Forum Post: A question for the anarchist on the site, are we talking load up on ammo and take turns guarding the door?
Posted 11 years ago on May 8, 2012, 9:42 a.m. EST by factsrfun
(8310)
from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It has been a long time since I read “Revolution for the Hell of It” and as I recall Hoffman was not a good writer, but I may not know what the modern anarchist is looking for.
I guess I’m saying that I like watching Mad Maxx movies, but I don’t want to live in one, nor do I want my grandchildren to either.
THE POINT & WHY WE MUST GET TO IT
The traditional Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative, Democrat/Republican dichotomy is a false and failing paradigm propagated by the powers-that-be to perpetuate division. The true political spectrum is not a straight line but a circle: There is a point where Far Left meets Far Right, where Anarchism merges with Libertarianism and these and the rest of our outmoded labels melt away. In that point must we place our hope, for only from that point can we build a better future.
NO MORE LEFT. NO MORE RIGHT. TIME TO UNITE. STAND AND FIGHT!
IronBoltBruce
Really! This forum has become a leftie rightie pissin contest. Can't make a better country if we can't get over these labels and work together.
Hop on board buddy. Welcome in.
Help us all out and vote out any politician that works with this organization.
http://alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed
Ds, Rs, it doesn't matter if they run with ALEC, vote 'em the hell out.
Can you agree with this simple request?
Yes
You can find full lists on the site.
Thanks for your support.
This is the silliest thing I have read in a while. What you are saying is that cutting taxes at some point is the same as raising taxes, the concept of permitting abortion will at some point meet banning abortion. That legislating against homosexuality will at a certain point be accepting of it. And the polar opposite of Anarchism is not Libertarianism. But, you know, style over substance rocks.
Libertarianism is just Anarchy for rich people...
http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ll1hzvRkDH1qztsh3o1_500.gif
LOL.
Good morning, thanks for stopping by, katotohanan's style sucks as far I can see, it's sing song nonsense, peace comes from a disciplined mind, I know of few who have it that wish to govern over every little thing, each to serve their purpose, the monks I have known were not anarchist.
All Aboard The : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO84xt_ydB8&feature=related (Dolly) & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sxfuFBOy-s (Cat) !!!
fiat justitia et fiat pax ...
yes I like peace too, but I am not sure that less law and order brings more peace, I have been involed in thousands reaching their inner peace but still I believe socity needs order, do you disagree?
No and do you believe that 'High Finance Kaputalism' radically and urgently "needs order" too ?! Isn't that how and why we are all here ?!! Why these specious and tendentious 'non-debates' about the dreaded "A Word", d'you think ?!!!
ad iudicium ...
You do seen to engage in non debates a bit I agree there, still not getting a sense of your solutions or where you want to lead or at least suggest that we do to fix this problem.
I belive the solution to our current problem will come from a better undrstanding of money it's purpose and what should be its limits.
Fix what "problem" ?! Do you mean the 'A' word ?!! Could it be considered that The 'non debate' to which we both allude is somewhat instigated and/or perpetuated by your anxious and rhetorical question in the title of your forum-post ?!!!
I thoroughly agree with your second paragraph and if you wish for some idea of my attempt at debate on the matter of Money and 'Public Banking', then I genuinely recommend the thread following this forum-post : http://occupywallst.org/forum/numberd-money-a-possible-ows-demand-and-what-money/ .
multum in parvo ...
Well as I see it the central problem is the concentration of wealth to the point that it has distorted our society to benefit the few instead of the many.
I agree with you and wholeheartedly recommend both those very interesting forum-posts and the subsequent threads, which I had seen previously. 'Out of the box thinking' is needed everywhere.
pax, amor et lux ...
thank you shadz, common ground where we find it, I do admire the energy that can be derived from the feeling of rebellion, it is a force to be reckoned with and one which often drives the changes needed, keep doing what your heart tells you...
Take the narrow-eyed green-teethed trailer-trash Skinheads out of the Tea Party ... and take the whiney live-with-their-Mom no-real-clue Marxists out of the Occupy Movement ... and what you have left could very well be the kernel of a new America and - with our endless wars for profit and oil terminated - a new World.
do you even know what the hell your talking about?
Here’s a couple of takes I put up recently:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-about-a-few-fundamentals-about-capitalism/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/fundamentals-of-capitalism-part-two/
routine is useful,
I know I will see my friends tonight as I do every wednesday
,
breaking routine forces us to stop and consider "what now?"
Support the 99% ... demand elections be national and state holidays
trust is as well, but hard when so often abused
Bullshit,labels are a fact of life. People are on the "Left" for a reason,it aptly describes their political,social etc. belief's/ideology and the same for people on the right. People won't 'unite" with other people who do not support or share the same belief's as they do.
These are the facts and your political powers paradigm propagated to perpetuate perpetual pandemonium is perplexing in its pathetic petulant paganish pomposity and piggishly non-pragmatic in perpetuity.
OK so afterwards do I load up on ammo? This looks like spirual thoughts but I don't see how what you say works, where does the consitution fit in?
[Removed]
The people jeering "Repelican't" are drowning out your sentiment.
I always hate to admit it, but Robert Heinlein was right:
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."
That wasn't Heinlein, apparently the only author you've ever read, it was Mark Twain.
I was waiting for that. It was Heinlein, not Twain. Google better and deeper, GypsyClown.
Google schmoogle.
Your best poetry yet, GypsyClown...
Yes, you are clearly annoyed.
LOL
He can't sing either........:)
He's got no rhythm.
Oh - thank you I needed a chuckle and it was getting so depressing watching these a-holes posting so much BS with so few stepping up to slap em.
Our house (R)epelican'ts like 'em..............Makes it kind of obvious, what he's all about, doesn't it?
All of the trolls for their various reasons (?) are obvious. Even the ones who start out acting like supporters of the movements against greed corruption and crime.
It must be very frustrating for you that you can't just stick your tongue out at people here. Of course, you'd never dream of doing that to us in person...
These partisan leftists who fight so hard against the idea of transcending the left/right dichotomy are a big part of why the 1% are the 1%.
Well, I read the websites of katotohanan, and I have yet found any solutions to our dilemma. Sure he believes that the two party system is a farce, but where is the new direction he expects us to go? I believe there are a lot of middle class Americans who are content with the binary arrangement we have. As long as the bases of the two parties are strong there really is no third way. To vote for the third way, with out a strong base is to just throw your vote away.
The way I see it there is no difference from not voting or from voting for a third party, either way you are strengthening the two party system. Once someone starts railing for a different election system, say proportional representation or direct democracy, then I'll think about playing a different game. Until then, the name of the game is keeping the most detrimental party out of Washington, and all other ideas are just utopian non sense. Also the fact that Katotohanan is so disrespectful to all other ideas makes me believe he is one of those rabble rousers that is not looking for a better solution, but is looking to see a real revolution. I have too many loved ones who are happy with their life to see his dream become reality. Playing politics is something i enjoy doing. Playing revolutionary is something I put to rest when I grew out of my teens.
Voting for a third party or Independent sends the message that we will fight.
Not voting sends the message we have given up the fight.
Voting for the lesser of two evils strengthens the message that the fight can never be won.
This isn't poker, you can't bluff your way out of this one.
Voting for a third party or independent is no bluff. Out of the three choices, it is the only one that will begin to defeat the corporate grip on Democracy.
Interesting, that is something to think about.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/common-ground-one-way-forward-there-should-be-no-c/
Spoken by a partisan Rightist.
You have been down on Occupy since day one.
The dichotomy you are trying to create within this movement has no meaning, and simply plays into the hands of those on the right, and you know it.
I would have called out partisans on both sides but there aren't really a lot of conservatives in attendance. Most of the partisanship on this site comes from the left because they're the only people here.
I disagree. I see no Rightist content in the comment you challenge. And I've been here since day one and seen no evidence that this poster is trying to creates any dichotomy other than the necessary one between real Occupy Protesters and Democratic Party Posers.
I see plenty of rightist content in all of your postings, aside from the fact you have a PR firm that you want us to believe you are running out of the goodness of your own heart, supposedly to not divide this movement.
All I can hope is that people can see through this stuff. It's not that hard.
Put Up, or Shut Up:
Post an example of this alleged "rightist content", GypsyKing, including a link to the source.
Any example will do...
Exactly
[Removed]
Yes,
They are a primary contributing factor to their longevity...
It's mostly mildly amusing, wondering how long before you get banned again.
Lunatic that you are, you will likely come back and try the same thing again and expect a different result.
Voting in false-choice rigged elections with predetermined outcomes is lunacy...
Like I said....Tell that to the States with teabagger remorse.
It's made a world of difference. You're just repeating yourself like an idiot.
(R)epelican'ts have always been a false choice. Every time.
Well, we know what this PR firm is hired to do anyway.
Which PR firm? Who hired them? And what were they hired to do?
As are the Democrats. EVERY TIME.
If it isn't already obvious, verdade and katotohanan - an, are the same person, so now he's talking to himself. I don't trust people who talk to themself.
Not really. It's the (R)eplican'ts and the teabaggers. Funded by those libe(R)tarian Koch brothers.
Why don't you go tell them your sack of BS?
It's the libe(R)tarians that have been fucking things up all along, you douche.
"Not really".
That's it?!? You just post "Not really" and that's supposed to be substantive?
But what am I saying? You have no clue what "substantive" means, do you?
I'm tired of repeating myself Bruce.
Here's an exercise for you.
Find me 916 anti-womens rights bills passed by dems.
Find me a bill passed by dems that makes it a felony to photograph a "factory" farm, even from public property.
Go ahead......find 'em.
Our focus is to rid this forum of Demopublican [that means Democratic AND Republican] plants. You are clearly here to promote the Democratic Party, Shooz, but I am convinced now that you are too stupid to be one of their "official" plants. So until I suspect otherwise, AMF.
[Removed]
I have read the "About" tab and several other documents on this site and haven't found a single instance of the use of the term "Anarchist". Why do you suppose that is is?
There were a lot of statements welcoming people who perceive that there are problems with our current governance, not just those that had decided that governance itself was a bad thing. Have i missed something?
anarchy is a rather broad term.
generally the political philosophy is referring to a society that avoids the use of coercion, violence, force or authority in its functioning structures. chaos and anarchy are rather different things, though in america great lengths have been gone to attempting to equate the two,. such as your post here. The corporate-fascist right recognizes the threat of ideology that renders it;s own useless, and lashes out constantly, as we experience in this here forum,. thanks for proving the point.
your welcome,
Might we talk about coercion for a moment would this mean no taxation of any kind?
we can have no taxation, when we eliminate private ownership and property. till then there will always be some form of taxation, as the few will continue to take more than their share. taxing the rich keeps power/greed in check.
How is this done with no coercion at all?
You are referring to the "avoids the use of coercion, violence, force or authority in its functioning structures" idea,. see the word 'avoids',. that one means that some times you get closer to the thing you are avoiding, and some times further,. there is no elimination of anything, just social organisation more in balance with humanity and the universe,. as opposed to what we have now; an unbalanced system toppling in on itself, over and over in slow motion.
We can avoid coercion in this instance by creating systems that do no conflict with the old ways that can then just be forgotten by the people,. the 1% will be left trying to run a pyramid scam with no lower levels,. . epic fail. we all laugh..,
I agree that "He who governs least governs best." don't actually know who to credit, somebody said it I'm sure, anyway, that being said I do not see a conflict with acting in such a way as to speed the process. I suppose the debate would center around how best to do that, I feel it is bring the GOP down to numbers that create an instability which can be filled with a people's party, this has the added benefit of slowing the decline into greater control by the 1% while we do the work. There are those who would "move the Jews to Israel" in order to make things so the break down could occur, I feel about the same about that as I do my metaphor.
I guess this is all going to come to a head. I have an idea. Why don't we all fill out our profiles and stop flying under false colors?
Then if you are a libertarian, or a conservative, or an anarchist that is supported by the Koch brothers for example, the mods could just ad that little designation in brackets after the number of posts and we would not have to waste our time figuring what kind of insult we should start our replies with. Wouldn't that work better? Oh, I already did that.
It seems this struck a cord. I actually wrote this after seeing the Hannity interview, and I do want to know where those who are really supportive of OWS think, mostly this has gotten a lot of the pure trolls jumping in, you know who they are, "we should not be involved in the system" then all they ever post is how bad the Ds are and talk about voting third party never a word on walstreet or taxes or money.
Oh and obviously I agree about the profile.
Yes it did. And exposed common ground between the A's and the TP's. Some of the funding is common also. That was a bit of a surprise. Although a goal of drowning government in a bathtub, is a pretty strong indicator of commonality.
The false colors thing allows all of this throwing sand in the gears under aliases. Lumping all of the comments posted by the real owner would have exposed what Endgame finally exposed by the PR /Hannity post.
There is nothing like a little dose of integrity to change the tenor of a conversation. The old men used to sit around and whittle and spit and tell lies, stories with characters, usually deceased, who couldn't defend themselves whose supposed exploits got them Paul Bunyon stature posthumously.
I guess this is the new media equivalent? But in situations like we find ourselves now, it is time to "get real".
I think there was more truth in those old stories. These people lie with a purpose. But yes they talk of shrinking government and what of the people who run things through coporations are the people to have no say whatsoever in anything?
Yes, the old stories were mis attributed to shield the living, but there was usually a moral message, like a parable. The lies weren't to deceive for personal gain or power. Who is supposed to protect the people from corporations? They have demonstrated that there are no limits to their excesses. We used to differentiate between profit and plunder, Now they are the same thing. The next step isn't virtual slavery, it will be real.
I told a Ron Paul supporter, of course he will bring the soldiers home, he will need their guns to turn on us, to impose the will of IBM. (or words to that affect)
That civil disobedience stuff is really bad. I can remember when the serfs knew their place and behaved themselves. We need to take our slaves (oops) I mean, country back.
When there is no government there is no governance, Seems kind of obvious? When there is no restraint on corporations, they expect things too get better? For whom, I ask?
"Corporations are people, my friend... of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings my friend."
mitt romney
They are sociopaths too it's in their incorporation papers, so maybe we shouldn’t let them make all the decisions for everyone?
thats why we are here. to stop the insanity
of course I knew that's what you meant, I just read (parts) of a book on sociopaths a few years back, then this ruling came along and I was but but they're sociopaths, I remembered that from my business ethics classes
Mosquitoes are people, my friend...of course they are. Every thing they suck from your veins is exposed to other people. Where do you think it goes?
Have you ever had sex with a mosquito? A corporation? How about a civil union with one?
"You load sixteen tons and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt."
I owe my soul to the company store.
Can you believe we got downvoted on these two?
We probably weren't raised properly. I blame the parents. Everyone else does.
For everyone.
Better for everyone, like Enron was?
do you belong to a union? are you emplyed by a company that has a pension plan? do you have life insurance? health insurance? do you have a computer? do you buy food?
Yes and no. And your point relative to Enron is....?
not all companies/corporations succeed for a variety of reasons. no more TWA or Pan American or Braniff. No more Rickel's or B.Altman . if you belong to a union, unions are invested in the stock market. food is produced by companies. insurance and computers are companies. If you want nothing to do with a corporation, than you want nothing to do with anything that has what you need/want to sustain your life.
Welcome to Reductio ad absurdum. Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.
I gave you an example of a criminal corporation that abused its customers, its employees, its shareholders, its suppliers and it bought politicians in order to do it. It illustrates an example of the archtypical criminal corporation from which every constituency must be protected.
It isn't typical all corporations. But it shows what can happen in not just one but in many cases, without the regulation of business and corporation. Three hundred corporations contribute to ALEC to formulate and propagate legislation that allows corporations to do some of the things which have been and should be criminal.
Not all corporations are criminal but any can be taken over or can find their management choosing to commit crime. All need to be subject to the enforcement of laws limiting them to non abusive conduct. That enforcement is the legitimate province of government
OK
what change would help ?
get rid of all the govt imposed laws and regulations that are forced upon business both small and large.
You mean like what led up to the BIG crash???
You are silly.
OK
how will that help?
I wasnt a business major. I believe that if you provide people with a good product at a reasonable price, you will do well. I also believe that there is room in the market for goods at all price points. If you cant afford an apple computer you buy a cheaper one. cheaper doesnt always mean "junk" the more companies there are that supply goods makes for greater choice. if your company is poorly run and you do make an inferior product, you'll go out of business.
OK
what change would help ?
Forget the Rigged Elections.
Forget Obama and Romney.
Forget the rest of the Democratic and Republican corporate puppets.
Forget the feel-good mental masturbation of Third Parties.
Our system is broken and cannot be repaired from within.
FOCUS ON REGIME CHANGE.
Reality might not always be a fun place to live, but it is the safest place to live.
[Removed]
No one who is serious about OWS advocates or condones violence, so please stop reacting reflexively to provocations. 'Anarchism' has a long and deeply intellectual body of work, writings and theory behind it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism ). Unfortunately, the 'A' word tends to send people in The USA into some kind of 'brain spasm' as all rational and intellectual faculties seize up in a Pre-Propagandised Psychic Palsy.
The Real Issue is what do you think you know or understand about The 'A' word ? For some insight above and beyond any standarised pre-programmed responses - see, read, digest & cogitate upon - http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-wall-streets-anarchist-roots/ .
Violence only plays into the hands of The Parasitic 0.01% and their 1% lackeys and their frequent use of 'agents provocateur' are legion. The 99% in The USA need to agitate, educate and organise for an alternative to The Demoblican-Republocrat, duopolistic, demoCRAZY deMOCKERYcy. Thus :
"Noam Chomsky : What next for Occupy ?" - The Occupy movement built a global sense of community and put unprecedented inequality on the agenda. In an exclusive extract, the eminent US thinker asks where it goes now. : http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/30/noam-chomsky-what-next-occupy .
"Desperately Needed - A New Political Party", by James Clay Fuller : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28159.htm ,
"A New Political Party Is Needed", by Joel S. Hirschhorn : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21224.htm ,
"Third Parties Fight for American Democracy", by Joel S. Hirschhorn : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15705.htm ,
"Disenfranchised in America" (Video) - New legislation across the US could have a huge impact on the country’s 2012 presidential elections. Largely Republican politicians have passed a range of new voting laws that groups fear could disenfranchise as many as five million US voters this year. : http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/disenfranchised-in-america/ ,
"Murder, Spies, and Voting Lies" (Video) : A disturbing documentary which goes to the heart of the state of democracy in The U$A : http://seattlecommunitymedia.org/node/10430 (Full audio kicks in at 1.50 mins and this doc. is also viewable on YouTube) &
http://www.opensecrets.org/ and http://ni4d.us/ .
pax, amor et lux ...
Graeber, basically makes the case to throw out the constitution, I do disagree with that position I diffidently have seen nothing presented that I would trust more. Chomsky does not speak of the need to go to “direct democracy” but speaks to the fact that wealth has become too concentrated and has too much influence in Washington, now this I agree with and was what I thought the fundamental cause of OWS was. This I think we deal with by first getting rid of the Republican Party then when we have room for a new party we create a people party, but you do have to decide on folks to run things at some point, I think the key is to make sure the system is open. I do not feel that every person must agree on every decision, I think sometimes things have to get done. I never saw every person agree on anything while at the GAs myself, people just went off and did things anyway. The last writers just seem to want to keep the same old status quo where most the people decide on things and the ones who are really upset throw their votes away.
here it is
Are we a bunch of hippie pussies .... or subversive militant anarchists? I mean, the two are sort of mutually exclusive, so you conservotrolls need to pick one (oh wait, that would imply you understand simple logic, never mind) :)
You might want to stick your turtle head out before you start calling people conservative, but this is an honest inquiry.
The reason I make that presumption, is because there hasn't been any mass riots at the instigation of occupy wall street (or for that matter, at all in recent history), nothing that would give any empirical reason for anyone to make ludicrous claims (like associating this movement with Mad Maxx or whatever), and the people generating these type of charges and scare campaigns, tend to be conservatives (so I think the presumption is reasonable).
All I'm asking is what does anarchy mean to you?
Simply stated (to paraphrase Noam Chomsky, who I think summarizes the idea very well), power structures should always be identified and challenged, and forced to justify themselves. This doesn't mean every power structure or power relationship is bad or undesirable, it just means power relationships are not self-justifying. If they can't withstand that sort of critical scrutiny, then they should be eliminated or replaced.
What logically follows from this philosophical premise is participatory democracy. For me it's not some elaborate blueprint of what society should look like, but rather just a basic virtue.
Of course power should be questioned, "truth to power" as they say but that would not in any way interfere with making political decisions, so I take it you support voting to get rid of the GOP? ie voting for the Ds?
Ultimately, I'd like to see a world where in most cases, workers had a share in ownership and management of the places they work, where citizens participate in our political system regularly, where our elected representatives were held accountable (and recalled if they fail to properly represent their constituents), where absent employee ownership workers at least have union representation (with some exceptions e.g. professional partnerships), but in the mean time, yes, I think democrats probably wouldn't ruin our country quite as fast as republicans :)
Let me be clear I want to make the Republican Party so small we can drown it in a bathtub, then I'm takin' the Denise Kucinich and Barney Franks and a few others (we could make a list) a building a people's party, nothing worth doing is quick or easy, let the Obama Ds see what's it's like to be on "right" side.
Yeah... Barney Frank [correct spelling]... Co-sponsor of Dodd-Frank:
"Even the Fed is admitting that Dodd-Frank perpetuates rather than regulates the "Too Big To Fail" banking corporations that continue to rape and plunder America and the global economy."
http://open.salon.com/blog/watchingfrogsboil/2012/03/22/federal_reserve_bank_of_dallas_advises_we_must_end_too_big
It was puleral, should of been Frankes? anyway he'll be dead before this gets done, this is the long game, the one that works...
It's spelled "plural". But more importantly, once again we expose you putting the Democratic Party in a falsely positive light when in reality they're as crooked as the Republicans.
really? you fell for that? shouldn't be surprised considering who you support and all...
"Who I support?"
You have no clue who I support, so I will tell you:
I support NO ONE in the coming rigged elections: No Democrat puppet. No Republican puppet. No Third Party windmill-charger.
(R)epelican't belong to and support organizations such as this.
http://alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed
And so do Democrats:
"According to the PCCC, there are 26 states with Democratic lawmakers that belong to ALEC."
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/04/11474/pccc-pressures-democratic-members-drop-alec
yeah sure..
If you intend to seriously challenge the veracity of my statement, you'll need to do something more than stick your tongue out at me...
Put Up, or Shut Up.
there really is nothing here to debate, it's just jibberish
Where did the semantics lose you? At Democrat puppet, Republican puppet, or Third Party windmill-charger?
(R)epelican'ts do things like this.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/9063-ten-most-disturbing-anti-latino-practices-described-by-dojs-lawsuit-against-sheriff-joe-arpaio
hi shooz, I live in AZ under the rule of His Royal Majesty Sheriff Joe and cannot access the site it is "Forbidden".
Democrats do things like this:
Keep Guantanamo open.
Keep the Patriot Act alive.
Keep Goldman Sachs alum in charge of the Treasury.
Keep giving the Military Industrial Complex trillions for weapons we don't need to fight wars we cannot justfy.
Keep doing essentially everything their corporate masters tell them to do, JUST LIKE THE REPUBLICANS.
Why don't you move here to AZ, I am trying to get everyone who supports OWS to move here, we have prop ballots that our consitution says can't be messed with, we can do pretty much direct demorcy as far as is possible move here let's take over the place.
If I thought for a second you had the requisite intelligence to understand the anarchist intellectual tradition (and what the idea actually stands for), I might have a discussion with, but you obviously don't. Just another intellectual midget from the swamps (the metaphorical swamp that is, as in, stupid land).
hmm I wonder what you base that on, is that a trade mark of anarchist, to speak out of ignorance and prejudice?
Awwww ....
oh did a thought get stuck in there, not used to those are we?
I am with you. Down with anarchy. Peaceful protest is the most potent weapon we can wield..
PLEASE learn about what anarchy is before you go labeling it as violent. Political Anarchy has a more peaceful history than virtually any other social movement in the USA. They are the Quakers of political movements.
Ok. I will. But please acknowledge, I didn't create that label. Anarchists 100 yrs ago (during the last gilded age) throwing bombs might have something to do with it. The label was used very effectively by the 1% then to demonize self proclaimed anarchists. And its being used again very effectively when the black bloc anarchists perpetrate violence. That ain't my fault. The word has a meaning. however we see it, Whatever we believe, Americans equate it with violence. It has negative connotations. I won't pretend it don't. and can't spend time trying to get sleeping americans to understand some nuanced definition. There is too much at stake. There are many issues to educate people about. Issues they will understand a lot easier.
What are we to do, change a historical name? There is no nuance. Well over 100 years ago there were a couple of molotov cocktails thrown. That was it. it's been quiet since. Gandhi himself modeled his movement after Political Anarchism to a large extent. People misunderstand all sorts of things. They misunderstand communism, socialism and capitalism. Should those names be changed as well?
No one is asking you to change anybody's mind, or educate them about the history or philosophy of Anarchism. All I'm asking is that you yourself stop misusing a false definition of it in your own thinking, since, I presume, you know what actual Anarchism is. By conflating it with violence and chaos, in this case it is you, not the general public, who are perpetuating the negative and wholly inaccurate stigma about the most historically peaceful social/political movement in America's history.
I am the general public. And we think anarchism equals lawlessness and disorder. That ain't better, and it don't address the issues that affect my family. It simply allows the 1% to paint OWS as violent. I mean the black bloc anarchists have been violent haven't they?. Why exhaust myself over this term when I want to address corp personhood, Alt energy, tax fairness, health reform with public option, voting/campagn reform. Words matter. We have to be smarter than this.
Words do matter, and before you accuse Anarchism of being about lawlessness, perhaps you should actually find out what that word actually means.
If I told you that democracy was about wanton violence, you would say (rightly) that I was either crazy or misinformed. Anarchism is about direct democracy; How does that possibly translate into lawlessness?
I've already agreed to not state anarchy equals violence. but you haven't acknowledged the reality of what it means to people and how it damages the movement. I have read a good bit of what is offered on this web site. I can agree with much of it. I've also looked up the definition. Which says clearly lawlessness and disorder. Most of all the black bloc anarchists perpetrate violence and the general public attaches violence to the term. These are the reasons I see it as more damaging to call ourselves anarchists. I know the 1% love that we do. You don't see these things?
For goodness's sake, half this country equates the word "Liberal" with communist or socialist. Why should this movement be concerned about them?
You may have looked up Anarchism in the dictionary, but the dictionary definition includes the word's distortion by the right wing: they have, over a century, created an overlay, and their new definition has partly co-opted the word. What we are talking about is much more specific: Political Anarchism. As a political movement, it was the single greatest influence on Gandhi. As a political movement, it has most in common with the structure of the Quaker Church. It is the LEAST violent movement in living memory.
How much violence have you seen? A few broken windows in Oakland, a city known for its violence, OWS or no OWS.. How many were engaged in that? A dozen kids, maybe. That the Main Stream Media has painted that as representative of the tens of thousands - hundreds of thousands world-wide - of participants is a crime of journalism. And you seem to have bought it.
It is unreasonable to suggest that an Anarchist movement is being hurt by Anarchism. when it is in fact Anarchists who started the movement in the first place. It is unreasonable to suggest that Anarchism is represented by a dozen kids in a single city (one that has seen far more violence during other movements). I am sure it was unintentional, but you have bought into the propaganda that the forces opposed to OWS have spread shamelessly. And as you said, so has much of the country.
The words An-archy and Hier-archy are antonyms. "Archy" means Ruler or Chief. Those that believe in hierarchy believe they should be ruled, that people are inherently unequal in value. Those who believe in anarchy (no rulers) believe that everyone has equal value, and that people should self govern, as an entire community. In many ways, Anarchy is closer to the mythological ideals attributed (wrongly in most cases) to the Founding Fathers of this country than the system we have today.
Anarchists started this movement. They were the ones who created whatever success it currently enjoys. They are not hurting the movement; they CREATED the movement. And, with amazingly rare exceptions, it has been the most peaceful one I have ever seen going back to my youth and the Civil Rights marches of the early Sixties.
If a single law can be associated with Anarchism, it is Kant's Categorical Imperative: "Act as if your actions, by your will alone, will become universal law." One cannot do violence if such violence will become universal law; doing so is against one's own interest.
Gandhi would have been proud.
I know it is peaceful. I've already acknowledged that I agree with much of it. you mentioned Gandhi and his anarchist influences but India went immediately to a democracy so I don't see the importance of that. Quakers are not how I would try to bring people to the movement. The political movement that anarchy is may be the most peaceful, I'm not arguing that it ain't. I'm arguing that pushing it, using that concept is hurtful to the movement. We are arguing semantics when we should be arguing the issues that matter to people. Doesn't matter who started OWS, we have no leaders. It has grown because people are struggling and want real change regarding specific issues. most people are turned off by anarchy. Gandhi would be proud and be pushing for democracy not anarchy.
Anarchy is democracy. That is it's very reason for being. The very leaderlessness you decry is an expression of direct democracy.
That said, this movement may yet morph into a reform, as opposed to revolutionary, movement as it gains participants. And, although I am not personally an anarchist (though I was one for years) I really hope it stays true to its more radical - as in transformative - roots for a while longer. I would hate to see this watered down too soon, if ever.
One of the strengths, from my point of view, in the anarchist foundation of OWS is in its ability and willingness to form temporary lateral alliances. While it stays true to the far left, it nevertheless marches with union members, teachers, nurses, student groups, community organizations, etc. It leaves those other organizations to work within the existing system to change and reform it, while at the same time remaining itself as the touchstone of genuinely radical change. It acts as a kind of conscience of the left as a whole. OWS does not condemn or judge these more traditionally liberal groups, it simply does its own thing. But its very existence energizes these other groups and lends them numbers in the streets.
OWS will NOT get the 1% to change its ways, to suddenly see its errors and immorality. It does not look to reform the system, which it views as fundamentally irredeemable. That is what other groups are about. What OWS, as an anarchist movement is about is replacing the current system from within, by growing inside the dying shell of the system. It is a very long term plan, seen in the most optimistic view (in my opinion) in terms of decades, if not a century.
That said, I share your sense of frustration that there is no one great reformist movement or political party that is effecting change right now. OWS may yet have spin-offs that become such movements. There may yet be political candidates that arise from its ranks. I hope to see these things happen. And I also hope that OWS continues to survive and thrive with a genuine anarchist core.
Well maybe we can agree that we don't have real democracy. And it needs serious changes. I can agree that anarchistic concepts are peaceful and more representative. would you agree that term turns people off? And discussing this concept has preempted discussion of real issues. I have no idea where you stand on corp personhood, buffet rule/taxing wealthy, prosecuting the criminals who crashed the world economy, public option health ins, womens rights, gay rights. these are the issues that people talk about.
First, i have acknowledged several times that the word anarchy turns many people off, due to their misunderstanding of it. I have also said that there is no solution to that. If people misunderstand a word, all one can do is direct them to a history book, but you can't make them read it.
I oppose the bizarre ruling on corporate personhood. I agree with the Buffet rule but believe it doesn't go nearly far enough: I believe in a steeply graduated progressive income tax with a top marginal rate of 70% (as in Pre-Reagan) , the elimination of tax breaks for capital gains, and closing corporate tax loopholes to restore the percent of GDP that those taxes paid in 1960. I also advocate for the repeal of taxes on Social Security payments and unemployment insurance payments, with a permanent extension of unemployment to 5 years, or at least something closer to European (especially Scandinavian) models.
As far as prosecuting the Banksters, mostly they didn't break any laws, so I don't see how prosecution would be possible. Instead, i would make sure that the laws changed to make any such behavior in the future illegal. I am for a public option for healthcare. I abhor the Republicons war on women, on the poor, on immigrants, On Gays and Lesbians, on the electorate, on African Americans, on the disenfranchised.
I believe capitalism is a basically good system but not on its own: that it needs to be balanced by an equal amount of socialism, as it has been in much of Europe.
I agree with you on all of that. And these issues are how we can bring more people to the movement. Solidarity!
You win! Kind of hard to understand anarchy protected by government, But that is where you ended up. What's that called again?
When I was tryiing to sort this out with the ancestors of the present day anarchists, (e.g. Bob Lefevre, whom I knew well and had a lot of conversations into the night with) we settled on the term autarchists, but there was disagreement over the "protected by" part of it. Self rule, as we understood it, was very benign and Ghandi-esque. First do no harm, sort of personal behavior, but I could never get enthusiastic support for the protected by part. I think the students of LeFevre who were successful capitalists have demonstrated that their intent was to use it as cover for outrageously exploitative behavior. I feel vindicated but saddened that the proof has harmed so many innocent people.
[Removed]
I guess I am taking a stance of sorts, but it is an honest question. I do agree with you though we must remain peaceful for many reasons.
Anarchy is the #ows movement encapsulated.
You can either embrace it, or leave it.
Your choice.
As for watching Mad Max movies, welcome to Australia. We don't want to live in one either.
I reject the simplistic choices you suggest. I have been to many marches, many meetings of OWS. I see mainly peaceful, non violent people. Violence and anarchy is rare. More likely the people who hold these views are just plants who want to discredit the movement, and limit support. Stay peaceful. We are better than that.
Why do you associate anarchy with violence?
It's not a Sex Pistols video.
A state of anarchy is simply a status quo without governance.
Now, considering how our elected officials are using their positions of power to make themselves rich, at our expense, why would you consider a time without them to be a bad thing?
Anarchy will lead to violence. One day we may govern ourselves without the corruption existing systems represent. I can appreciate the possibility. I support the concepts of such. But we aint anywhere near that. We need to push this system to address our needs now so that we can set up a system without this corrupt representative corp owned cabal. Just like we got Social Security, Civil rights and such we can pressure and move things slowly but surely.
Anarchy is a simple rejection of the status quo. An assumption that this rejection will lead to violence is also an assumption that violence is inherent in the initial rejection, which is a falsehood.
There is nothing to indicate that the initial movement's rejection of everything to do with our current method of selecting politicians and groups of individuals to carry our own messages forward via the voting system, will end in violence.
You are assuming that, as a group, #ows will react to the violence that is currently coming from our elected officials in response to our vigilance.
I don't, for a moment, assume that there will never be violence as a part of the peaceful protest, but I do propose that violence was never at the heart of the anarchical movement that is #occupy
You have posted the following two statements and have confused me in the process:
"A state of anarchy is simply a status quo without governance."
"Anarchy is a simple rejection of the status quo."
How are these compatible?
Easy; anarchists create a new status quo, by rejecting the old one.
Sorry for the confusion.
Most people attach anarchy with violence, lawlessness, & disorder. They believe it is survival of the fittest. They believe it is not better for them. The 1% loves this label attached to the movement. All the 1% has to do is strategically place a small group of black block "anarchists" and watch the movement decline. The term is poison. I hope you ain't married to it.
[Removed]
Anarchy will not necessarily lead to violence. Violence often leads to anarchy though.
I agree: We need to push this system to address our needs now so that we can set up a system without this corrupt representative corp owned cabal. Just like we got Social Security, Civil rights and such we can pressure and move things slowly but surely.
So far the 1st violence has been instigated by the powers that be - using the police as their club.
Their violence will be their undoing just as it was with the civil rights movement and Ghandis movement. Using anarchy is detrimental to this movement. People will not embrace it. It is a poisoned term.
It is another issue of awareness and education. As one other contributor put it - removing anarchy/anarchists from the movements against greed corruption and crime would be like removing blue from the sky on a clear day.
This is a part of building unity - building understanding.
Fight misinformation - Fight misunderstanding.
Fight the issues - there lies common cause.
and building unity might be better served at finding common concerns. That people already agree with. Please you must be reasonable. Is a contradiction when discussing with an anarchist to ask for reasonablness, and /or compromise?
I see no contradiction of purpose in moving forward to advance health and prosperity for all, For any group of people - of any association. Reasonableness should be found in the merits or lack of merits in any Issue.
Address Issues People!
Lets grow the movement by addressing issues. And lets agree to avoid playing into the 1% plan of labeling ourselves anarchists. We can use anarchistic tactics like civil disobedience, we can aspire for a day with direct concensus democracy (anarchy?) without using the term that most of our fellow 99% repel from.
Yes stick to common cause - the health and prosperity of "ALL".
I can agree with that. And non violent protests.
Absolutely. 1st and foremost!!!!!
Ok. I don't want to remove anyone. I want to grow the movement. What we need most of all is to grow the movement. So may can increase our influence. More influence = more likelyhood of correcting our corrupt system. I can embrace an anarchistic concept like occupying a park even though some unjust law exists against it but I can call that civil disobedience. I cannot agree that utilizing this term is helpful in any way. It is detrimental to the necessary growth of the movement. I can fight misinformation but I want to end corp personhood, more alt energy prosecution of wall st criminals, progressive tax code. Please don't make me expend energy trying to get the sleeping masses to understand anarchy. Is there no such thing as compromise in this anarchistic belief.?
Anarchism - Is what it Is.
I -"like"- you want to deal with issues. Period.
"corp peronhood, more alt energy prosecution of wall st criminals, progressive tax code OSTA remove money influence from politics/government etc etc etc."
This anarchy prejudice will not end as a subject for attack on the movements against greed corruption and crime. It is therefore necessary to confront misinformation/misconception.
I am I - I have no political beliefs/leanings. I support common cause in the advancement of all mankind in health and prosperity. Most people are not ready to embrace that concept and need things to rally around to find their common cause, they have not yet matured past the point of separate alliances to be able to unite on a wide front of acceptance of each other.
This will always present opportunity for division.
So I do my best to separate myself from group alliances and instead try to push the understanding of issues.
Issues. Yes. Issues that affect people. Whether its health, jobs, corruption, taxes, environment, representation. these are issues that help or hurt individuals. Tangible things. If we want to bring the largest amount of people along and effect change we must address the issues that affect our lives. This in itself requires that we deal with misinformation and such. If we add into the mix the requirement/responsibility of attempting to explain anarchy we are using energy better expended on the issues that most people care about and understand already. No compromise on this?
Epiphany happens when things click into place.
Pushing issues is education. Confronting misinformation/misconception is education. Individual realization along the road is epiphany.
It all ties together.
It's all very deep. Can't say I disagree. But I know that the term is poison to the vast majority of 99%rs. And I think it is unnecessary to handicap ourselves with a term we can easily drop and replace. it's just semantics. can't we use a thesaurus. C'mon we can't be married to this.
Which is exactly why I push issues. Understanding will come with time the 1st thing to understand and confront are issues and how they represent common cause for "ALL". Health and prosperity for all. That means ending pollution with alternative energy as well as kicking the corrupt out of office. It is all encompassing - but there is also common sense starting points for redress.
Ok. Are you an anarchist?
Yep - the enemy changes - issues don't - own the system - don't let the system own you. This is where we are at today - we have let the system own us - we move forward to change that fact. Time for the people ( the rightful owners ) to stand up.
[-] 1 points by VQkag (505) 0 minutes ago
ok. I'm registered Ind. I can appreciate anarchy, but I consider myself progressive, and I recognize that dems are closer to my beliefs and are more likely to be made to work for the 99% than repubs right now. (but that was opposite 100 years ago.) Parties change. they have too much power so we have to get them to address specific issues and make progress that way. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Nope. I represent I. I do not look left I do not look right I do not look straight ahead. I try to look everywhere - with an open and reasoning mind. All of this party stuff and social systems stuff is a distraction.
[-] 1 points by VQkag (505) 0 minutes ago
Ok. Are you an anarchist? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
ok. I'm registered Ind. I can appreciate anarchy, but I consider myself progressive, and I recognize that dems are closer to my beliefs and are more likely to be made to work for the 99% than repubs right now. (but that was opposite 100 years ago.) Parties change. they have too much power so we have to get them to address specific issues and make progress that way.
We deal with these issues any way. There is no separation. It is the same with the issue of greed corruption crime - This is most visible as the results that ended up with the economic meltdown - but it did not start there - that was just the lid coming off of the box - greed corruption and crime are through-out our system of being - Business and government. It is all encompassing. We have chosen starting points to address. But the true process the full process has only just begun.
I advise everyone to take it at their own pace - deal as best you can as that is all anyone can ask.
I believe it will take years!. Just as the civil rights, and Gandhi's efforts took years. In the mean time We can't allow elections to pass without attempting to push this country left of center. We cannot stay home on election day as an anarchist might suggest. We will be turning everything over to the 1%.
Anarchy does not lead to violence, violence exists without anarchy. Our needs now is the elimination of the corporate state, something which anarchy addresses.
The corp state (1% domination) is the problem. Resolving that does not require the poisoned term of anarchy. Growing the movement is a priority that is hurt by the preoccupation with this term.
What is wrong with the term anarchy, who poisoned it? why is it poisoned? should it be a poisoned term. What type of government would you have to destroy the corporate state?
I would agree that growing the movement is the number 1 priority, however we do need to discuss viable means to organize ourselves. I happen to think that we can(and should) do that without the influence of the state and corporations
The 99% see the term (incorrectly) as equating violence. That is the poison. Changing the system will require: ending corp personhood and lobbying, public campaign funding, mandatory voting for all. constant pressure (by ows) on gov to correct the corruption fueled mistakes we have made.
Well, shouldn't we correct the 99%? We should educate ourselves on what the term actually stands for. Anarchy does not equate to violence. Violence will always exist, in any and every form of organization. Tyranny of government only leads to violence.
yes we need to end corporate personhood and yes we need to end public funding, i would disagree with mandatory voting, because it is a mandate. Communities need to be given the powers of our gov yes direct democracy needs to exist but not mandatory direct democracy
I support public funding to remove corp influence thru money. and mandatory voting because see it as a civic duty just as jury duty and paying taxes. More voters = better representation and higher turnout scares the 1% like nothing else.
Not really a very helpful respond, what is your goal?
[Removed]
Mad Max has about as much to do with anarchism as Abbie has to do with anarchism. Abbie Hoffman has been an outspoken activist, but much of the time for his own self-aggrandizement.
Not true.. the Press painted that picture of him and his supposed ego running amok.. the Government was afraid of him and the fact that he had some serious followers.. ( i was there)
Don't take it personal about the writing thing you might disagree.
"Steal This Book" was a classic.
I won't disagree with personal experience, but Abbie Hoffman was and is not an anarchist.
What I am asking is what do you mean by, anarchist?
Anarchism is generally thought of as opposing any sort of central government--the state. It is an ideology that proposes governing from the bottom up usually starting in small cell-like units. These can confederate, and some anarchists have proposed a representative type confederation, but with rotating representatives from each cell, so that each member in a cell would at one time or another represent his fellow cell members in a confederated government. The confederation would have limited powers mainly to coordinate and protect the cells of the confederation.
Abbie Hoffman, as I recall, wrote a book called Vote!, and one time even sued to have an absentee ballot counted. The idea of voting for representatives in a republic-type government is antithetical to most anarchist beliefs. So, I have to conclude that while Abbie Hoffman was an activist and demonstrator that opposed certain government policies, his intentions were to change the government. Most anarchists want to peacefully dismantle the present system of government and replace it with a bottom-up model.
So this would involve tearing up the constitution then? Or perhaps even the borders themselves?
Anarchists generally believe in a bottom-up government without a central authority; that would mean completely restructuring the constitution. As for the borders, I don't believe, unless those people in border areas wanted to eliminate the artificial boundries, they would be affected.
I don't believe I could support a constitutional convention as the uncertainies would be too great at this time, I believe as we progress to the point where such governance might be possible it will arise but it seems we are a good bit from that as of yet.
Still I would be interested in your thoughts, where do you want to see us go?
Into a better, more just society. If that can be accomplished by changing our present system, that's certainly acceptable, but our nation seems to be going in the opposite direction.
our nation is led by lairs, because it is easier to get elected that way, if we want to we can change that, we could vote for the people who say tax must go up for instance instead of taking the candy when our teeth are already rotten, we can do this but if we grasp at straws we lose
Yes, but very often voters don't want to hear the truth. Instead, they often what to hear what assures them of a rosy future.
very few want to hear the truth....(ask all my friends)
The big changes though always seem to come from those who stay committed to at least their truth, Gandhi, King, even Washington.
the leaders are taking despite popular opinion?
truth is just not popular enough....yet
time will tell
Just got off the phone with Org.4A. caller, it is tough to go from talking about what things should be like to what I have to accept to avoid the pit of the GOP, the guy who called me he understood had been down to the park, but couldn’t go for the write in 99%, he’s old like me the hurt takes to long to heal for us, you young guys can stump your toe and shake it off like I did in 1980 with Anderson, but looking back I think what might have been :).
I'm not quite sure what you're asking. The current leaders take us where they pretty well want to go and very often justify their actions with falsifications. Most of the wars in which we are currently embroiled are based on misrepresentations or lies.
The large amount of activist organizations, both left and right, indicate a general dissatisfaction with the government in general. When we consider the congressional approval rating (~11%) or the presidential approval rating (~47%), I would say that quite often our leaders take us where we don't want to go.
thanks