OWS & anarchism

[trivas7]

I have been to a few #OccupySF General Assemblies and I like what I see. Leaderless and trying to use the consensus process; perhaps it is the anarchist model's turn to have a run at revolution. Physically occupy the commons, then the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PjNOtGWtM_4

[RGacky3]

Yes sir!!!

[Bud Struggle]

When I was in HS I went to something called "Boys State" it was for a week in the summer and what we did was pretend to be legislators and judges and other magistrates and we set up a government and kind of "ran" a make believe state. It was a lot of fun pretending.

It seems like these people are doing something similar. It seems like it's fun, too.

[The Teacher]

Except they aren't kids. If enough people do this IT becomes the status quo.

The funny thing about government, if you ignore it is goes away.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya, I know Bud was trying to make the "just kids playing with their toys" argument, because he's a Debby Downer leading the Poo-Poo Parade to come and ruin everyone's fun :D

But I thought it was an excellent example of how even children can set up their own functioning societies under the democratic method :tt1:

[trivas7]

It seems like these people are doing something similar. It seems like it's fun, too.
Bud, no; in fact consensus process is tedious at best, and disfunctional at worse. It's not much fun at all right now. People are trying to learn it while implementing gender equality, listening to the silent and having respect w/ each other while disagreeing. IMO it presupposes a community with a tradition or a community. Right now we are not a community, but are in the process of building one. Campers, e.g., don't want to participate in General Assembly for the most part right now. That makes it hard when we're dealing with the police and city authorities regarding decisions that affect them.

We are growing, nonetheless. :)

[Bud Struggle]

Bud, no; in fact consensus process is tedious at best, and disfunctional at worse. It's not much fun at all right now. People are trying to learn it while implementing gender equality, listening to the silent and having respect w/ each other while disagreeing. IMO it presupposes a community with a tradition or a community. Right now we are not a community, but are in the process of building one. Campers, e.g., don't want to participate in General Assembly for the most part right now. That makes it hard when we're dealing with the police and city authorities regarding decisions that affect them.

We are growing, nonetheless. :)

Oh sure THAT part of it is different, the processes and proceedures.

It's the play acting that's the same. I will be in NYC the middle of next week and will make an inspection of Occupy Wall Street and see how they are doing.

[trivas7]

It's the play acting that's the same.
No, we're not play acting, we're dead serious. People are committed to civil disobedience and arrest if need be. One person has died already in #OccupySanDiego.

[Bud Struggle]

we're dead serious. .

So were people in Boys State. It doesn't make what you are doing "real." You are a bunch of "kids" setting up a play government for yourselves. There is nothing wrong with that--but what you do doesn't matter in real life to anyone other than you.

Anyway--I'll look at it fo myself and then I'll be able to judge better then.

[Revolution starts with U]

To define real life as "what I am doing" and defining fake life as "what they are doing" is beyond disgusting Bud. But I suppose all those continental congress' in the decades leading up to 1776 were just play acting too...

What's wrong with you Bud? Your posts today seem to be horribly depressing and defeatist? Have a fight with your wife? Daughter decided to pursue a major you don't agree with? We're all here for you Buddy, and we hope you pull out of this funk. :cool:

[Bud Struggle]

To define real life as "what I am doing" and defining fake life as "what they are doing" is beyond disgusting Bud. But I suppose all those continental congress' in the decades leading up to 1776 were just play acting too...

What's wrong with you Bud? Your posts today seem to be horribly depressing and defeatist? Have a fight with your wife? Daughter decided to pursue a major you don't agree with? We're all here for you Buddy, and we hope you pull out of this funk. :cool:

I'm all for this Wall Street thing. I have nothing against it AT ALL. I just think you have to put it in perspective to the real world. I don't think all this "government" and elections and whatever they are doing is anything but a small group of people doing some stuff stuff in a park.

They don't even have a real reason as to why they are there.

I like it, I'm for it--I just don't think there is any substance to the whole movement. There was a lot more substance to the protest in Madisen, and that amounted to nothing.

I wish them luck.

[ComradeMan]

I'm all for this Wall Street thing.

What's the point of occupying something for which you have contempt/don't want to be part of?

What does ths achieve?

:crying:

Render under to Caesar that which is Caesar's......

[Bud Struggle]

What's the point of occupying something for which you have contempt/don't want to be part of?

What does ths achieve?

:crying:

Render under to Caesar that which is Caesar's......

From what I understand "Animal Rights" have a large part in the drama. Of course then, we can't be sure. :)

[ComradeMan]

From what I understand "Animal Rights" have a large part in the drama. Of course then, we can't be sure. :)

:confused: Are we talking about occupying Wall Street here?

Confused!!!

[Sentinel]

When I was in HS I went to something called "Boys State" it was for a week in the summer and what we did was pretend to be legislators and judges and other magistrates and we set up a government and kind of "ran" a make believe state. It was a lot of fun pretending.

It seems like these people are doing something similar. It seems like it's fun, too. I bet that's exactly what the ruling class of Russia thought when they first set up the Soviet of Petrograd. ;)

Of course I'm just kidding, this movement atm obviously isn't even nearly that advanced. But give it some time and the right circumstances..

[RGacky3]

So were people in Boys State. It doesn't make what you are doing "real." You are a bunch of "kids" setting up a play government for yourselves. There is nothing wrong with that--but what you do doesn't matter in real life to anyone other than you.

Anyway--I'll look at it fo myself and then I'll be able to judge better then.

Well obviously it does since there are hundreds getting arrested and the major Capitalists ARE getting worried. (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/03/on-wall-street-a-protest-matures/)


They don't even have a real reason as to why they are there.


Yes they do have a real reason for being there, why don't you listen to them.

As for Madison, 2 state senators were recalled, 3 were up, and believe me that, labor law is not gonna survive the next election, also Madison could in many way be credited for later protests including this one.

Also enough with this showing contempt for every single group, movement or organization that is trying to make the world a better place and poo pooing everything that is trying to democratize the world while at the same time say "oh but I'm all for it."

[Bud Struggle]

Well obviously it does since there are hundreds getting arrested and the major Capitalists ARE getting worried. (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/03/on-wall-street-a-protest-matures/)

The problem is that Wall Street doesn't exist. Yea a lot of business is still don there--but it could be moved in a heartbeat to thousands of nameless faseless undisclosed locations.

Wall Street is in reality--the internet.


Yes they do have a real reason for being there, why don't you listen to them. Really? Where is it written down?


As for Madison, 2 state senators were recalled, 3 were up, and believe me that, labor law is not gonna survive the next election, also Madison could in many way be credited for later protests including this one. Maybe even the riots in London, too. Anyway in Wisconsin 2 out of three didn't do a thing to change the state legislature. So the change in the law isn't going to be changed back for a while.


Also enough with this showing contempt for every single group, movement or organization that is trying to make the world a better place and poo pooing everything that is trying to democratize the world while at the same time say "oh but I'm all for it."

I AM for it. I do think the little people were treated unfairly in this last recession and I do think they have a right to protest and complain. I think the banks are the big problem and they should have been allowed to fail. But that very well might have made matters worse.

Anyway--these people have a right to protest (and a "thank you" to the owners of the land--it is private property--for letting them say there.) Occupy Wall Street is the kind of thing that makes America great--people protesting peacefully.

I sugest they turn their protest into votes just as the Tea Party did.

[RGacky3]

e problem is that Wall Street doesn't exist. Yea a lot of business is still don there--but it could be moved in a heartbeat to thousands of nameless faseless undisclosed locations.

Wall Street is in reality--the internet.


Thats irrelivant, they are protesting the institution ... Its not like its news to people that most of the firms don't operate out of actual Wallstreet.


Really? Where is it written down?


On the signs, on the Occupy Wall Street blogs, the 99% movement, EVERYONE knows what they are about.

Taxing the rich, cutting out corporate money in politics, ending corporate personhood and so on and so forth.


Anyway in Wisconsin 2 out of three didn't do a thing to change the state legislature. So the change in the law isn't going to be changed back for a while.


The riots in london were just that ... riots, riots are not movements, they are what happen when capitalism shits on people and there is no movement.

As far as Wisconsin, believe me, it will be changed back as soon as more people are up for recall.


I AM for it. I do think the little people were treated unfairly in this last recession and I do think they have a right to protest and complain. I think the banks are the big problem and they should have been allowed to fail. But that very well might have made matters worse.

Anyway--these people have a right to protest (and a "thank you" to the owners of the land--it is private property--for letting them say there.) Occupy Wall Street is the kind of thing that makes America great--people protesting peacefully.

I sugest they turn their protest into votes just as the Tea Party did.

A better solution would be to just take over the banks and use their assets to undo the damage they did.

As for your suggestion, you can't compare them to the tea party, the tea party was essencially americans for prosperity, freedom works and a couple other right wing (run by super rich oligarchs) organization's puppet, this is of a totally different nature.

The tea party was nothing before the Koch brothers got invovled, and its basically nothing now that they Koch brothers don't really need it any more. Should they use their votes? Sure, but votes are the least effective of political tools.

[Bud Struggle]

Thats irrelivant, they are protesting the institution ... Its not like its news to people that most of the firms don't operate out of actual Wallstreet.



On the signs, on the Occupy Wall Street blogs, the 99% movement, EVERYONE knows what they are about.

Taxing the rich, cutting out corporate money in politics, ending corporate personhood and so on and so forth. I don't know about that. It seems there are 10,000 people with 10.000 different agendas. I don't see them with any unifying agenda besides for vague sloganeering.


The riots in london were just that ... riots, riots are not movements, they are what happen when capitalism shits on people and there is no movement. Maybe or it could be about spoiled kids getting kicks by destroying and looting.


As far as Wisconsin, believe me, it will be changed back as soon as more people are up for recall. Maybe, mabe not. I don't think either side could feel very say with wha is going on. BTW: there again--I AGREE with the protesters. Once contracts are agreed to, they shouldn't be changed.


A better solution would be to just take over the banks and use their assets to undo the damage they did. The government running the banks wuld be just as big, if not bigger disaster. The banks need to be reulated and not allowed to get too big.


As for your suggestion, you can't compare them to the tea party, the tea party was essencially americans for prosperity, freedom works and a couple other right wing (run by super rich oligarchs) organization's puppet, this is of a totally different nature.

The tea party was nothing before the Koch brothers got invovled, and its basically nothing now that they Koch brothers don't really need it any more. Should they use their votes? Sure, but votes are the least effective of political tools. No I think both the OWS and the Tea Party are real reflections of the fustations that a lot of Americans are having with government in general. Some people take a ultra conservative bend and some take a liberal bend. Both are equally looking for some sort of change.

There are still a LOT of beat up pick up trucks with "Palin" stickers on them. Yea the Koch Brothers were in on the financing but the TP struck a real chord in the hearts of working class America--it remains to be seen if the OWC will do to the same, or just be a flash in the pan.

Personally, I would like them to succeed.

[danyboy27]

I have been to a few #OccupySF General Assemblies and I like what I see. Leaderless and trying to use the consensus process; perhaps it is the anarchist model's turn to have a run at revolution. Physically occupy the commons, then the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PjNOtGWtM_4

great to hear! the whole concept of re-creating democracy and political structures is what lead most of the time to succesfull revolutions.

I might be overly optimistic, but i cant wait for the first public building to be occupied.

Beccause with the mean of communication we have right now, such action in time like these could create a domino effect.

i bet a lot of people would be participating right now if taking over the commons would be the objective.

[Dean]

The problem is that Wall Street doesn't exist. Yea a lot of business is still don there--but it could be moved in a heartbeat to thousands of nameless faseless undisclosed locations.

Wall Street is in reality--the internet.

No. Case in point - HFT use the internet to interface with the NYSE servers and make high frequency trades. The timing is so important that a whole floor above the NYSE is being remodeled to accommodate these traders. The rise of internet trading has led to a greater accumulation of trading facilities at the NYSE site.

Furthermore, Deutsche Boerse puchased the NYSE and it doesn't seem to have relocated any of the facilities to Germany.


Really? Where is it written down?

Maybe even the riots in London, too. Anyway in Wisconsin 2 out of three didn't do a thing to change the state legislature. So the change in the law isn't going to be changed back for a while.



I AM for it. I do think the little people were treated unfairly in this last recession and I do think they have a right to protest and complain. I think the banks are the big problem and they should have been allowed to fail. But that very well might have made matters worse.

Anyway--these people have a right to protest (and a "thank you" to the owners of the land--it is private property--for letting them say there.) Occupy Wall Street is the kind of thing that makes America great--people protesting peacefully.

I sugest they turn their protest into votes just as the Tea Party did.

The TP has always been about votes, white paranoia and identification with an extremist clique within the upper class. It has always been an attempt to frame the recession as a consequence of black welfare and white disempowerment. It fits into the narrative beaten into the rural population which is isolated, clinging to their television to tell them about the world.

And transforming the OWS movement into a voting movement will do no good. Obama and the Democrats want nothing less than the expansion of the power of Wall Street. The Republicans have similar goals. The only votes that would suit any movement that is for people power cannot be cast in our current democratic systems.

[trivas7]

They don't even have a real reason as to why they are there.

I like it, I'm for it--I just don't think there is any substance to the whole movement. There was a lot more substance to the protest in Madisen, and that amounted to nothing.

You don't get it, Bud. In all humility we are admitting we don't know how to fix the system, no one does -- so why even bother with it? Let's try something different entirely: here's how.

[RGacky3]

I don't know about that. It seems there are 10,000 people with 10.000 different agendas. I don't see them with any unifying agenda besides for vague sloganeering.


A: They are not an organization with the tea-party getting all its orders from the Koch brothers.

B: THey don't have a single agenda, the have an overall message, and imo thats more important.


Maybe or it could be about spoiled kids getting kicks by destroying and looting.


Yeah :rolleyes:, its spoiled kids living the slums of london, its spoiled kids who have had a great future just getting kicks.

Its funny that when the economy fails all the personalityu problems that capitalists calim poor people have suddenly come out ... NOOO it can't be systemic problems, it must be that all these poor people have persoanlity problems.


The government running the banks wuld be just as big, if not bigger disaster. The banks need to be reulated and not allowed to get too big.


Really? Then why is it that when it was tried in other countries it worked?

BTW, the banks would not get bigger because the government would use their assets and run the banks as non profits.


No I think both the OWS and the Tea Party are real reflections of the fustations that a lot of Americans are having with government in general. Some people take a ultra conservative bend and some take a liberal bend. Both are equally looking for some sort of change.


Except the Tea Party was entirely funded by a few right wing billionares, and their numbers rediculously inflated, and they have a whole TV network behind them, a bunch of the most powerful people in the world behind them and a political party, the Tea Party was Astro-Turf, OWS is real.

I'll tell you the Koch brothers were behind the Tea-Party, who's behind OWS?


There are still a LOT of beat up pick up trucks with "Palin" stickers on them. Yea the Koch Brothers were in on the financing but the TP struck a real chord in the hearts of working class America--it remains to be seen if the OWC will do to the same, or just be a flash in the pan.

Personally, I would like them to succeed.

If the Koch brothers had'nt pumped up the TP you would have never heard of them.

[Bud Struggle]

A: They are not an organization with the tea-party getting all its orders from the Koch brothers.

B: THey don't have a single agenda, the have an overall message, and imo thats more important. Fine the Koch Brothers donated some--maybe a lot of money. But the movement found a home with people...the Tea Party is for real.


Yeah :rolleyes:, its spoiled kids living the slums of london, its spoiled kids who have had a great future just getting kicks. Well whatever it dod it accomplished nothing--expect probably put even more strict rules in place for the assembly for the British people.



Really? Then why is it that when it was tried in other countries it worked?

BTW, the banks would not get bigger because the government would use their assets and run the banks as non profits. Like where Greece or Spain or Portugal or Italy? Besides, that's no the American system. Just because it works somewhere doesn't mean it is right for America. Same goes fo healthcare. I have no problem with people getting universal healthcare--I do have a problem with me being FORCED to suscibe to it if I don't want it.


Except the Tea Party was entirely funded by a few right wing billionares, and their numbers rediculously inflated, and they have a whole TV network behind them, a bunch of the most powerful people in the world behind them and a political party, the Tea Party was Astro-Turf, OWS is real. Who cares how it was founded. It is real--I live in Florida with a Tea Party governor and believe me--he is quite real. And for what it's worh --he;s reasonably popular. IAnyway it doesn't matter how "real" anything is--all that matters is if it WORKS.

Remember we are supposed to be maerialists not idealists.


I'll tell you the Koch brothers were behind the Tea-Party, who's behind OWS?

If the Koch brothers had'nt pumped up the TP you would have never heard of them.That really doesn't matter. I think you are having of your "fixations" on the Koch Brothers--just like the Righ Wingers have on George Soros. But no mater--they are here and they are an ACTIVE political force in America. They aren't a bunch of people sitting in a park somewhere.

Good intentions matter for nothing. All that matters is power.

[Bud Struggle]

No. Case in point - HFT use the internet to interface with the NYSE servers and make high frequency trades. The timing is so important that a whole floor above the NYSE is being remodeled to accommodate these traders. The rise of internet trading has led to a greater accumulation of trading facilities at the NYSE site.

Furthermore, Deutsche Boerse puchased the NYSE and it doesn't seem to have relocated any of the facilities to Germany. But you seeyou ae talking about worker bees. Not the people with the real power and the eal money. Besides any of that could be moved anywhere else. And further besides--the OWS isn't really stopping anyone from doing business.




The TP has always been about votes, white paranoia and identification with an extremist clique within the upper class. It has always been an attempt to frame the recession as a consequence of black welfare and white disempowerment. It fits into the narrative beaten into the rural population which is isolated, clinging to their television to tell them about the world.

And transforming the OWS movement into a voting movement will do no good. Obama and the Democrats want nothing less than the expansion of the power of Wall Street. The Republicans have similar goals. The only votes that would suit any movement that is for people power cannot be cast in our current democratic systems.

Votes are ALL THAT MATERS.

[RGacky3]

Fine the Koch Brothers donated some--maybe a lot of money. But the movement found a home with people...the Tea Party is for real.


then why was it nothing before the Koch Brothers, and why was every single policy of theirs the exact same as the Koch brothers?


Well whatever it dod it accomplished nothing--expect probably put even more strict rules in place for the assembly for the British people.


No shit, it did'nt accomplish anything ... It was a riot.


Like where Greece or Spain or Portugal or Italy? Besides, that's no the American system. Just because it works somewhere doesn't mean it is right for America. Same goes fo healthcare. I have no problem with people getting universal healthcare--I do have a problem with me being FORCED to suscibe to it if I don't want it.


None of those countries nationalized their banking systems.

Nothing is special about America, if it works everywhere else, it will probably work for America too, there is no "american system," healthcare in the US sucks, no matter how you look at it, public healthcare is better on every front, nationalizing the banks would work in the US as well, economically speaking.

I'm talking economics when I say that, not what is "ameican" or not.


Who cares how it was founded. It is real--I live in Florida with a Tea Party governor and believe me--he is quite real. And for what it's worh --he;s reasonably popular. IAnyway it doesn't matter how "real" anything is--all that matters is if it WORKS.

Remember we are supposed to be maerialists not idealists.


Materialists look behind and see the material conditions behind things, such as the tea party, which is astro-turf, the actual numbers are small, and the money is huge, and yeah you have a tea-party governer (who is driving that state into the ground), but that does'nt say shit about whether or not is an actaul grass roots movement.


That really doesn't matter. I think you are having of your "fixations" on the Koch Brothers--just like the Righ Wingers have on George Soros. But no mater--they are here and they are an ACTIVE political force in America. They aren't a bunch of people sitting in a park somewhere.

Good intentions matter for nothing. All that matters is power.

Its not just the Koch Brothers, but they are the most visible and loud of the bunch.

They are an active policitcal force because they are buying politics, don't try and pretend like both OWS and the tea party are the same grass roots type organization because they are not.

[ComradeMan]

You don't get it, Bud. In all humility we are admitting we don't know how to fix the system, no one does -- so why even bother with it? Let's try something different entirely: here's how.

Good point. I think it's pointless;



for people who de facto do not agree with the capitalist system to try and suggest ways to improve the capitalist system;



for people to criticise capitalists unnecessarily for functioning successfully within the capitalist mode of production;



for capitalists to try and pretend or imply that the capitalist mode of production is not capitalist by definition.

The argument here is not about individuals, corporations or about demonising people and entities (other than perhaps in extreme rogue cases) but rather about the mode of production, i.e. the system, in place and how to present alternatives to that system.

[RGacky3]

Votes are ALL THAT MATERS.

Bull shit, votes have NEVER gotten though progressive reform, the only thing that has, historically has been direct action.

Votes got us obama, direct action got us FDR.


And further besides--the OWS isn't really stopping anyone from doing business.


Would you rather they do?

[Bud Struggle]

Bull shit, votes have NEVER gotten though progressive reform, the only thing that has, historically has been direct action.

Votes got us obama, direct action got us FDR. You really believe that? To be hones I though Obama was going to be more of a FDR than a George Bush Lite (or Dark, is you want to go by race.)




Would you rather they do? That's exactly the point. They are an entertainment. Or at least that's the way they are portrayed in the media--"Look the circus has come to town."

[RGacky3]

You really believe that? To be hones I though Obama was going to be more of a FDR than a George Bush Lite (or Dark, is you want to go by race.)


Everyone on the radical left knew Obama was gonna be a corporate dog, he talked like a progressive, but we follow the money, not the votes, watch the documentary "then investment theory of politics."

And I do believe that because its true, it has NEVER come because of votes, FDR only started changing stuff when unions and leftist organizations threatened to revolt.


That's exactly the point. They are an entertainment. Or at least that's the way they are portrayed in the media--"Look the circus has come to town."

And that should tell you something, when protesters were outside the whitehouse during Nixons presidency, in public they discounted them, said they don't matter and so on, but the Nixon tapes tell us he was very worried about the impact.

The fact that the media treats them with disdain should tell you that the ruling class is worried. The tea party has a lot more to make fun of, yet the mainstreat media did'nt, why? Because the tea party was aiding power not challenging it, and becaues the tea party was corporate made.

[RGacky3]

Almost 40% of the protesters believe Capitalism is fundementally flawed and cannot be saved. (http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/topic/occupy-wall-street-2011-10/)

[ComradeMan]

Almost 40% of the protesters believe Capitalism is fundementally flawed and cannot be saved. (http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/topic/occupy-wall-street-2011-10/)

So over 60% of the "protesters" don't believe that capitalism is flawed and therefore believe it can be saved????? :confused:

[RGacky3]

most of the others said Capitalism needs to be regulated, the rest did'nt answer.

After decades and decades of propeganda against ANYTHING socialist and pro everything market, its pretty amazing.

[ComradeMan]

most of the others said Capitalism needs to be regulated, the rest did'nt answer. After decades and decades of propeganda against ANYTHING socialist and pro everything market, its pretty amazing.

So after decades and decades of capitalism, when things go bad.... people start protesting against capitalism, but the majority view is that capitalism is not to be abolished. :confused:

[RGacky3]

See the American experience since the red scare ... with one of hte most advanced propeganda systems in history.

[Bud Struggle]

See the American experience since the red scare ... with one of hte most advanced propeganda systems in history.

Yea, but Communism in the USSR did suck. It was the Communist that built the Berlin Wall. It was the Communists that rolled into Hungary and Prague. It was the Communists that had the KGB and the Gulags.

And further, the Iron Curtain countries had the EXACT same scare system against the Free World.

As I always said, Stalin was the best thing that ever happened to Capitalism.

[Bud Struggle]

Almost 40% of the protesters believe Capitalism is fundementally flawed and cannot be saved. (http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/topic/occupy-wall-street-2011-10/)

Can't disagree with you there, Brother.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/MercutioTomK/Decorated%20images/138748047VkIQyg4UPbase_OccupyWallSteet_DSC7295.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/MercutioTomK/Decorated%20images/1387481077Q9mLFS4Pbase_OccupyWallSteet_DSC7352.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/MercutioTomK/Decorated%20images/138748075YblayoE9Pbase_OccupyWallSteet_DSC7305.jpg

[trivas7]

That's exactly the point. They are an entertainment. Or at least that's the way they are portrayed in the media--"Look the circus has come to town."
The corporate media’s imperative to settle on a few demands from OWS is a red herring. If it was not that they would use something else to discredit us.

[Bud Struggle]

The corporate media’s imperative to settle on a few demands from OWS is a red herring. If it was not that they would use something else to discredit us.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/MercutioTomK/Decorated%20images/138748038UnlD9ubp.jpg


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/MercutioTomK/Decorated%20images/138790895LzHhaqqV.jpg

[the desire to rebel]

Guys, there seems to be some heavy disagreements between anarchists and the rest of the occupiers, check out this article on libcom:

Baby, We’re All Anarchists Now - Malcolm Harris

I got a certain amount of shit for cosigning this Cimethinc. “Letter from Anarchists” to occupiers, but what really strikes me is that anarchists and occupiers have become two distinct–albeit overlapping–groups. It’s become even more apparent in the streets. When I was at Occupy DC over the weekend, a guy who I would guess circles his A’s complained about being pushed from the street into the police-protected march by another occupier. I’ve seen the same thing happen in New York, and I’m willing to bet it’s happened elsewhere. There have been rumors out of Chicago that some occupiers have printed out flyers with the names and pictures of “known anarchists,” and certain committee members at Wall Street have grumbled about rooting out autonomous actors. In this context, the Crimethinc. letter seems restrained:

“Don’t assume those who break the law or confront police are agents provocateurs. A lot of people have good reason to be angry. Not everyone is resigned to legalistic pacifism; some people still remember how to stand up for themselves. Police violence isn’t just meant to provoke us, it’s meant to hurt and scare us into inaction. In this context, self-defense is essential.

Assuming that those at the front of clashes with the authorities are somehow in league with the authorities is not only illogical—it delegitimizes the spirit it takes to challenge the status quo, and dismisses the courage of those who are prepared to do so. This allegation is typical of privileged people who have been taught to trust the authorities and fear everyone who disobeys them.”

What’s most frightening, besides snitching among occupiers, is that these marshals and peacekeepers are acting in the name of the occupation. When they yell or push at people to get them to stay walking on the sidewalk like tourists, they invoke a structure bigger than themselves, one that has supposedly empowered them to do so. To trouble this representational claim, I want to go back to a beginning: the first planning meeting for the September 17 action that would become Occupy Wall Street.

To be honest, I got guilted into going by a friend, otherwise I wouldn’t have bothered responding to a call from Adbusters and going into lower Manhattan for a meeting. The people who had prepared for the meeting were a coalition of non-profits, established activist coalitions, and a certain socialist organization. Despite calling it a “general assembly” supposedly modeled on the Spanish protests, they had a microphone stand and an agenda of speakers. Some of us were bored, and having sat though too many of these audience-less press conferences in the past decade, weren’t able to fake the necessary enthusiasm. A group of mostly strangers wandered to the entrance of the park a little ways away from the microphone and sat down. We traded names and started to chat about why we were there. After a few minutes, we were drawing the audience away from the microphone. One of the coalition organizers came and begged us to rejoin the group, and we grumbled and walked back over. But it quickly became apparent nothing was about to change, so we returned to our circle and began a facilitated meeting.

At first we had five, then 15, and then the microphone meeting had collapsed and the whole group had joined the circle. It shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s experienced with leftist activism that the group of discontents included a bunch of anarchists and anti-authoritarians who are used to a certain horizontal process of talking and decision-making in a group. It’s called consensus, it often involves twinkling fingers to signal agreement, and it’s useful for deciding things like “Which park should we occupy?” The basis for that first meeting, for the sequence of events, was a walking away from organizers. By now consensus and the oft-mocked twinkling fingers have become part of a common language on the left, but now some people without a background in the process are using it as a means of control.

Autonomous action has been the engine of Occupy Wall Street, providing what Hendrick Hertzberg describes as two of the three “shots of adrenaline” — the third coming from a deranged senior police officer. Instead of providing a basis for discourse and autonomous action, the General Assembly has become a tool of imposed accountability, treating consensus as if it were a way to implement policy upon a population. In addition to the police, occupiers now have to worry about getting harassed or undermined by self-appointed guardians of the non-violent movement. Try chanting something that deviates from the friendly universalist “99%” line and see what happens.

Listen: I think your permitted sidewalk march is cowardly, boring, and harms the sequence’s revolutionary potential, but you don’t see me shoving anyone into the street.

Now don’t fucking touch me or any of my friends, the cops can manage that all by themselves.

Representative politics asks people to act through their name, whether as a vote (for a politician, a union rep, etc.) or as a protesting signature. Non-representative politics, (under which I group anarchists, autonomists, anti-authoritarians, anti-political negationists, various insurrectionary communists, and ultra-leftists of a few stripes) is premised on the necessity of acting with your body itself, whether through your legs, arms, vocal chords, fingers, whatever. The latter is threatening as hell, especially to the professional left which is thrust into the conservative position of defending its requisitioned authority. Witness the giant anarchist-shaped aporia in Jodi Dean’s call for professional revolutionaries to protect the occupation from Democrats and Ron-Pauliens.

These managers are making a classic mistake, which is informed by the way the left has come to think about leaders. People who feel comfortable taking on managerial roles tend to think the folks they’re managing are more afraid and less militant than they are themselves. It’s always the masses that aren’t ready. As Dean writes: communists at Wall Street should “not push too quickly for something for which the proper support has not yet been built.” The potential action here isn’t doing, it’s “pushing” others. Maybe people will never be ready to get pushed around in the name of not getting pushed around anymore.

The standard argument at this point is that non-representative politics sounds nice, but that it’s tactically or strategically unfeasible. Unfortunately, that’s not really a defensible argument since the left has finally broken into the national consciousness by adopting the tactics, strategy, and slogans of a group of left-communist insurrectionaries at the Universities of California. So the new explanation, as offered by Todd Gitlin (seriously, who in the hell rang his bell on this one?) is that we did it on accident: ”Having set out to be expressive, the anarchists have found themselves playing, willy-nilly, a most strategic role.” He’s confusing the people who have adopted an anarchist process (which is everyone involved) and the folks who have been building this analysis for a while.

Not to go all Glenn Beck on you, but The Coming Insurrection and a bunch of other similar texts did get passed around the autonomist left in America in the last three or four years. We’re not talking about “expressive” drum-circle denizens here, these are people who have built and are acting according to a revolutionary analysis. But it’s not just theory nerds and self-identified anarchists who ignored the frantically waving marshals and got arrested; Take the bridge! is an accessible message and it was produced by the opportunity. We certainly didn’t need a French pamphlet to figure that one out.

And what is it exactly people want to do with their unrepresentable limbs? The capitalists aren’t so sure it’s the non-violent shuffle:

“An online ‘Occupy Threat Center’ created by ListenLogic says the company’s analysis of ‘over one million social media posts’ indicates a significant increases in all of the following:

-Social media activity from Occupy supporters and activists promoting physical destruction and violent action.

-Direct and specific threats from Occupy ‘hacktivist’ groups against specific financial and law enforcement targets.

-Social media posts, videos and images targeting: financial institutions that issue mortgages and student loans and that initiate foreclosures; corporate entities that received bailout money or government subsidies; companies that pay high executive salaries or bonuses; and companies perceived to be paying extremely low taxes.

ListenLogic is detecting, he says, a change in the tone of discourse about the so-called 1 percent richest Americans.

There still are postings that talk about taxing the 1 percent more severely or even throwing them in jail. ‘But then,’ says Schiavone, ‘there’s an increase in ‘let’s kill’ them. We see ‘eat the rich,’ ‘kill the wealthy.’ There are images circulating of senior executives being decapitated, images of blood. Artists are releasing images of banks on fire.’”

The managers keep people in check, but we’ve achieved real gains when the occupation broadly considered shakes off its representatives and sets to our task with our own hands. We’re already seeing the power that comes with a more horizontal process, don’t let leaders fuck that up by assuming representative roles.

And stop pushing back onto the sidewalk.


source: xxx.libcom.org/library/baby-we%E2%80%99re-all-anarchists-now-malcolm-harris (can´t post links yet, sorry).

[ComradeMan]

Can't disagree with you there, Brother.
<Photos> Especially No3.

"No free photos, fuck off or get hurt".

Capitalism? Charging for photos at an anti-capitalism demo? :laugh:

[Jimmie Higgins]

If enough people do this IT becomes the status quo.

The funny thing about government, if you ignore it is goes away.No, if you ignore it, they can continue doing whatever they want unopposed.

The people who run places like the US do not want real democracy, and in a nutshell, these kinds of things are real democracy in the sense of being people making decisions at about their own lives and their own movement. But consensus, IMO is actually harmful for this because it is not a good model outside of small affinity groups where people more or less agree - there is no 99% of the population who can reach consensus. Consensus is a recipie from a time when our movements were small and scattered, but if we really want workers and "the 99%" to feel ownership and engagement in these kinds of things, then the movement will have to learn how to have transparent and open decision-making bodies and processes as well as be able to make decisions quickly. Maybe you can have consensus decision-making when trying to decide on a port-o-potty plan or trash collection, but not when the cops come in and say in 5 minutes they are disbanding the camp and decaring it illegal. What then? In consensus-based organizations in my experience, it then comes down to an unelected non-transparent clique who make the decision. It would be better to have an elected group than just informal connections for these kinds of decisions.

If we want government to go away then we have to have a force that can oppose it - IMO that force is popular democratic decision-making by working class people in their communities and workplaces... but this doesn't mean finding alternatives or ignoring the system, it means confronting it, and having open and democratic structures now will help us place popular democracy at the center of this movement and help the working class teach itself how to achieve self-emancipation and self-rule.

[Bud Struggle]

"No free photos, fuck off or get hurt".

Capitalism? Charging for photos at an anti-capitalism demo? :laugh:

Anarchy always evolves into raw Capitalism.

I think I AM an Anarchist. :D

[RGacky3]

Anarchy always evolves into raw Capitalism.

I think I AM an Anarchist. http://www.revleft.com/vb/ows-anarchism-t162661/revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif

Never has happened, anytime there has been anarchism (more or less) it never devolved into capitalism.

[Bud Struggle]

Never has happened, anytime there has been anarchism (more or less) it never devolved into capitalism.

It always disappears in the blink of an eye.

Edit: Actually that's not true. The Anarchism that's been going on in the Congo has been there for some time.

[RGacky3]

It always disappears in the blink of an eye.


Its only ever dissapeared due to military violence ... EVERY SINGE TIME.

As for the congo, your trying to tell me Congo has no authoritarian class system??

[Bud Struggle]

Its only ever dissapeared due to military violence ... EVERY SINGE TIME.

As for the congo, your trying to tell me Congo has no authoritarian class system??

Individuals may try to exert power over others, but the country itself has no working authoritarian structure. My guess is that in the same way that Communism decends into state capitalism Anarchy decends into that which is the Congo.

They are nice ideas that fall apart rather quickly in the real world.

[RGacky3]

Anarchism does'nt mean just no government.

Actual anarchism, organized, has never decented into Chaos, the COngo was'nt anarchism.