Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Is this an Anrchist movement?

Posted 9 years ago on Nov. 3, 2011, 8:53 a.m. EST by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The question needs to be asked. Now I can see the angry replies flooding in, but the longer I look at this movement, the more I'm starting to believe that that's what this actually is, and if that's the case, then this thing will never succeed, because Anarchy is a ridiculous notion, that does not work.

158 Comments

158 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

Well you sure got 'em going with this post! Nice job.

The best thing I can come up with is to spread the word about the 99%Declaration. Just like trolls. Don't feed them with a reply. You ignore the troll. Now we must ignore the anarchists.

But before we ignore them, we must first give credit to the anarchists for getting this thing started. But it's up to us to take it from here. We can use OWS as a tool (because its so big), to educate and migrate people to the 99%Declaration. To make change with and through our government.

It's hard. This is where all of the action is right now. 99%Declaration is small. But OWS started small too. But how else is it to grow and have chance to succeed if we don't help it along?

I don't know the right answer! But I'm pretty certain I know what OWS is about and have little hope that it will change its ways. But we can use it for good!

Your thoughs?!

[-] 1 points by julianzs (147) 9 years ago

This post is an insult to 99% of Americans. It is also self deprecating because you probably are in the 99%. You can start by watching this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/jack-abramoffs-guide-to-buying-congressmen/2011/08/25/gIQAoXKLvM_blog.html

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 9 years ago

I'd like to clear up some misconceptions about Anarchism. Anarchism is just anti hierarchical in ever sense of the word. Because they believe power corrupts. They want no government, no business owners and no generals. They would like this to be done by replacing every hierarchy with consensus or direct democracy. Personally I believe that this can be achieved by promoting workers collectives. If you want to see an example of how anarchism would work I recommend you look up how Anarchist Spain worked before Francisco Franco overthrew them. If you want to read about it I recommend Emma Goldman or George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia"

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

I know what it's about. I just don't agree with it. I'm a proponent of hierarchy, and structure and leadership at that. I just think, that that way is better.

Just my opinion.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 9 years ago

Hierarchies come with a price though. Even if there is a government reform people will always find ways to screw the system and abuse it. Also I have no reason to believe this will be the last recession or that the current wars will be the last wars. In an anarchist society there would be no one or anything to abuse and little incentive to commit crimes.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 9 years ago

You could say it has a lot of anarchist elements to it.

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 9 years ago

There were individuals labeled as anarchists, at the inception of this movement and friendly to this movement, that seems clear, but what is wrong with that? There are many forms of anarchism and within this movement there are clear signs of Anarcho- Communism; such as the horizontal structure of the GA, the voluntary nature of associating with the GA and the use of direct democracy and the use of what I would call councils to decide unresolved issues. What is wrong with a little democracy, in a Republic?

Now, if you are worried about Communism, that ship sailed when the Globalist helped China get what she needed to become an eventual Super Power, at the expense of me and the American workforce. [on the floor laughing] If you wanted Neo Liberal total victory over Communism, as Joe Piscopo pointed out, "Drama, bahama, lost." [giggle] The Communists are the future. Think about it. Be a pragmatist. Are you an enemy of the Chinese Communists? If so, why?

My uncle fought an died in Vietnam. He could have went to college on a fulll ride as a pitcher. He was a woman magnet, too. I wish I had his looks! [smile] The rich running the USA would help the Vietnamese Communists big shots, before helping me. Did the step daughter of Senator Lautenberg care about my uncle dying for the US Government and cut my family some slack? I knew the step daughter of Frank Lautenberg, since third grade and she would rather leave me in the gutter, than lift a finger to help me. Your Government wants to leave my generation in the gutter, to make money off of making I-Bankers and executives rich, helping to make Communist China a Super Power. My uncle should have went to college and fooled around with good looking women, not died for a Government that would intentianally seek to ruin the future for his relatives.

Your Government isn't worried about Communism, why should you, why should I? I wouldn't mind working for the Chinese Communist, in the USA, advancing their interests. If they offered me a career and let me work my way up and use my MBA to have the upper middle class lifestyle, so I could continue to live in my beloved Scarsdale, NY, I would work for them in a heart beat. Paris Hilton may not think much of Scarsdale, but for a guy raised in Inwood, Washington Heights and Yonkers, at the height off the crime wave, in NY, Scarsdale is Heaven to me. Lautenberg can't help me, but that didn't stop some politicians from dealing with Bernie Madoff! [wink] Let's go make friends with the future and let the ruling elite worry about anarchists and where the ultra rich and politically connected Americans will be, at the end of the day.That is, if that is what you are worried about. Btw, do you have Hu Jintao's phone number? [giggle]

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

what's wrong is that anarchism doesn't work, it's severely flawed, especially if you want to achieve something. If reform of our political system is what we want then we are going to have to get organized, and we are going to need some leadership, some focus.

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 9 years ago

Communism certainly works, as it does in China. Anarcho- Communism not only can work, but it is something to work towards. When I get my career going, I intend to go for a D.B.A. and I will research matters related to the formation of a money-less market system, dependent on artificially intelligent automated workforce, centrally controlled natural resources, held by a central Global Governing authority and a supply chain management system, not unlike the one used by WalMart, but with a few really neat surprises thrown in.

Oh, it will not only work, it will be the future. I have always known, since I went for my MBA, as though it were instinct or embedded in my genes, that I must work on the money-less market system or die trying. [wink] If I am dead, then someone else must do so. A one World Government with a money- less market system is the inescapable destiny of the World. [grin] Telling me, a guy, with a professional degree in Scarsdale, NY, to suck it up, to be jobless or to do without my standard of living, go live in the woods and eat berries or what not, so the ultra rich can have a little bit more, is what is unworkable, certainly what is unemployable! [laughing on the floor] I am too American to do without my standard of living and too Russian to care about what will happen to the American Tzars, when the Communists take over! [giggle]

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

I have no idea what to make of this. No idea whether you are serious or just messing around. I would lean towards the latter, but in this place, in this forum, I wouldn't be surprised one bit if you were dead serious.

Either way, it's funny, [laugh]

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 9 years ago

I am glad that you are in good spirits! Some people won't be happy, when Communism is a dominant force in the World and some people won't be happy when billionaires are obsolete. If you can smile and laugh, you are wise, it I am there to see it, I will surely have a smile. Either way, please keep your humor! [wink]

[-] 1 points by TheMessenger (1) 9 years ago

If I understand this movement correctly it should be under no political classification nor should it be under any religious classification. This movement should promote solidarity and it should evoke a drastic change in our system. It should be a movement that will benefit the quality of life of the common people. It should ensure that ordinary people actually have a chance to make ends meet not only on a status quo level but on a comfortable level. The global gap between the haves and haves not should become not that much of a cap anymore. This movement should accomplish that we can trust in our governments to act in the BEST and honest interest of its people they actually serve. This movement is long overdue and should reach a result that has never been reached before. Those who govern above us shall hear our voices. These voices are angry voices. It is time that these voices are being heard. These voices are our voices. The voices of the common woman and man around the world.

[-] 1 points by MortgagedTent (121) 9 years ago

This isn't an anarchist movement.

[-] 1 points by MortgagedTent (121) 9 years ago

This isn't an anarchist movement.

[-] 1 points by MrFactuality (7) 9 years ago

It was started by intellectuals who are anarchists. So yes, it is.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Yes, exactly, but still, it seems to me that because they are, and because anarchy is based on concensus, and most people do not like or agree with anarchy, that this thing will eventually morph into something else.

I could be wrong, but it seems that anarchy is self defeating, since they can't actually control it.

[-] 1 points by MrFactuality (7) 9 years ago

But, that's the whole point. They do not want to control it, they want it to generate as much chaos as possible. They want every Occupy faction to break apart and create all types of subgroups and more and more problems. They don't want to take control and supplant the government, they simply want to dismantle it through chaos. If that works, which I doubt, they will let others put a new system in place. They just want to break the system, they don't want to replace it. They know direct democracy doesn't scale. These are smart people.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Well, I think they would be very disappointed if this thing got organized, under a single leadership group, if it got super focused on lets say a single issue. I think that would go against what they actually want.

And if breaking the system is the goal, well that's terrible. The system needs reform, it needs to be fixed, not destroyed in rebuilt. I have some engine trouble with my car, I want to get it fixed, not completely destroyed then re built.

Just not a good strategy.

[-] 1 points by MrFactuality (7) 9 years ago

I absolutely agree. The system can be fixed by separating market and state. It's not that bad, there are just a few loopholes that make the ship sink. Once patched up, it would look a lot better.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Exactly, unfortunately, because this thing is so disorganized, and so unfocused, it will be difficult to achieve consensus on this notion, therefore making it almost impossible to achieve true reform.

I hope I'm wrong.

[-] 1 points by MrFactuality (7) 9 years ago

Oh, I don't think it's possible for this to be fixed by OWS. I already gave up on that movement.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

Everything you say makes total sense. The organizers just want to cause chaos. Somebody else explained it as throwing sand up in the air. The anarchist does not care where the sand lands or how it lands. They just want to throw sand.

I have to give them credit for getting this thing started. I think its up to us to make it go somewhere. And make sure something gets done in Washington. Are you aware of the the 99%Declaration? There is no website forum as of yet. Only a FB page, last I checked. But I think they are working on it.

This group at least has a concrete plan to affect change working with and through government. I'm not sure its the right one, but its something anyway!

https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

I'm pretty much there too. I only hope that something else springs out of the movement, because this problem is real and it needs to be fixed, and this may be the only time we'll ever see this much anger and this must attention given to this issue.

[-] 1 points by MrFactuality (7) 9 years ago

Ya, me too. That would be great.

[-] 1 points by onemoe (78) 9 years ago

It only seems like an anarchist movement because there are no suggestions for what change is wanted needed expected other than "please do not be greedy" and down with capitalism. What is needed is some suggestion and or clear demands for DC. We are dealing with a very concrete lot there. Here is a suggestive list of issues to be addressed.

  1. An end to ARM's these loans were used incorrectly by banks to get people into houses that the banks knew would have issues . These loans are great if you are a seasoned professional investor but for most people they are merely a way of skirting the qualifying process and end up being a bad deal for everyone but the bank.
  2. An end to IRA's and a return to guaranteed pensions. Anyone realize that all IRA's really are is a way for corporations to tap capital that was previously unavailable to them. So basically IRA's fund big bonuses and if the market conditions are right you may get to retire on those funds. But as is more likely you will lose a percentage of your retirement funds by participating. And of course if you are not a government employee you really have no choice because almost every corporation in the world has gone that way now. Just another way that we get used.
  3. Block entry of goods from countries that have no pollution controls on their factories. If we as a people have been supportive of EPA regulations for pollution then how can we allow goods to be imported from countries that do not support the environment. Not only does this practice harm the environment but it also kills manufacturing in America by allowing our companies to go abroad and then import back to the USA. Not only do our companies do this but they even lobby congress for free trade agreements to make the practice easier for them. For manufacturing to return to America we need to do this.
  4. End lobbying. Why should anyone be allowed to pay millions to have teams of people trying to influence our elected officials? It's just wrong. Our system was set up to allow people to collect names of constituents on a list who want something handled in a particular way. It's called a petition. That's how elected officials should decide which side of an issue they are on. If their constituents feel strongly enough about an issue they should petition and if still ignored call for a recall of that official.
  5. Reduce federal salaries and benefits. This requires no explanation.
  6. Encourage Dr.s to establish their own practices rather than being hired by a corporate practice. Would need to review some tort reform for Dr.s so they can afford their own malpractice insurance, which is one reason they go for the corporate practices. Getting the corporations out of this field would reduce the need for higher income levels (in a corporate setting you have to add profits above and beyond DR and Nurse salaries) thereby reducing the cost of basic family care.
  7. Let the Mexicans in. Charge everyone entering from Mexico a 1000.00 dollar fee to establish a tax ID. Do the same for the ones already here. I mean lets face it they are here and we need them to pay their share, something they would more than likely be glad to do if they had the opportunity. This card does not give them citizenship it would merely let them be here in a legal sense and allow us to collect the extra revenue that their presence requires.
  8. Maybe give tax breaks to any of the 1% that uses their money to support local improvement projects. Like fixing the streets in their town or building a civic center, or homeless shelters any project that would require a bond election would qualify and other projects could be added as needed. When people ask for something it works better than asking for everything or nothing.
[-] 1 points by youngandoutraged (123) from Iowa City, IA 9 years ago

Those who are advocating for direct democracy here do sound slightly anarchistic, but I think our system of oligarchic democracy is probably the best way. The problem is political consumers (voters) aren't perfectly informed, as in theoretical economics, and this has led to many elected officials who do not have the public's interests at heart. Change this, and we can remake our democracy.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

I think I have a slightly different view, or should I say cause. It's the money that influences our elected officials to not work in the public's interest. Stop the money, and they can focus on that. I don;t think we have to remake it, only reform it, by stopping the flow of money.

[-] 1 points by youngandoutraged (123) from Iowa City, IA 9 years ago

That's how we change it. less money in politics leads to a leveling of the playing field, and voters can more easily judge candidates based on their positions instead of their commercials.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

and so that they don't have to pay anyone back in the form of friendly regulations, legislation and policies. So that they can pay us back, the voters, with legislation etc... that actually works.

[-] 1 points by DanK (44) 9 years ago

So far the anarchist strain seems very strong. I don't think it will last, because anarchism is an adolescent philosophy of pure rebellion. Anarchist movements have come and gone over the past century and a half, and they have always flared out on their own or been defeated, because their repudiation of organization, focus and law means that they are unable to constitute a durable and effective social force to counter the power they are opposing, and because they are never able to offer a realistic vision of a better world that practical people are interested in building.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

I agree, exactly, the funny thing about anarchism, is it's self defeating. Because they want no control, they can't control the group, and maintain the actual anarchy. It's actually quit comical.

[-] 1 points by cheeseus (109) 9 years ago

Don't confuse anarchists with marxists. OWS are mostly made up of marxists. They seek to tear down our system and replace it with more government, wrongly believeing resources can fairly be distributed.

True Anarchists wouldn't destroy and beg to have it replaced with more government. Anyways, anarchy is our most natural form of law. My problem with it is that it doesn't protect the individuals rights.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

My problem with anarchy is it doesn't work, once you get beyond 20 to 25 people.

Marxists? Maybe, who knows, all I know is this thing has to get its act together. enough with all this formless, leaderless crap. It was a nice concept but it's time to grow up.

[-] 1 points by Tusker (12) 9 years ago

This is the boogie man movement. The fact that the OWS has no specific goals invites paranoid assumptions about what it "really is about." I don't think the nature of the OWS has been fully realized, it is still in it's infancy and as time goes on you will likely see a more efficient organization with clearer objectives.

It is important to remember that this movement is still in it's infancy, so perhaps it is a little premature to say it is one thing or another.

[-] 1 points by VTSupportsYou (108) 9 years ago

See, now I disagree with the first half of the above. I've been following the OWS movement since more or less its inception and they have always had a clear message that the movement seeks to draw attention to Wall Street and Big Banking's stranglehold on our government, the income disparity in the US and the world at large and the symptoms of both - of which are included student loan debt, health care etc. The vast majority of videos I've seen have had a pretty consistent message.

What I do agree with you on Tusker is the movement is still in its infancy. I don't think they have any reason to come up with a list of demands or "clear intentions" just yet. I think they are doing a brilliant job right now and it shows. Let the mass media continue to draw their assumptions and formulate their own opinions. At least it makes them have to think or - god forbid - perform a little investigative journalism. =)

As to the true nature of OWS? I believe - If I may get a little out there for a bit - the human race and human consciousness are constantly evolving. It is in our very nature to do so. We feel this at a cellular level. As we evolve the ways in which we live and interact with our world must evolve as well. I think we are on the cusp of the next evolutionary step. Once this occurs, the old world and old ways simply won't work anymore. We need a different way of being.

Many in the world are feeling this drive or agitation right now even if they can't understand what it is. The Arab Spring, OWS and similar movements are a manifestation of this and while individual movements will come and go change will occur; the wave must crest. These movements are the very tippy top of the wave. This is only the beginning.

We evolve, or we die. That might sound "New Agey" or hokey but this is the rule of nature and it transcends Wall Street, Democrat, Republican, Anarchist or Marxist.

To the naysayers, trolls and those fearful of change I will say please keep doing what you're doing. The wave relies on the force of agitation to drive it forward. It is your force pushing from behind that builds it higher and higher and higher until eventually it must break. At that point you will be pulled along - just like those at the top - into something new. You will then either go with the flow of the current or struggle against it and fade into the depths.

I for one will be surfing the crest.

[-] 1 points by Tusker (12) 9 years ago

Perhaps I should have phrased myself better...

There are plenty who (in the absence of a official list of demands or a list of specific goals from the OWS) are confused about what the OWS really doing. Confusion leads to fear, thus those who are confused about what the OWS really wants they will tend to make paranoid judgments about it.

[-] 1 points by VTSupportsYou (108) 9 years ago

Very well rephrased and I agree. =) I am unfortunately not in a situation where I can participate directly with the folks in NYC. but I try to get to my local protests when I can. One thing I have decided I can do on a consistent basis is educate folks who ask me about the movement. I generally try to send them links to videos and articles that give a good overall impression of how the movement got started, what its main focus is and even some oppositional viewpoints - because I feel that there are some decent non-trollish anti-arguments out there.

Anyway, thanks for your response Tusker and the continued civil discourse. =)

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

But you have to admit, the structure is anarchistic in nature, and seems determined to keep this structure.

[-] 1 points by Tusker (12) 9 years ago

By anarchism do you mean a movement that seeks to install an anarchist system of government or a movement that has an anarchist governing structure. (Or lack there of lol)

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

With all the varying ideas and people in this thing, I would think both, plus about a dozen or so additional forms of governance and social structure.

[-] 1 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 9 years ago

Anarchy is not a philosophy or a notion, but simply a very general characterization distinguishing those believing in government from those who do not. Devout Christians can be anarchists; so can communists, or even Libertarians who think that Pinkertons and private highways are the way to run the world. Add to this that some "anarchists" believe in violent actions, and others in democracy and federalism, and the confusion multiplies. You have a group of people which is at least theoretically more diverse than all the political parties in all the nations of the world, and you want to make a generalization about them, or follow them, or say they're going the wrong way - you can't, really.

What you can recognize is that people, individual people, hold a tremendous degree of power, and what they envision can become real - whether that is shutting down the Port of Oakland, or reinventing the financial basis of capitalism. When people look at changing the underpinnings of American society, whether it be a simple constitutional change like term limits, or a complicated change like replacing copyright with a more efficient system of rewarding authors that actually works and doesn't impose artificial scarcity, the act of doing so transcends the belief in the present governmental system. You and they can call that anarchist if you want, or call it belief in a new government - but either way, change is a sequence of steps.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

I know what it is, the question is, is this moving towards that or away from that. Because if it's towards that. this will fail.

[-] 1 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 9 years ago

I wouldn't say that. After all, anarchist-like phenomena such as Wikipedia and Anonymous seem to thrive (though neither may pass a strict definition). Even fundamentalist Islam, however oppressive it may be, derives certain tactical strengths from properties resembling anarchism, as has been made all too apparent in the intractability of things like the Iraqi resistance and Somalia. A group with a modular organization and no clear leader pretty much can't give up, and is very difficult indeed to defeat completely. Of course, from that example, we should also take that OWS could adopt a strong anarchist-inspired organization but still turn into something terrible. Anarchism is, as I said, a very general term indeed.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 9 years ago

ows is a mix of all types and its main goal is to get people motivated, start a national and now global discourse about the abuses of power that we're suffering under.

if you want to get hysterical about some of the posts that's your business.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

That's your take but I'm not so sure. You should take harder look.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 9 years ago

Why is Anarchy any more of a ridiculous notion than the continuing the fascism we have now?

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Not more ridiculous, just as ridiculous. And because anarchism won't solve anything. But legitimate reform will

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 9 years ago

What is "legitimate reform"? Who gets to decide what is "legitimate" and for whom?

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Reform that stops the ridiculous flow of money into the political process.

This should already be decided, in fact, it was one of the main issues this movement was founded on, so as far as I can tell, everyone has already decided, they just can't do anything about it because they are all over the place.

[-] 1 points by socceronly (102) 9 years ago

No. It's not.

And instead of posting this go out and do something. Go educate people on special interest money. Set a goal. 5 this week. That's it.

Why worry about a small % of people. It's like writing off all Republicans because some of them are twats.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

That's not the case. The reason I posted this is because if it's true then this thing will fail, and will therefore be a big waste of time, and a lost opportunity.

By the way, I'm not riding off anyone or anything, I'm merely asking a question.

[-] 1 points by socceronly (102) 9 years ago

But people keep asking this not because they want an answer, there really isn't one. They (not you but in general) just keep repeating anarchist/marxist over and over again to discredit the whole thing.

Why worry about what it might be? People out there don't even have a clue how corrupt things are. They don't understand that crimes are being committed and the government is owned.

Who gives a crap if a small % of the people educating people are radicals.

They can be totally wrong about one thing, and still right about another.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

I don't know what there motivation is, but I try and think for myself, but this does have some qualities of anarchism. First, the people who started this advocate this, then you have the whole, no leaders, no organization, the GA format, etc...

All markers of this movement, so although some people may have different motives, the question must be posed and asked. Because if that's what this is, then this thing won't work.

[-] 1 points by socceronly (102) 9 years ago

It doesn't matter, and neither does the answer. The corruption is still there. Shoot for the stars, land on the moon.

Any progress is good. Any. No progress can happen without educating people on the set of core issues that matter.

The goal of the people trying to stop this is to kill the conversation and focus on hippies, drum beaters, anarchists, marxists, ect.... it's to make sure we don't talk and waste out time.

Forget about it. Educate people.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Education is important, but so are other things, and without those other things you won't get far.

[-] 1 points by andyperry (1) 9 years ago

Sadly, this unrest (however well intentioned) seems to made up of much heat and little light. Concrete strategies for job creation or finance reform are non-existent, marginalized or drowned out by shrill whining undergirded by an entitlement mentality which works against the work ethic and entrepreneurial spirit by which our nation became great. And now we have violence and breaking windows in Oakland. For shame! Like lemmings to the sea the protesters gather to Wall Street and other venues, but without calm, rational, self-controlled reform in concrete terms, no lasting reform is possible. Let the ranting and antics of an adolescent movement end.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

No org no leadership, no vision, clear message, etc... spells doom for this thing.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 9 years ago

Evil is corruption and greed and it does does not matter if is an antichrist movement or a common sense movement in that we do not want to be slaves to the elite that seek total power over us.

[-] 2 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

It does matter because anarchy doesn't work. It's to disorganized. If we want this to work then it has to move away from anarchy. It has to get organized and find true, genuine leadership.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 9 years ago

How about we move away from labels since it does not promote unity among the masses.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Yes, my exact argument. Stay away from those labels.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 9 years ago

Anarchist is not the same as anitchrist.

[-] 1 points by MisguidedYouth2 (165) 9 years ago

Yes it's anarchists and communists and Marxists. Great mix huh?

[-] 2 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Are you sure, or have these groups just jumped on the band wagon? What's your proof?

[-] 0 points by MisguidedYouth2 (165) 9 years ago

Denial is a river, not a path to the truth. My proof comes from the very mouths of countless YouTube videos and from the many communist shirts, signs, and flyers coming out promoting socialism and Marxism. Posts on this sit I've seen and read that question our constitution and explore the benefits of socialism. It's all here and denying it exists just makes you appear even more foolish.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

But that still doesn't answer the question, or answer what's really going on. This movement by nature is inclusive, meaning anyone can join. Are there groups just jumping in, trying to have some influence, or are they the driving force behind it. The answer does matter and I don't think it's entirely clear.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

But everything can be controlled. In fact, it's one of the flaws of anarchy, it's that it's human nature to gravitate to higher forms of organization. This little experiment won;t work. Eventually this will be controlled, the question is who will control it, one of the parties, or someone from within?

[-] 1 points by PRJ (115) 9 years ago

Everything can be controlled. Now there is a new natural law. I am pretty sure that anyone who believes that anything can be controlled is lying to themselves.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 9 years ago

Damn, the last line of your post was a revelation for me. Thanks!

[-] 0 points by seaglass (671) from Brigantine, NJ 9 years ago

The true anarchists in this country are the 1%.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Is it.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

it is

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Partisan this!

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Partisan, who said anything about partisan

[-] 1 points by Arkitorture (13) from Dallas, TX 9 years ago

Congressional Reform Act of 2011 – Warren Buffet

  1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.

  2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

  3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

  4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

  5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

  6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

  7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.

[-] 1 points by Jimboiam (812) 9 years ago

Great start to a constitutional amendment to be passed by the voters of each state. Include campaign finance reform and invalidate corporate, union, or other lobbying groups from donating to campaigns or candidates, and only citizen giving, and now there is a start. The marxists and anarchists want to collapse the government and do away with the Constitution. That is a non starter in America, and must be put down.

[-] 0 points by happybanker (766) 9 years ago

Great thoughts...Why is solid common sense so hard to find?

[-] 0 points by Jimboiam (812) 9 years ago

The movement is being lead by people with a defined agenda to completely destroy our capitalist economic system, and our Republic. Those of us who know better see what is being done. We can't let the neophytes be conned into this course of action. It is a waste of time, and will hurt any real reform movement.

[-] 0 points by happybanker (766) 9 years ago

Preaching to the choir with me, Jimbo...keep up the good fight!

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

is this real, or something someone just came up with. By the way, introduce this the the congress and the will riddle it with loopholes. They will never cut off their own funding. we need to do it for them.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by seaglass (671) from Brigantine, NJ 9 years ago

I signed this petition a yr. ago when it was flying around the net.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by raines (699) 9 years ago

Yes, It is an anarchist movement.

[-] 0 points by stevo (314) 9 years ago

No...but they are all willing to learn if you'll teach them.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 9 years ago

In a country of 310 mil and ever growing, it's really an impossible environment for the anarchist even as organized. That's why people like Ayers eventually gave in to the more twisted and allowed violence to consume. And that's not something you can hang on a provocateur...

I think it might be more accurate to label them as our tools.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

I agree that they can't maintain any control over this thing. People tend to like higher forms of organization and the crave leadership.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 9 years ago

Just noticed they have a like and dislike button here, nice... I like it.

[-] 0 points by Dalton (194) 9 years ago

No.

Glad I could sort that out for you.

[-] 2 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Formless, leaderless, GA consensus based decision process, started by groups and individuals who sort of promote anarchy...

Not sure if sorted anything out for me.

[-] 0 points by Dalton (194) 9 years ago

I'm not sure if it is even possible to "sort anything out for you".

Nonetheless, the answer to your question is in fact "no".

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 9 years ago

It has the trademarks of an anarchist movement, and if you felt you needed to ask it's probably because it is.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Just because I ask, doesn't mean it's so, and even if it is, doesn't mean it will morph into something else. The funny thing about anarchy is, that by its own nature, it is self defeating. The lack of control, means they can't control this thing and it will either die or reorganize into something that is not Anarchistic.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 9 years ago

You are right, I shouldn't have made any assumptions.

What do you think of Immanuel Kant's definition of anarchy? He defines it as a Republic without the violence.

  • A Law And Freedom without Violence (Anarchy)
  • B Law And Violence without Freedom (Despotism)
  • C Violence without Freedom And Law (Barbarism)
  • D Violence with Freedom And Law (Republic)

Perhaps OWS's thinking is that the system is so locked up that the only possible method of change is to throw a wrench at it. In this scenario, one wouldn't care so much where the wrench lands or what change it causes as long as it unlocks the system in some way or another. In this sense, we could compare their move to an all-blitz play in NFL. A kind of all or nothing tactic, simply designed to create chaos from which change will occur. I suppose one could argue it could create a tabula rasa, a fresh start. My belief is that they don't intend to be the next rulers, nor do they intend that their anarchy lasts forever. They just want to throw the sand in the air so that it lands in some new unpredictable way. Their faith is based on the idea that the system could not possibly be worse, and that whatever is built as a replacement will inevitably be a betterment. This is where I believe the danger lies, as this faith is not seeing, but blind as a bat.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Not sure if we have evolved enough as a species to exist without violence. I believe in a representative government that answers to the people. I believe the founding fathers got it right. Like them, I do not believe in direct democracy, that is formless and leaderless.

Not sure what OWS thinks, and that's part of the problem, but to achieve an end, especially against such incredible odds, it's going to have to get it's act together, and anarchy defeats this purpose.

Throwing a wrench does nothing. You need real organization, real strategies to actually make a difference, to win. anarchy prevents all of that.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 9 years ago

The thing is, I don't think they care about "winning". I really believe they just want to induce change by forcing the system.

In any case, I wholeheartedly agree with your political view.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Well is that's the case that would suck, and you may be right.

It would suck because if your not doing it to win, to force real change, then what's the point.

Oh well. Hope OWS actually forces real change, but not confident that it ever will.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 9 years ago

Winning and forcing real change are not necessarily synonymous. One could wish to force real change without caring what that change is or even wanting to be there when it occurs.

They might be in the process of pulling back their cue stick. When they have harnessed enough power they will break the billiard balls and remove themselves from play as someone else comes in to plan and execute shots depending on what resulted from the chaotic break.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

No, I'm talking about a very specific type of change, and that's stopping the flow of money into our political process. win that battle and we will achieve real, important change.

I'm talking about going after the root problems, not the millions of symptoms that exist because of this problem. Doing that is just a waste of time.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 9 years ago

in a few days look for constitutional amendment working group

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Okay, thanks.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 9 years ago

Sure, I absolutely agree with you on all your political points. I was just theorizing as to what the goals of OWS might be. I certainly don't share those goals.

[-] 1 points by Weneednewsocietysystem (5) 9 years ago

Goals of ows changing depending on what about "we educate them". We can educate them example about resource based economy and next they know what resource based economy is about. But next its in their hands are they willing to move toward there or do they want to stay where they are now, standing and waiting to demands be accepted by this so called 1%.

I have sometimes thought why they waiting 1% when they say they are 99%. Isn't 99% number overcalculate 99 times 1%. its actually 99 minus 1 makes 98% so it overcalculates number 98 times. If we take 99 soldiers vs 1 soldier. Is this 1 soldier some sort of Olympos god like hercules? Just speculating to understand 1% and 99% thing.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Fair enough.

[-] 0 points by EndGluttony (507) 9 years ago

It's a movement of lazy jealous hippies who believe in whatever you think will discredit them. Go fuck yourself.

[-] 1 points by VTSupportsYou (108) 9 years ago

Well, I sure as heck wouldn't fuck a hater like you. =/

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Ouch, that's harsh. Stop listening to AM radio and open your mind a little, and drink a beer, and chill.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 9 years ago

You sure got me pegged.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

I actually listen to Am radio and Fox, plus the other side, and the only place I hear those buzzwords, "lazy" "jealous" and "hippies." is AM radio and Fox, so where else would you have picked those up.

My question to you is, when the tea party rallies in Washington, and they protest, and they have their signs etc... why does AM radio call them hardworking, tax paying patriots?

But yes, you got those buzz words from them, the right wing propaganda machine. So yes, open up your mind and think for yourself. Or not, what do I care.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 9 years ago

Wow, you thought my post was serious? It's called sarcasm.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

No, they were not. And how do I know this? because they fought for the over throw of one form of government, an absolute Monarchy, and then chose to adopt, a representative democracy. That's what they chose, not anarchy, a representative democracy.

By the way, that movement was organized, had a leadership group, had a vision, focus, came up with actual strategies, made actual, realistic demands etc....

You are in correct, the founding fathers did not like or want a direct democracy, that's why we have a representative gov't and things like the electoral college, etc...

Not sure how you even thought that was the case.

[-] 1 points by VTSupportsYou (108) 9 years ago

The founding fathers also didn't want corporations controlling their representative government and I sure as heck don't think they would want us sitting on our butts in front of our Playstation 3 if that were the case.

To quote Thomas Jefferson, "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

The American populous has become lazy with consumerism. We have been brainwashed by mass media and corporations to believe we are what we buy and our success depends solely on our salaries and how big our TV/SUVs are. The population is ill informed and cowed and with them in such a state corporations and banks have swooped down upon our democracy - vultures that they are - and wrested it from our hands.

From what I've heard, read and watched of OWS protestors they understand this and seek to either rectify the situation or bring about something new. Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers - I feel - would approve.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Yes, because they wanted a government of the people, by the people for the people. If they wanted it the other way, they would have said, a government for the corporations, etc... But the certainly didn't want no government or some type of pure democracy. The founding fathers got it right, direct democracy and worse, anarchy are both bad ideas.

By the way, TJ was a little off, brilliant, but a little off. He lost the argument on how this government should be structured. The other founding fathers outnumbered him and over ruled him.

Yes, I've been using TJ's line from the D of I.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government

I agree the idea OWS is good, but they got to get some focus, much like TJ and his buddies did, they got organized, formed a strong leadership group, came with actual goals, strategies, a single vision, etc... and eventually won.

This movement needs to dot he same, this formless, leaderless crap has to go.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

or 4, I have a difference of opinion. I understand how this is structured and I don't agree with it, I think it will fail if it remains this way.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Listen, unless you have some form of organization, some form of leadership, with clear goals, with an actual vision, with an actual strategy, you just won't get anywhere. Organization is necessary to get the group rolling in the same direction. Until these things happen you just have a mob, acting randomly, trying to have an effect on all issues all at once. It's chaos and it won't work.

It will fail because it needs to progress forward.

No, your logic does not make sense to me.

[-] 0 points by jeivers (278) 9 years ago

No this is not an anti-christ movement!

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

My conclusion after watching the movement shut down the port in Oakland last night is that yes, this is an anarchist movement. I say that on the grounds that nobody can explain how it makes any sense to shut the port down. Nobody can articulate any kind of message or statement that it was supposed to send. The port was shut down by anarchists who just wanted to see if they could do it, for not other reason than to create disorder. Because that's what anarchists do. If there is no other explanation for why the port was targeted then that's the only one that makes any sense.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Yes, that was a bad move. That's why this thing has to formally organize or it will turn into a mess that will achieve nothing.

[-] -1 points by seeker (242) 9 years ago

If you look at forum rules its clear its more fascist than anarchist.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 9 years ago

Fascism is the melding of State and Corporate powers. You think the forum rules represent that? Grow up!

[-] 1 points by seeker (242) 9 years ago

The forum rules have a bias leaning towards the corporate state policy of stifiling dissent by ignoring/prohibiting information that doesnt fit with the agenda...As stated more fascist than anarchist.. Wake up then you can grow.

[-] 0 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 9 years ago

^^agree with both of these posts vv

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by nikka (228) 9 years ago

It is. Research the founders, and read the GA minutes. It's anarchists all the way down.

[-] 1 points by WarmItUp (301) 9 years ago

This movement was started by adbusters, who for many years have spoken out when corporations go too far with such things as child labor or other injustices against average citizens. It is not even directed at politics so how can it be anarchist. We are for the most part moderates who are angry that corporations like big banks have been gambling with our money and destroying ou reconomy so that they can report short term gains to their board members. This approach to business has obviously hurt them more than it helped. I am pro capitalism as long as it is regulated to prevent the misuse of investors money, that means teachers pensions that were squandered in illegal trading by unregulated hedge fund managers.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

I know the people who started this are, and that the GA format is also right out of the play book. The question I have is, has this thing gotten so big that it is now out of their control. It's funny, but that's one of the major flaws in Anarchy, is that you can't make people stick to of all things, a social structure that is anarchistic. and knowing that humans tend to naturally gravitate to higher forms of organization, do these anarchist still have control of this this thing?

I guess my question is, I know they started it, but do they still control it? And if so, can they maintain this control forever?

[-] -1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 9 years ago

The reason we are in the mess we are in is the flawed view that humans and markets can be controlled by a central power.

[-] 2 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Incorrect, the reason we are in this situation is that the 1%, have purchased direct control over our government, and now make it only work for their narrow interests, at the expense of everyone else, and what's in our own national interest.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 9 years ago

How would we stop that by giving government more power which just increases the incentive to corrupt them?

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Take the money out, and you curb the corruption.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 9 years ago

How would you do it? Every time regulation has been increased business activity in politics has increased. Every law past to control money in politics has made the money go underground and thus invisible.

How do you allow people to support their candidates financially but stop businesses from encouraging donations in certain areas or stop employees from donating personally because they believe certain politicians would be good for their industry and just their own job?

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

It's because we allow the congress to dictate the terms, because we allow them to develop the legislation, that will always have some clever title, but will be riddled with loop holes, because why would they cut off their own funding source. We need to force this change, we need to monitor and maintain this change.

You don't allow people, or corporations, or anyone or anything to support candidates financially. That needs to stop. There is a reason why a police officer is paid a certain amount by the state, and why individuals and businesses can't pay them on the side, especially when they expect favors in return, and why? Because that's bribery.

So it it's bribery, then why do we allow it to dominate our entire political process? Because they write the rules. We need to rewrite these rules and stob what can only be described as bribery.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 9 years ago

Wait so we don't allow people as individuals to give their time or money to candidates they support? That would be a fundamental violation of the right to speech.

Giving money to a campaign is not the same as giving money to a politician - they cannot just pocket campaign money.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

What does giving money, to an elected official have to do with Free Speech?

The bottom line is, that companies, industries, and special interest groups pay millions of dollars, to ensure that policies, legislation, etc... go their way. And it's called legal under the guise of Free Speech. That's not only ridiculous but disgusting.

when the founding father wrote the constitution, and the Bill of rights, I doubt they came up with the 1st amendment to protect the bribery of oue elected officials.

You are either brainwashed, or part of this system.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 9 years ago

I really don't like the idea of the government (made up of politicians) controlling how much the politicians get to give to themselves from the taxpayer.

I am against forcing money to go to things people don't support which is why I find it better (and less infringing of rights) to have people choose to send money or not.

If the positions themselves are democratically chosen why can't monetary support for candidates be done likewise? Also you necessarily have to infringe on individuals rights of property and liberty if you tell them "No you cannot give your property to this person".

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

As long as it's equal and even. No reason a system can be put in place. And to tell you the truth, I think they would like to make decisions based on their actual convictions instead of how much the owe someone. I could be wrong about that, but I think they would welcome that.

I just don't agree with any outside money in the political process. I think it promotes corruption and abuse.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 9 years ago

Well I've worked in campaigns where the total incoming was $5,000. If budgeting is done well a lot can be done but on presidential campaigns they get staff who expect lots of pay and hire on friends...and it burns through cash quickly. Mostly volunteer staff helps avoid a good bit of expense.

Since I already said I think we should ban donations from non-actual-persons I don't know why you're bringing in the idea of oil companies or million dollar donations - we already agree on not allowing that.

I am specifically (stating this for the fourth time) talking about political contributions from individuals and why you don't think they should be allowed.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

I still do not agree. I think the per person thing can be manipulated to funnel money through the system, I think the corps and special interest would just high jack that system as well.

Just like yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected by the 1st amendment, or threatening the President with bodily harm is not protected by the 1st amendment, then donations of any kind, also should not be protected by the 1st amendment and should be completely banned from the political process. Why, because it subverts the will of the people, and destroys the very principals on which this great nation of ours was founded.

We have a mind to think for ourselves, we have a voice to advocate for a particular person, we have a body to do work for a particular candidate, and we have a vote.

Candidates should receive an equal amount from the government to campaign. I'm sure a system could be done. And before you scream about money, a single state of the art fighter jet could pay for an entire election cycle.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 9 years ago

I do all that and I also donate my money because my money amplifies my speech.

Bribery is a payment in return for a favor. Giving a campaign contribution in order to have the candidate you support get to go to events to speak or buy advertising is obviously not bribery. Even at the max contribution of 2,500 how much air time could that buy or radio spots?

Individuals have the right of property, association, and contract. So how would you restrict them doing what they will with their property without infringing on their rights?

Understand I am talking about individuals only not corporations who only exist as legal fictions.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

I'm not talking about your measly $2500, that doesn't amplify anything, with the amount of money rolling in, your money is only a drop in the bucket, and a waste of time I might add, because you are correct, they won't base a single decision off of your money. But the millions that the oil companies, the pharmaceutical companies, etc... Now they get their monies worth, and what's even funnier is that they donate equally to both parties, and the donate millions, now why would they do that? Can you say for a return on investment?

This is not new news, this is not a secret, industries, companies, pay to write favorable legislation for themselves. Wake up and smell the crap already. It stinks.

Check out these 3 sites to see how they pay lots of money to both parties and all candidates. Now again, why would they do that.

http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ

http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw

http://www.opensecrets.org/

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 9 years ago

There is a reason the phrase "put your money where your mouth is" exists. Money is a sign of commitment beyond speech because it is in effect donating one's past time.

Money is speech - that doesn't mean we have to allow non individual legal fiction entities like corporations to be able to speak but we the people must be able to speak in every way.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

Just don't know how money and speech can be confused for the same thing. If you support someone go out and campaign for them, put up signs, talk about them to others, promote them, hell, here's a novel idea, vote for them.

But give them millions of dollars? Not free speech, bribery. They've legalized bribery and told you it is free speech and you bought that.

Maybe I'll use my 1st amendment right to free speech the next time I get pulled over for speeding and slip the officer a $50. I wonder how that will go over.

[-] 0 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 9 years ago

Exactly!

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 9 years ago

That is part of it...but only a small part. More of a symptom than a cause.

[-] 2 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 9 years ago

I see it the exact opposite, the root cause is that our government has been purchased an no longer works in this nations best interest, and that all the other stuff are merely symptoms of this problem.