is attempting to co opt this movement...as they do with every movement
but a police state is showing its face right in front of us... and we need to resist it..and stand behind OWS whether we agree with their specific demands or not...we need to speak out against the injustice that they are seeing out there... even if we dont share the same political goals
No, they aren't, in fact they weren't distinct from one another prior to the big falling out between Marx and Bakunin at the Hague Congress. Marx's ultimate goal was a stateless society.
Lot of people conflate Marx with Lenin and Bolshevism (along with its descendants) but this is not really correct. Marx was a democrat, who believed the revolution should be a general uprising and not 'guided' by any small group (which early Marxists referred to as "Blanquism"). Part of the falling out with Bakunin and the anarchists had to do with Bakunin's idea of a Secret Brotherhood that would unofficially act as a sort of organizing or planning committee for the revolution, which Marx couldn't stand.
Lenin turned most of Marx's ideas on their head. But it's not like there ever really were that many ideas about communism in any of Marx's writings anyway. If you culled all the passages about communism itself - what he imagined it was supposed to look like and how it was supposed to work - you get maybe two or three typed pages at best, and most of that is pretty vague, mostly asides about how so-and-so doesn't understand what communism is about in this letter or that letter. But what is there, being that most of it details what communism is not, pretty much rules out Bolshevism as anything like whatever it was he was thinking about (which I don't think anyone, Marx included, ever really understood). But whatever it was, it didn't allow for things like income support from the state, which Marx constantly derided. In the Manifesto he calls it "bourgeouis socialism" and basically says, "oh hey sure, we'll all just march straightaway into the Social New Jerusalem!" and in another work he mocks: "It is as if, among slaves who have at last got behind the secret of slavery and broken out in rebellion, a slave still in thrall to obsolete notions were to inscribe on the program of the rebellion: Slavery must be abolished because the feeding of slaves in the system of slavery cannot exceed a certain low maximum! "
Well stated.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
You suffer from delusions of grandeur. There is no resistance as you would imply...a real, legitimate, sustainable resistance.
What there is is just a temper tantrum. The core of liberal OWS is just a bunch of arrogant, know-it-alls.
I haven't seen much evidence of what you've described. So far, wherever I've seen police violence, I first saw people RESISTING arrest after breaking the law. I suspect the writer of this post may just be an anarchist, and anarchists are the future despots of America. They respect no rules, except their own so are free to treat you however they wish. Their abuse of others freedoms is limited only by their own strength.
Please reply to this and post some example video links of people who were clearly NOT resisting arrest and not breaking the law who were treated violently by police. Where that has happened (IF that has happened), the police need to be prosecuted. Police abuse does happen sometimes, so we need to see these videos of people being treated violently who were not breaking the law and were not resisting arrest.
There is no tyranny worse than anarchy.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
I'm no anarchist, but this is a cartoonish understanding of anarchism. If you're going to critique it, at least understand it first. Anarchism certainly has its flaws, but anarchists aren't wannabe despots and they don't advocate no rules and just treating others however you want. Their most basic and fervent belief is that the only legitimate form of coercion, is to stop coercion.
Of course they are tin-pot despots. Anarchists are against all government. "Anarchy" literally means "without rule." There are no successful examples of anarchy in the world that created anything better than the most violent environment imaginable. There has never been an anarch utopia or a land without rule that flourished. Lands that refuse any violent imposition of rule will always be ruled by the violent, for they have no power to control them.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
I can only say you are factually incorrect there. There have, actually, been at least two cases of an anarchist "state": both of which were relatively orderly, at least as orderly as one can expect considered both emerged in the midst of armed conflict. One was in Spain, during the civil war, the other was in the Ukraine, during the Russian civil war (the Makhnovists). Neither resembled the cartoon of anarchism that we so often hear about.
There's a semantical misunderstanding here. Anarchists who subscribe to that political theory don't mean the same thing as what is commonly referred to as "anarchy", in the sense of a breakdown of civil society, a Wild West situation. That isn't what they're calling for at all. What they're calling for is an organized society but one structured from networks of voluntary associations.
It's the meaning that is intended behind words that is important, not the labels themselves. We're not getting any closer to the truth when we squabble over labels in order to ignore meaning.
To me the theory has some serious flaws, but it really has nothing to do with Somalia or the Wild West. If you want to know about the political theory, and what its supporters intend, don't look there, look to Spain and the Makhnovists. And yes, there were serious problems in those places ... but they were organized, they were able to maintain order and carry on industry and even field armies that were rather impressive given what they had to work with. But they tended to be rather naieve in some ways, in both cases you see them go down with a communist knife in the back.
As I don't know about those two very narrow slices of history, I cannot comment directly, but I would suspect they were shortlived and that they did not function any better than many other forms of society. When it comes to organizing large societies of people, systems like that have failed quickly or been rife with their own abuses. Take, for example, communism. It works fine in a very small society where people are fairly homogeneous -- such as an Israeli commune. It has never worked well in a large society where people are not strongly oriented around the same religion, culture, language and class. It quickly and easily becomes abused because it is not strong enough to hold the abusers at bay. There are times when American capitalist society has worked fairly well for the majority of people and other times like now when cronyism in government has led to a lot of abuse by the rich over the poor. Things like the Bush Tax Cuts that resulted in the rich paying a much smaller portion of their income in taxes than the Middle Class are the kind of cronyism I mean ... where the government looks out first and foremost for the wants of the rich. We do, however, also have a form of government where people working in the kinds of voluntary groups you talk about are perfectly able to change the government without changing the form of government at all. All you need is an active majority, instead of a sleeping majority working through the kids of association you mention.
--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/bushwhacked-by-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-the-rich/
Not particularly better, I suppose. These weren't small communes though. They were fairly substantial territories. Not on the size of a nation, but about province-sized. They were organized moderately well, able to function fairly decent. Order was maintained, the factories were working, and so on.
Neither existed very long. In both cases there was a civil war on, and no matter what system had been in place, they simply didn't have the industry or manpower to compare to their opponents. In the case of Spain, not only were they facing Franco's forces backed up by Nazi air strikes, they were also subverted by their communist allies. In the Ukraine they were crushed by the Red Army, which controlled vastly greater territory, industry and manpower.
Yes, they did have problems holding (internal) abusers at bay, at least, they did in Spain (not so much in the Ukraine). They were easily subverted by their communist allies who basically co-opted them, taking control of their organizing committees.
That being said - the theory is not about some sort of Wild West, do whatever you want sort of thing. Is it workable? Ultimately I don't think so. But, like I say, if we're going to critique it fairly, we must critique it for what it is, not a silly cartoon of what it is.
I'm glad it is not about some wild west for you, but I have seen enough of protests by anarchists in Seattle and some other places to know there is a bunch who are for genuine anarchy -- no rule, no rulers. (Meaning protestors who cry "anarchy" and then run in to loot stores.) I don't think we need to change our SYSTEM of government as it has all the room we need for change built in. We DO need to change our government, and the Occupy Wall Street movement, by pressing people to break out of their molds and make decisions that end the greedy abuse, is one good way of ratcheting up the pressure for that to happen.
--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-now-unoccupied-but-stronger/
Well, I'm not an anarchist. Just a stickler for accuracy.
But even the ones who smash windows. If you talk to them, they don't want a Wild West either for the most part. They just have this (rather fruity) notion that you smash some windows, you can bring the corporate state down. And others are just agents provocateurs, like the cops that got busted in Montreal a few years back.
Not something I need in my world, but also not something that is effective. Rather than bringing change, it galvanizes the majority against you by raising their fears. Suddenly the movement becomes something they know they must protect themselves against.
--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-now-unoccupied-but-stronger/
Yes, I agree. They are really just testosterone-driven. The young hooligan types anyway; Noam Chomsky for instance is an anarchist but I have a hard time picturing him smashing down windows and looting stores, and he certainly doesn't advocate that. But you know the Black Blocs have largely disappeared. They were a big facet of things like the anti-WTO protests and so on, but for the most part they have been conspicuously absent from Occupation rallies. This may actually be a direct result of police being caught red-handed, dressing up as hooligans and smashing windows, during some of the WTO protests (Montreal being the most famous example, where charges were actually laid against several officers, and the police were forced to apologize to the city on television). Maybe that's all that they ever were, who knows.
I am glad to have seen very few of them in the OWS movement.
Actually, it means "having the quality of (being) without rulers"
An- without
Arch- ruler
Y- having the quality of
I have no problem with that definition. Taking out my Greek dictionary, I find
"Archo - rule, govern."
and
"Archon - ruler, official, authority"
To be without either of those means to be without any ruling or governing actions or rulers or people with authority to carry out such actions. I think it all comes down to the same thing, so your definition is fine. Let's run with that one.
hey bro... anarchy means without RULERS...not without RULES
i consider myself a "VOLUNTARYIST"
http://www.voluntaryist.com/fundamentals/introduction.html
which is someone who believes there should be no government...but still rule of law
it seems like your just eating up the government propaganda about how the sun wouldnt rise in the morning without a government
and as edgewaters said.... this viewpoint isnt perfect...but its the only one ive been able to find that holds PEACE and INDIVIDUALITY as key values
this is the kind of law that most modern voluntaryists support
http://common-law.net/nap.html
Interesting. I've never heard of voluntaryism before. Where I struggle with many of the 'isms' that are presented on the OWS boards is that they assume the best in people. They just seem so unrealistic when you look at how people are wired. It is a sad statement, no doubt, but I don't see how any of these social systems would work in the real world.
One thing to note is that the cry for less rules and less ruling is something that is shared in common with many conservatives. I appreciate the Volunteerists penchant towards a free-market economy!
Without rulers or without rules comes to the same thing. You cannot have rules without a ruler; you can only have REQUESTS. You have to have some authority -- be it an individual, a counsel, or both -- that citizens have invested with the power to impose the rules.
The problem is not that your viewpoint is imperfect; it is that it is impossible. If rules come down to people volunteering to cooperate with them, then they are not rules but requests.
How do you have rule of law with no one to govern? The sun will rise in the morning without government, but the shadow cast over me will be the nearest thug who wants what I have and is willing to take it by force -- be it taking my wife by force or my money or my food. Government is our way as a people of teaming up to say, "No one gets to do that."
There has never been a large society of people without government that has been peaceful. Wherever governments have fallen, thugs and gangs have moved in to dominate by force, to take and never to give. Voluntaryism never works to provide peace because strong, dictatorial tyrants never volunteer to be nice and peaceable. They simple say, "That's a charming philosophy, Dude, now here's a knife in your gut because I still want to take your wife and abuse her, and if your kids don't shut up, I'm going to kill them, too." It is ridiculous pie in the sky that ignores the whole of human history. Thugs never volunteer to stop taking. So, people team up and form civilizations to protect themselves by having greater number than the thugs so that they don't have to individually protect themselves and their families daily with a knife.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
I think the cops have done a fairly decent job around the county dealing with these very large crowds. Granted, there are some idiots/brutes who should not be in uniform, but on a whole, not many people have been injured. The day in NYC on the 17th was pretty amazing - there was push back from both sides, but 40,000 people on the streets is a lot to handle.
hahaha. this is just what the anarchists and marxists plan on. People need to listen. They are exploiting angry OWS supporters for their idealistic plans. Don't be fooled.