Entropy2,
I agree with your opinion of the term “free-market Capitalism”. That is why I labeled it Propaganda. The MSM prints Propaganda as opinion, and trivial garbage as news, IMO.

Anyone who still preaches ‘Free-Markets’ and entrepreneurial zones should visit Mexico, both near the border and then south to Chiapas and Oaxaca to see how well they are working for the 99% in that country. Then they can visit Detroit, Philly, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland here at home and tour the rusting, shuttered manufacturing plants that shipped the jobs off-shore to benefit the CEOs like Mitt Romney.

When they return home, these travelers should just take a couple of aspirin and go to bed instead of bothering the rest of us.

It’s a great life if you don’t weaken, but it certainly gets tiresome repeating the same old criticisms of the same old crap…

One take on the question of anarchy and occupy:

http://www.lefteyeonbooks.com/2011/10/social-democratic-anarchists-and-communist-anarchists-and-the-occupy-movement/
...............
Social Democratic Anarchists are associated with the General Assemblies, including a strong belief that assembly decisions are binding, endorsing practices like “consensus decision-making” and “non-violence”, and shouting slogans such as “oppose corporate greed”,”we are the 99%” and “the police are part of the 99%”. In practice, they have adopted anarchist tactics, such as leaderless assemblies and direct action (i.e. occupying parks) to advance a reformist agenda including re-regulation of the banks and jobs programs. Even as there is uneasiness about signing on to a single list of demands, and no real clue as to how such a leaderless, decentralized movement might endorse such a list, it seems apparent that most demands would be drawn from the left-liberal playbook. I should note that without a large movement out in the street pressuring the administration from the left, it is unlikely if not inconceivable that such reforms will be implemented in the U.S. It is a paradoxical movement, attempting to create a fairly disciplined force without leaders, but largely pursuing state oriented policies. Right wing columnist Charles Krauthammer was not far off when he described OWS, which is dominated by Social Democratic Anarchists, as “big government anarchists”.

The Communist Anarchists are much less visible, and many are ambivalent about OWS.  Some catchphrases associated with them include “autonomous action”, “diversity of tactics”, “anti-capitalism”, and “the police are the tools of the ruling class.”  “Autonomous action” and “diversity of tactics” refer to principles that undermine the authority of the General Assembly and its frequent invocation of non-violence and even unease with violating laws. Even though OWS has successfully defied the mayor of New York City and remains in the park,the General Assembly continues to use the “human microphone”, which makes discussion slow and painful. Occupied Oakland, where Communist Anarchists are stronger, just ignores the rules against amplified sound. Rather than advocating a set of reformist laws, Communist Anarchists try to dissolve the system and socialize the wealth from the bottom up, through such actions as squatting abandoned buildings and ignoring copyright laws.  Nevertheless, they are not exactly dogmatically anti-state, inasmuch as they fight to maintain institutions like libraries, and demand free services including higher education and mass transit.

Perhaps predictably, there is not much love lost between Social Democratic Anarchists and Communist Anarchists. The former have been known to tell journalists that they regard the Communist Anarchists as paid provocateurs.  The Social Democratic Anarchists have shouted down those advocating no cooperation with the police at general assemblies. The Communist Anarchists often heap contempt on the phrase “We are the 99%”, which they see as obscuring class and racial differences except for those between the 1% and the 99%, and implicitly prioritizing the needs of the falling middle class over the more genuinely precarious at the bottom. They sometimes intimate that the social democratic anarchists are becoming, if they are not already, tools of the reformist ruling class which seeks to dampen, rather than spur, rebellion.

Read it all I suggest.

Okasis, December 22 at 10:03 pm

I agree with your assessment and description of the Venezuelan Neighborhood Councils and the way they work. I suggest that the opinion that followed your post is a jaundiced, and typically so, all too common, empty rhetorical response from the usual source of such.

@Okasis—

There are many possible directions we could take. Using 19th Century labels to prejudge them is self-defeating.

Amen!

Interesting story about the workers/owners in Argentina. IMHO, the whole thing was very left-libertarian in flavor. The workers “mixed their labor” with vacant (abandoned) land/capital and, thus, had the natural right to ownership and went on to compete in the market with the fruits of their labor. Tip o’ the hat to Mises!

BUT, they chose to work as a cooperative…a manifestly socialist organizational form. Good for them!

AND the workers did it without the state. (In fact, one wonders if they asked for permission from the government before they acted?)

On another topic, for what its worth, the use of the term “free-market capitalism” really sets my teeth on edge.

We have capitalism, all right, with a vengeance! But NOT anywhere near a free market! The combination of state support of the corporate plutocracy (limited-liability privilege, subsidies, infrastructure, educational system, intellectual “property”, etc.) and state regulatory barriers to micro-scale competition and opportunity (zoning, licensing, tax code, etc.) renders the term “free market” meaningless in this economic structure.

Okasis said:

Interesting discussion. Too bad we seem to be hung up on labels rather than possibilities and potential action.

‘We seem to be hung up on labels’ for a good reason. Words matter. Definitions are important. Lets know a little more about what we are buying into.

Anarchy, Syndicalism, or Socialism for the 21st Century as the Chavistas like to call it are all merely current labels that provide targets to reactionaries.

You seem to be most impressed with stealth tactics. True this is a new century, but the last century is littered with so many corpses from your ideology… we owe it to those poor folks to pause a little, wonder, and perhaps find a better path.

I would strongly recommend that people put aside their preconceived notions, based on Free-Market, Capitalist propaganda

You are recommending that we forget history. I refuse to do that.

There are many possible directions we could take.

What makes you so sure that you are taking a different direction if you wont even study went went wrong the first few times?

Using 19th Century labels to prejudge them is self-defeating.

Ignoring history guarantees that you will make the same mistakes. Your system is perfectly designed to achieve the same awful results over and over again.

Meet the new boss.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=wont+get+fooled+again+who&mid=D350F0C9ED62DF4C5E16D350F0C9ED62DF4C5E16&view=detail&FORM=VIRE1

Same as the old boss!

An interesting question.  There is a relationship between laws
and coercion.  For an excellent description check out
http://lawreview.richmond.edu/the-force-of-law/  Laws are
rules and guidelines that set limitations on the human behavior.
Laws are made for lawbreakers, not for the upstanding, honest, 
and trustworthy.  Laws are made to keep individuals of a society
from running out of control and to give society the power to control
them. Every individual of that society is held responsible for abiding
by its laws.  Laws are made to restrict absolute freedom and every
restriction of freedom through the arbitrary will of another is termed
coercion.  For a broader explanation of the kinds of laws see it here.

Okasis~~~ Chavez’s NeighborHoods Council are not examples of inclusiveness
and non-cpercive co-operation….....and aren’t meant to be….....at all.

they’re the stuff that every state seeking to insure endless one-party rule likes to
employ. they’re not good news if you ain’t in the party and all the party stalwarts
on your block, the ones who report to city hall and pick up the cash and patronage
jobs, know just who the dissenters are.

Interesting discussion. Too bad we seem to be hung up on labels rather than possibilities and potential action.

Anarchy, Syndicalism, or Socialism for the 21st Century as the Chavistas like to call it are all merely current labels that provide targets to reactionaries. I would strongly recommend that people put aside their preconceived notions, based on Free-Market, Capitalist propaganda. There are many possible directions we could take. Using 19th Century labels to prejudge them is self-defeating.

I have been reading everything I can find on Latin American social and political movements for the past 4 or 5 years, and it suggests several direction that the Occupy Groups could adapt to US realities.

In Argentina, when their economy went tits up 10 years ago [or more] Workers at a few bankrupted and closed factories and hotels simply moved in and continued to work and sell their products, or rent the rooms, as if the owners were simply unimportant. Years later, when the economy improved, the ‘owner’ resurfaced and attempted to take back the property. Interestingly, the courts held that the owner had given up the property when he filed bankruptcy and abandoned it [Usually, the owner sat out the depression in some foreign enclave]. The workers who had formed the Cooperative were granted title to the properties in question and are still in business. Something similar happened at the tire company in Illinois back in 2007 or 2008, but all the workers got was a job, after a competitor bought the company.

In Venezuela, Chavez has established Neighborhood Councils which consist of all the people living in a neighborhood. The residents meet, and agree on the projects that need to be done in that community, whether it is a new school, a sewer system, or better roads.When they decide on the project, they go to the County or City that collects the property taxes and put in their claim for the tax dollars needed to do the work. The workers that are hired are unemployed residents who live in the community. Without getting too detailed, their are larger councils that are comprised of several neighborhoods that tackle bigger projects.

All the Latin American countries are poorer than the US, and have less infrastructure. They also have even higher unemployment and poverty rates than we do, at the moment. It is doubtful they are any more polarized however.

These are just a couple of examples of the innovative approaches to resolving the results of 500 years of Plutocracy and Colonialism. The labels put on these efforts run the gamut from Anarchism, Communism, Socialism, and many other ‘isms’ - But they seem to be effective on the local level. And, that is the level we live our lives on. Building Utopias for the masses is fine talk over a glass of wine with a bunch of friends. But, it is my house, my job, and my neighborhood, that takes up most of my time, money and effort.

Perhaps these types of communities can only work on a small scale, and developing a system that would include an entire City, County, State or Country may prove difficult if not impossible.

Surely the effort is worth making though. If we continue to sit around bullshitting, nothing real will ever get done.

A couple of web sites to check out - You can take it from there, there are too many to list:
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/
http://venezuelanalysis.com/

Or read any of Edwardo Galeano’s books, or all of them, they are very good!

entropy2 asks: “@OzarkMichael—ok…who will lead us out of this mess, if not ourselves?”

Your statement starts with ‘ok’ as if we are in agreement, but I have no idea what we are agreeing to.

“@OzarkMichael—ok…who will lead us out of this mess, if not ourselves?”

That is an interesting question, and since we are in quite a mess it has some urgency. Did you know that the US is now at what is called “100%” debt? The amount our government owes has now surpassed the total estimated value of everything we make in one year. There are of course many other topics of which our situation is a ‘mess’.

So your question is urgent. Unfortunately I am not ready to discuss “who will get us out of the mess we are in”. It is a bit too high and complicated for me. I need a foundation to stand on first.

The conversations here often spiral to great heights, but i never work up to that magnificent altitude. Instead I remain on the ground floor, wandering between the pillars, or i dwell in the basement and inspect the foundation. I wonder about the fundamental things, and until those are established there isnt much point in building any higher.

The question “who will lead us out of this mess, if not ourselves”, presupposes a unitary ‘us’ of which we are all equally sharing in. I percieve that the Radical’s version of ‘us’ is rather exclusive, and certainly does not acknowledge all citizens equally.

On Truthdig, at every turn, on every topic, there is a great inequality at the foundation of every discussion. Leftists exempt themselves from many of the rules they apply to everyone else. There are countless examples.

Today we bumped into just one of those examples, an interesting inequality which all leftists perpetuate. It works like this: Lenin is just as evil as Hitler, and as we all know, every organization which supported Hitler’s rise to power has to ponder the error of their ways. Deservedly so. Meanwhile, those who ardently supported and empowered Lenin ought to be ashamed of it, ought to pause and ponder the error of their ways. There ought to be a ‘never again’ sort of repentence. But since this is the Left we are talking about, no one ever comes to that inwardness which reflection requires.

I find such inequality to be a basic and consistant ingredient of everything discussed here on Truthdig. The inequality is an insignificant detail to you but it looms large to me. What if the Left becomes more powerful? What if the Radicals become more powerful? Will the inequality vanish? No. Power doesnt make people nicer and more thoughtful. So you are perfectly set up to repeat the past as you race towards the future.

Today, from inequality you suddenly create an ‘us’ so you can race to the heights. Rather than wonder at the fundamental problem, which is an unlevel foundation of our conversation, you just paper it over with a very brief nod… “ok”... 

I think Anarchists ought to be analysed by the same strict rules that you analyse conservative society with. Until then, i am not your equal, which means our relationship is not balanced, and i am not part of any ‘us’ that you construct. No. Instead I am the Other. I do not think “ok” will paper that over.

Thats not to say i wont work towards becoming an ‘us’, expecially if you want that. However, it will be rather unpleasant for you to exist at my level for very long. If you are interested in trying, lets consider a concise statement about Anarchists, and the role they played during a decisive moment in history:

By August 1919, at the climax of the Civil War, Lenin was so impressed with the zeal and courage of the Anarchists that he counted them among “the most dedicated supporters of Soviet power.”

Read Lenin’s words a few times. If you can face it i will explain why he said it.

ent 2~~~ thank you for the response. My request was for purpose of
understanding what you were saying.
No, I certainly do not think that we’re living in a non-coercive society. Don’t think
that anyone is, or that many ever have.

and I wasn’t asking if particulars laws were coercive but whether “law” itself is.

thanks again and good night.

Well, goodnight—and happy, blessed, merry, jolly whatever to all.

Here’s hoping that Santa doesn’t collide with the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

@heterochromatic

Here’s wikipedia:

Coercion ( /ko???r??n/) is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. In law, coercion is codified as the duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced. Torture is one of the most extreme examples of coercion i.e. severe pain is inflicted until the victim provides the desired information.

Coercion does not equal force (and certainly not self-defense).

Re: Coercion in my associations and transactions? Seriously, look around you! Would I voluntarily pay my money to have someone drone bomb innocent strangers? Would you voluntarily allow someone to imprison you indefinitely without trial? I could go on and on. If you think we live in a non-coercive society, then I guess that’s where we disagree.

Re: Is this law or that law coercive or not? Not the point. Standards of behavior are always necessary for the individuals who make up society to survive (and thrive). The question is, what are the values of those individuals who have the power to set the rules for you and for me (and for themselves)? And when they conflict with our values, what are our rights and responsibilities?

Anarchism does not, in any way, automatically equal lawlessness. Rather, it is voluntary, intentional order among individuals in communities of peers, based on shared values, built through shared standards of behavior. Concentration of power in hierarchies does not eliminate lawlessness, it only magnifies its destructive effects.

ent 2 ~~~ Noting that you ascribe to the use of coercive force to protect your
family and property, which is as it should be, I still would appreciate clarification
as to what you mean “coercion” from elites in your associations and transactions.

do you feel that taxation tends to be coercive? 

is law coercive? 

speed limits?

@OzarkMichael—ok…who will lead us out of this mess, if not ourselves?

I said: Anarchists teamed with Communists thus far has caused unmitigated misery for millions and millions.

entropy2 replied:

Again, lumping anarchists and communists together is a mistake on several levels. First, anarchists were among the first to be betrayed and purged by the statist communists of the early 20th century, so blaming anarchists (suckers though they were) for the depredations of state-communist regimes doesn’t wash.

Yes, anarchists were sent to the camps, that is true. That does not mean they werent responsible for the fact that they teamed up with the Communists in the first place. It isnt me that ‘lumps’ Anarchists and Communists together. They did it themselves. Historically they did it.

Today the Anarchists at OWS are doing what? Teaming up with the Communists. We have the same affinity, right before our eyes, and the same innocence expressed by the Anarchists.

Truly it isnt me who ‘lumps’ you together. And please understand this similarity: even though people who propelled Hitler to power ‘didnt know where it would lead’, we still hold them responsible for the results. No matter how lofty their goals or ideology or faith, it was all dragged through the mud for supporting the rising power of fascism. I am not saying it ruined their ideals forever, but they do need to face up, repentence might be a good thing for them, yes? And after that, maybe they wont be so foolish in future.

How keenly you understood me just now! Why cant you realize that Anarchists, no matter how lofty their ideals, are responsible for the rise of Communist power? And the worst part is that people like you never want to understand that. Which means there is no lesson learned. So the chance of it happening again is rather greater than it ought to be. 

The more you protest that the Russian Anarchists werent responsible because they ‘didnt know’ where their Communist allies were leading them, the more loudly I must object. You obviously dont know where your Communist allies of OWS would lead you either.

Today’s Anarchists dont seem to recognize the historical pattern should serve to amplify my warning, not minimize it.

@Shenonymous—seriously, it’s good to see an open discussion and I truly thank you for providing links. (Although seeing all that red and black will freak a few out.)

Screw labels! All I’m saying, in all my ramblings, is that, imho, it looks like we need to come up with some solutions together...since those we allow to lead us don’t seem to be up to the job.

We need ideas and solutions, not dogma and ideology. We need to stop relying on systems and start relying on each other. We need to define our values and LIVE them, and connect with other individuals who want to do the same. I imagine that most, (not all, obviously) of us share a pretty common set of both needs and morals. Society couldn’t even stagger along as it does if we didn’t.

Shared need is shared opportunity. Shared morals allow trust. We use the tools in front of us to turn our dependence on self-serving hierarchies into interdependence with each other by building local relationships of trust.
That’s not utopian…it’s practical.

site1
site2
site3
For budding anarchists, the above sites will get you started. 
But linking up with a genuine anarchist as an apprentice would
probably be your best bet.  Have fun!

You might admit, though, that a website with the name of the site I
provided ‘sounds’ like an authority.  It is a very sophisticated website
with all kinds of other related links.  (Truthdig won’t allow the name
of the site to be printed or any reference to the subject!  I’ve tried a
different version of my post earlier.  It is a matter of censorship). 
One must sway to the tune provided.  Or is that bow?

entropy2, Dec. 22 10:04 am – Gee, that was said with tongue
in cheek.  M’thinks some levity is needed, especially as the sun starts
its new path around the sun.  M’thinks I did make the distinction
between anarchists and communists, no?

@Hetero—walk into my house without my permission and I’ll be happy to teach you the definition of non-coercion. Non-coercion and non-aggression do not equate, in any way, to non-self-defense, whether on an individual or community level. Anarchism does not mean “every man for himself and devil take the hindmost.”  It means exercising your freedom to choose your associations and transactions without coercion from political, economic, religious or any other type of “elite.”

@Ozark

You say:

The track record of politically active Anarchists, especially when they decide to team up with Communists, is extremely harmful, and that is what we find in OWS.

and

Anarchists teamed with Communists thus far has caused unmitigated misery for millions and millions.

Again, lumping anarchists and communists together is a mistake on several levels. First, anarchists were among the first to be betrayed and purged by the statist communists of the early 20th century, so blaming anarchists (suckers though they were) for the depredations of state-communist regimes doesn’t wash. Further, anarchism IS NOT MONOLITHIC. There are anarcho-communists, anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-syndicalists, agorists, voluntaryists, mutualists, individualists, etc., etc., etc.

But, in any case, if we want to get into comparing “track records” of anarchist- and state-borne violence and slaughter, let’s do it.

First, kudos to entropy2 for standing up and attempting to clarify anarchism,

entropy 2 said:

What is anarchism for? Simply put, personal freedom and responsibility.

The power of self-definition is infinite, and involves the possibility for infinite self deception. Anarchists are for personal freedom and responsibility. Conservatives say the same thing. What does it prove?

Please note that what anarchism strives for and anarchisms historic consequences are two different things.

Those of us who are not anarchists only know it by its results, not by its promises. The track record of politically active Anarchists, especially when they decide to team up with Communists, is extremely harmful, and that is what we find in OWS.

Really as a historical matter, there is no other political/religious/philisophy more harmful to humankind. Anarchists teamed with Communists thus far has caused unmitigated misery for millions and millions. The last century is littered with its corpses, human devastation on a scale unimaginable.

Yet, such is the mix of the OWS central committee.

… The radicals who lent this movement so much of its character have offered American political life a gift, should we choose to accept it.

Which i do not accept at all because such gifts come with a very high hidden price. Please take it back.

~~~~Anarchism is simply the rejection of coercive power.~~~~

defining anarchism in that way kinda kicks the can down the road because you’re
not defining the “coercive power” that’s being rejected.

I wanna walk into your house, take all your food, rub up against your teenage
daughter and then set your house on fire as I leave, you gonna reject calling the
coercive powers-that-be so that they stop me or you simply going to explain to
me that I’m not wisely exercising my personal freedom and responsibility ?

What if I reject the coercive power of your lecture ?

@Shenonymous—thanks (truly) for throwing *a* website out there for info on anarchism…nice, but certainly not “all you ever wanted to know” about the subject.

However, perhaps you’ll want to read a bit more of it yourself before you repeat any more myths about the “nature” of anarchism.

Correct, anarchists are not democratic.  Certainly we can get
beyond anarchism equals communism.  Anarchism is tyranny
of the individual which is completely antithetical to communism,
regardless of the 1930s communist splinter group who called
themselves anarchists, and is anti-democratic.  Anarchism, as
defined on AnarchistNews is a concept in which all forms of
government are bad and that the best government [sic] is ’NO’
government.  This kind of practice tends to be destructive as well
as violent. When there is no government, the individual has no
constraints and there is destruction of property and lives as well
as unwarranted intrusion and eventually ’extortion taxes’.  In the
end, there is the mentality of every person for themselves.  For those
interested, all you ever wanted to know about anarchy may be found here.

I’m pretty certain the people who decided the left in the US would start calling themselves “anarchists” and force groups to agree unanimously before taking any kind of action worked inside the beltway defense/intelligence complex.

There’s nothing democratic about a couple of extremists blocking progressive groups from taking any action at all most of the time. That’s not democratic at all.

Participatory direct democracy is a great idea. The USA government is not a democracy. It’s a representative republic. US citizens don’t govern the US. We should be making government decisions.

The anarchists “consensus” process is NOT democratic. You want a democracy, it’s got to be majority rule.

from the article:

... The radicals who lent this movement so much of its character have offered American political life a gift, should we choose to accept it.

The amorphous and shifting foundation of Occupy, which loves to wear a different mask depending on which audience it is playing to, tonight is playing to the radical crowd: “oh we are influenced so much by radicals!” but i think in this case it is truth, at least in the OWS central committee.  Yes, in a different place with a different audience the mask changes, and we find “hardly any”, an “insignuificant number”, “just a few” radicals in the encampment. But thats misinformation just for consumption by the middle class.

Please note dear reader, no matter what political stripe you may be, that the term “direct democracy”, may sound like the most unhindered form of the people’s will, may sound like pure democracy in action, but no… “direct democracy” is a small faction attempting to dictate change to society by using an increasing amount of force as it gains enough strength to do so.

“Radicals” means Communists, Anarchists, Socialists. When they get together, you seem to think that good things happen. You may claim they empower people. Historically, I am aware of a few people they empowered… like Lenin, ...and like Mao.

Yay for radicals.

The discussions of anarchism here sound like the old story of the blind men describing an elephant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

Anarchism is simply the rejection of coercive power. In broad terms, it rejects the neocon wet dream of a globe-spanning American empire, while, at the same time equally rejecting the “progressive” wet dream of an all-encompassing domestic mother-state that taxes and controls our every action “for our own good.”

Anarchism is not about overthrowing or destroying anything. It is opposed to the concentration of coercive power in hierarchies. Are there violent anarchists? Sure. But before all anarchists are called to account and responsibility for the actions of a tiny minority, let’s hear statists answer for the vast slaughter and destruction wrought by the vast majority of states. To demand that anarchists provide a fool-proof blueprint for social order is facile and hypocritical, given the manifest failure of the state to provide the same. To call anarchism “utopian” is equally absurd. What could be more naïve and foolish than believing that you can deliver vast, unassailable power into the hands of a few venal, sociopathic humans and end up with anything but tyranny and exploitation?

What is anarchism for? Simply put, personal freedom and responsibility. Freedom to associate for mutual aid and to exchange goods and services without outside intervention. Freedom to worship, or not, as one chooses. Freedom to form communities with other responsible individuals around shared values, principles and needs.

It is interesting to note that the modern image of anarchism (propagated in state-run schools) as wild-eyed, bomb-throwing loons was born in the “progressive” era when the liberal technocrats and the conservative plutocrats teamed up to throw the working class under the bus.

Anyway, before you hold forth on your narrow and biased view of anarchism, try reading the history of anarchism—from Proudhon (my avatar), Tucker, de Cleyre, Thoreau, Kropotkin, and many others in the past to Rothbard and Chomsky in the modern age. There are as many individual “flavors” of anarchism as there are, well…individuals.

Admittedly a liberal, but a liberal who recognizes the powerful
effect of the anarchistic impulse on those who are disaffected
by the actions of government, I also recognize that anarchism,
the noun, that means “having no government,” is aroused by a
strong visceral, emotional reaction that has not been relieved
through government intervention, but the historic reality is that
it cannot be sustained for very long. 

I’ve noted on other forums that anarchism was a necessary emergent
psychological response to a perceived and deeply felt anger (which is
a psychological state of mind) at the corruption and acts of usury
by the financial empire unchecked by the forces of government at the
inception of the Occupy Movement that had reached a boiling point and
naturally erupted.  I would also say that the financial crises was only the
climax of a long festering anger residual in the hearts (passions) of
millions of Americans.  But I also maintained that the anarchistic impulse
can last, and will in this current case, only so long, and not for very long
in the whole scheme of things since the energy of an anarchistic impulse
burns out when the reality of life sets in, that being when the population
gets weary of the conflict and simply wants to get on with their lives. 
They will find anarchists and their unrelenting assaults tiresome and
counterproductive.  A candle only burns for so long.

For this large nation that is a complex of fifty sovereign states with
varying views and ethnic composition, direct democracy at a national
level is a chimera and a self-fooling endeavor.  Direct democracy works
and has been working all along at the local level.  For a country as big
as the US, representative democracy is the only political structure that
can work efficiently.  Besides, a change in the way this government is
already set up, it would take a Congressional amendment, to the
Constitution, which is the supreme law of the United States, which
requires three-fourths of the entire body of Congress, who represent
their respective states, would have to ratify such a change (here). 
Dream on oh imaginers of utopia.

The secret of an anarchistic movement is to not let the candle burn out
completely but to keep it burning at a very low level by instigating
changes a the local level that will affect each increment above until it
affects the national situation.  It is called the persuasive power of
assimilation.

In a larger sense, aren’t we kind of all in this together?

The use of ism’s or ist’s will merely return us to the rigidities of the previous centuries.  Thinking today must be nimble and architecturally designed to make order out of chaos in a world of rapid fire change.  We crossed the threshold of something entirely new in the 21st Century.  Old thinking will not prevail.

@BrilliantBill, Again, you’re pointing out specific American brands, but when you look at the roots of Anarchism and it’s actual philosophers like, as I mentioned, BAKUNIN and KROPOTKIN, the core belief of anarchism is the destruction of the old state and its replacement with a society based on Social Revolution. This is why Noam Chomsky even suggests that serious Anarchists could even build alliances with leftist Marxists who follow the Rosa Luxemburg line of thought. That’s of course if you actually want to change things, if not then by all means go sit in a park and play a guitar hoping Obama will give a damn.

From Utah Phillips:

“...anarchy is not a noun, but an adjective.  It
describes the tension between moral autonomy and political authority,
especially in the area of combinations, whether they’re going to be voluntary
or coercive.  The most destructive, coercive combinations are arrived at
through force.”

Think about that for a while if you think you understand anarchy. Then go read the autobiography of Ammon Hennacy and learn how a true anarchist lives a life.

Robespierre115,

Yes, yes, and yes.

Anarchism in the traditional sense of Bakunin and Kropotkin is more visible in places like Greece, in the US OWS isn’t so much Anarchism as it is postmodern activism with that US flavor of not taking sides, trying hard not to offend anyone etc. Actual Anarchism openly advocates the overthrow of the existing capitalist order and replacing it with a system similar to the Paris Commune of 1871, but of course in the US few people read history anymore and base their “anarchism” on watching “V For Vendetta.”

gerard~~~~~ criminals and crazies is a little sloppy but generally accurate for
discussing what went down in OWS.

I can’t locate harry siegel’s original report, but here’s a re-hash

http://gothamist.com/2011/10/31/drunks_criminals_told_by_nypd_to_oc.php

Grady, excellent point.

without a common definition of Anarchism, we’re limiting in effectively discussing
it.

thank you.

Frankly, and for the health of a possible future for the country, I deeply wish that “rightist” commenters here could drop their habitually condescending diminutions, like “lovely dream”—their condemnations, and their emphasis on “criminals” and “crazies” and “the impurities of humanity”—and their disheartening list of rancid criticism, and pay attention instead to the possibilities of ways of thinking that have atrophied under the relentless pressures of wars of empire, commercialism and conformity.

We do not have a good functional definition of the
term Anarchist. The principles of inclusive
consensus democracy and nonviolence are admirable
among citizen protestors but people hearing the
word anarchist automatically ascribe many other
behaviors and values because of conditioning and
assumptions. I’m sure there are some thrillseekers
or would-be revolutionaries calling themselves
anarchists who might commit violence, but maybe
they don’t understand what anarchism is either. The
term can be almost as prejudicial as the more
frequently used communist shouted as an accusation
or epithet. Anarchist by root simply means “without
a sovereign” or “intolerant of kingship.” I would
say a fair, modern application might be: Anti
oligarchy. In my estimation anarchists are defined
more by what they oppose than by what they
advocate.

Maybe I am mistaken. I recently got in a chat about
Occupy over at BC (blogcritics) including some
persons who also post here. I took what I identify
as a libertarian socialist (anarchist? maybe) line
saying wealth and income need to be capped in order
to make access to power and opportunity more
egalitarian and that in doing that we could make
economic democracy, participatory politics and
worker management more possible. Naturally I
assumed that the sequential path to those changes
would involve regulation to diffuse the present
unworkable institutions in an orderly and low
conflict way.

But NO-O-O they complained: There can be no
regulation under Anarchy. Man was I surprised! I
had thought of anarchy as a means and not as a
strictly implemented form of government. So I saw
them as having the same sort of utopian ideals,
impractical and even harmful limits on
institutional order as Libertarianism. Of course
even their variety of anarchism would not be blind
to how corporate and Oligarchal power would
inevitably be intensified under a proverbial “free
market.” Now there is obviously the use of the word
libertarian by Chomsky and others to describe a
movement intent upon egalitarianism without any
emphasis on capitalist economic forms, but in the
present dynamic Libertarian is a hardened
structured concept embracing the religion of the
magic monetary market. Still I found it hard to
deal with the idea that anarchists cannot support
any regulation and I found it uncomfortable to
continue discussion.

Citing the work of Steven Lukes regarding Power as
an obstacle to political expression and
participation, even an inhibitor of imagination, I
left my Anarchist purists to discuss amonst
themselves.

Yes, thinking we attribute to anarchism has shown
usefulness at Occupy actions. Some of the methods
could just as easily be attributed to psychologist
Carl Rogers. These are methods more than ideals.
They are ways of freeing colonized minds from some
pretty cruddy assumptions acquired in school, on
TV, in church, from bad boys in the alley and from
worshiping celebrities and Oligarchs. I was a
progressive Republican from the age of 25 to age
42, and it took some mighty extensive de-
programming before I could begin to think. And as
much as I have thought, and read, and discussed,
and written since then the terms of political
debate are slippery and malleable, and they
sometimes confuse me. People have to form
consensuses about what they mean before they can
communicate effectively, and then even consensus can
become a stumbling block. So I argue that anarchy is a means and not a goal, but I could easily be misunderstood.

maybe someone can explain this to me…...

http://zombiecontentions.com/2011/12/20/32250/2338479886_700e5fa90f_b1
/

There’s certainly a disconnect between the ideal and
the reality, especially when considering the very
human faults of individuals that pop up any time a
big enough crowd is examined…

But where would we be without that ideal?  I shudder
to think about a world without Emma Goldman.  Some of
her writings still sound like distant idealism - and
other goals have been thoroughly accomplished to the
point we may feel silly that birth control was ever
such a controversial topic.

We evolve, we evolve, and we can move toward our
ideals even if we don’t know exactly what things will
look like when we get there.

pessimism or simple truth, ardee?

a philosophy that’s based on enlightened action from all people is a few cards
short of a full deck.

the history of the world doesn’t support the assumption.

we’ve a long way to go before the loveliness of the dream is obtainable

Pessimism from the usual source of such is only a distraction from the evolution of the Occupy Movement, an evolution that is quite exciting to watch.

——” Many are resolutely nonviolent.”——-

and how do the resolutely non-violent deal with the resolutely violent anarchists
and regular old criminals and crazies in their midst?

did the Occupy camps deal well with governing the offenders among them?

something about pure anarchy fails to face up and really deal with the impurities of
humanity.

````“Drawing on modes of organizing as radical as they are ancient, they insist on
using forms of participatory direct democracy that naturally resist corruption by
money, status and privilege. Everyone’s basic needs should take precedence over
anyone’s greed.”``````

it’s a lovely dream and not presently of any great utility. 

but lovely to look at.