Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 24, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!








Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

The Cancer in Occupy

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Feb 6, 2012
Mr. Fish

By Chris Hedges

The Black Bloc anarchists, who have been active on the streets in Oakland and other cities, are the cancer of the Occupy movement. The presence of Black Bloc anarchists—so named because they dress in black, obscure their faces, move as a unified mass, seek physical confrontations with police and destroy property—is a gift from heaven to the security and surveillance state. The Occupy encampments in various cities were shut down precisely because they were nonviolent. They were shut down because the state realized the potential of their broad appeal even to those within the systems of power. They were shut down because they articulated a truth about our economic and political system that cut across political and cultural lines. And they were shut down because they were places mothers and fathers with strollers felt safe.

Black Bloc adherents detest those of us on the organized left and seek, quite consciously, to take away our tools of empowerment. They confuse acts of petty vandalism and a repellent cynicism with revolution. The real enemies, they argue, are not the corporate capitalists, but their collaborators among the unions, workers’ movements, radical intellectuals, environmental activists and populist movements such as the Zapatistas. Any group that seeks to rebuild social structures, especially through nonviolent acts of civil disobedience, rather than physically destroy, becomes, in the eyes of Black Bloc anarchists, the enemy. Black Bloc anarchists spend most of their fury not on the architects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or globalism, but on those, such as the Zapatistas, who respond to the problem. It is a grotesque inversion of value systems.

Because Black Bloc anarchists do not believe in organization, indeed oppose all organized movements, they ensure their own powerlessness. They can only be obstructionist. And they are primarily obstructionist to those who resist. John Zerzan, one of the principal ideologues of the Black Bloc movement in the United States, defended “Industrial Society and Its Future,” the rambling manifesto by Theodore Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber, although he did not endorse Kaczynski’s bombings. Zerzan is a fierce critic of a long list of supposed sellouts starting with Noam Chomsky. Black Bloc anarchists are an example of what Theodore Roszak in “The Making of a Counter Culture” called the “progressive adolescentization” of the American left.

In Zerzan’s now defunct magazine Green Anarchy (which survives as a website) he published an article by someone named “Venomous Butterfly” that excoriated the Zapatista Army for National Liberation (EZLN). The essay declared that “not only are those [the Zapatistas’] aims not anarchist; they are not even revolutionary.” It also denounced the indigenous movement for “nationalist language,” for asserting the right of people to “alter or modify their form of government” and for having the goals of “work, land, housing, health care, education, independence, freedom, democracy, justice and peace.” The movement, the article stated, was not worthy of support because it called for “nothing concrete that could not be provided by capitalism.”

“Of course,” the article went on, “the social struggles of exploited and oppressed people cannot be expected to conform to some abstract anarchist ideal. These struggles arise in particular situations, sparked by specific events. The question of revolutionary solidarity in these struggles is, therefore, the question of how to intervene in a way that is fitting with one’s aims, in a way that moves one’s revolutionary anarchist project forward.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Solidarity becomes the hijacking or destruction of competing movements, which is exactly what the Black Bloc contingents are attempting to do with the Occupy movement.

“The Black Bloc can say they are attacking cops, but what they are really doing is destroying the Occupy movement,” the writer and environmental activist Derrick Jensen told me when I reached him by phone in California. “If their real target actually was the cops and not the Occupy movement, the Black Bloc would make their actions completely separate from Occupy, instead of effectively using these others as a human shield. Their attacks on cops are simply a means to an end, which is to destroy a movement that doesn’t fit their ideological standard.”

“I don’t have a problem with escalating tactics to some sort of militant resistance if it is appropriate morally, strategically and tactically,” Jensen continued. “This is true if one is going to pick up a sign, a rock or a gun. But you need to have thought it through. The Black Bloc spends more time attempting to destroy movements than they do attacking those in power. They hate the left more than they hate capitalists.”

“Their thinking is not only nonstrategic, but actively opposed to strategy,” said Jensen, author of several books, including “The Culture of Make Believe.” “They are unwilling to think critically about whether one is acting appropriately in the moment. I have no problem with someone violating boundaries [when] that violation is the smart, appropriate thing to do. I have a huge problem with people violating boundaries for the sake of violating boundaries. It is a lot easier to pick up a rock and throw it through the nearest window than it is to organize, or at least figure out which window you should throw a rock through if you are going to throw a rock. A lot of it is laziness.” 

Groups of Black Bloc protesters, for example, smashed the windows of a locally owned coffee shop in November in Oakland and looted it. It was not, as Jensen points out, a strategic, moral or tactical act. It was done for its own sake. Random acts of violence, looting and vandalism are justified, in the jargon of the movement, as components of “feral” or “spontaneous insurrection.” These acts, the movement argues, can never be organized. Organization, in the thinking of the movement, implies hierarchy, which must always be opposed. There can be no restraints on “feral” or “spontaneous” acts of insurrection. Whoever gets hurt gets hurt. Whatever gets destroyed gets destroyed.

There is a word for this—“criminal.”


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By tomcat, February 29, 2012 at 4:15 pm Link to this comment

Troll,
Well, allow me to retort!
If you had read some of my previous posts here (there have been many) you’d understand that my motive in posting links to articles, interviews, etc., is to educate.
As I’ve said, most peeps here, as in the general population, have little knowledge of anarchism, and Hedges article perpetuates myths about anarchism, as mainstream media does.
My knowledge on the subject has been enriched by doing a little research, as well as by a few contributors here.
Some of the questions people pose don’t have precise answers.
There’s a variety of anarchist philosophies…Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky, etc.

Bottom line here…if you have an open mind and the time, you might learn a few things to be able to have a rational, intelligent conversation on the subject.

Elisa, sadly, does not have an open mind.
Although Foucauldian asks questions, as Elisa did, I’m skeptical when she speaks of a “paranoid fear” of structure. She attributes to individuals, as you did to me (passive-aggressive), a psychological state which may have no basis in reality.
Direct democracy, particularly when consensus is used, is time-consuming, and perhaps tedious.
But I would rather that no decision be reached than a rushed decision rammed through by a vocal, aggressive minority, which could be harmful…not just the decision, but harmful to the unity of the commune,to the idea of egalitarianism, and to the empowerment of the individual.

If you’re willing to accept the consequences of decisions being made for you, and not being allowed an equal voice, then anarchism may not be for you.
But it seems fair to say that’s how we got to where we are today. We’re voting ourselves into oblivion.

Anarchism seems to be the best chance of achieving personal freedom and human potential, as well as a culture of mutual aid and solidarity, and the end of patriarchy, dominance, racism, etc.

Report this

By Foucauldian, February 29, 2012 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment

I’m not certain what distinction you’re making here,
Ana.  It is an alternative political form, and
therefore must partake of certain structure and
organization, however informal or fluid.

Do you disagree?

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 29, 2012 at 3:22 pm Link to this comment

tc———from your link———-5.  Sanctions for violators.  Naturally, those
found liable by arbiters or, worse, those who declare themselves “outlaws” by
refusing any third party arbitration may need to be encouraged to comply by
proportional sanctions.  Common law anarchists emphasize the value of non-
violent enforcement through ostracism and boycott, most effective against
those who are part of the local community, but recognize that some cases may
require force against violators.  Clearly, the arsonist may need to be restrained
physically to protect the forest.  Still, when local acceptance and monitoring of
rules is strong, violations are rare, usually accidental, and typically resolved
without the need for violence.

————-

once you get to physical force employed against transgressors, haven’t you
implicitly moved away from anarchy?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 29, 2012 at 3:11 pm Link to this comment

Anarchy or anarchism is not a system.  It’s a social order in which there are no rulers and no permanent institutions of coercion—governments.  I can imagine many different hypothetical societies which could meet that stipulation, some virtuous and pleasant, some not.  The existence of rulers, government, and the state, however, ensures the presence of permanent violence, because humans are willful and cannot be made to submit to authority reliably except through the use of force.  One may like violence; many do.  Or one may be convinced that ‘man’ is necessarily violent and must be forcibly controlled.  The problem with this plan is that the controlling must be done by humans who are not going to be any better than those they control; indeed, they likely to be much worse.

It is you fans of the state who need to justify the institution.  The two hundred millions killed by governments in the 20th century (rough estimate) are an indication of whether the state works, or rather, for whom and to what ends.  Let’s make this explicit.

Report this

By Jay Lindberg, February 29, 2012 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Plugging non-violence is a great concept but you have
to be smart enough to know when non-violence will not
work. 

Nonviolence has a reasonable chance of success when
dealing with failed and flawed policies.  Dealing
with corruption is a different animal altogether
because the guilty parties are facing jail time,
destruction of their wealth and empire or
assassination. 

You will need to use an escalation of force or
violence to deal with these problems.  Unfortunately,
most of the government and power structure have been
in this boat for a very long time. 

To bring these criminals down, you have to learn
proper intelligence gathering techniques and strategically release information that makes them a
liability for termination.  Then you turn them into
rats and bring down the system.  This is how you
bring down organized crime and this is how you clean
up corruption.

You make these criminals so hot, that the people they
really work for have to kill them.

Jay Lindberg

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 29, 2012 at 2:46 pm Link to this comment

troll——perhaps heterochromatic will pick one he’d
like to use…——-


conflict resolution in the anarchists in Japan from 1950 suits me. If anyone can
explain how it doesn’t point to severe difficulty, I would be obliged.

Report this
troll's avatar

By troll, February 29, 2012 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment

from your anarchy101 link: “The answer seems
rather obvious to me.  Leave passive-
aggressive notes next to the sink full of
dishes, establishing the guilt of the
offending party implicitly.”

Report this

By tomcat, February 29, 2012 at 1:11 pm Link to this comment

Troll,
Passive-aggressive….care to expand on that?

Report this

By Foucauldian, February 29, 2012 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, February 29 at 10:25 am

I’m still going to argue that a paranoid fear of
any kind of structure represents the greatest
impediment to any further development of
anarchistic thought, both in theory and in
practice.  Any political system, and anarchism is
no exception, necessarily involves certain
organization and structure.  There’s just no way of
getting around that.  Which is why in the communes
Anarcissie refers to, everything is “talked to
death.”

Troll’s earlier-voiced concerns regarding forms of
representation acquire new significance, provided
one starts small-scale at first, with
representation models within the community.  And in
that case, the problem of representation comes down
to streamlining the processes of consensus-
building.

Additional cause of potential problems with an
anarchic community:  many people join the community
for “all the wrong reasons.”  Not that they
shouldn’t of course or be prevented, but it does
accentuate a need to clearly articulate both the
principles of anarchistic forms of political
organization as well as the principles of
anarchistic political philosophy.

Recent work on community (by Miranda Joseph and
Judith Butler) may well merit re-reading.

Report this
troll's avatar

By troll, February 29, 2012 at 12:22 pm Link to this comment

tomcat - I’m particularly taken with the
passive-aggressive notes approach to
conflict resolution from your link

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 29, 2012 at 11:25 am Link to this comment

Excluding communes with ‘secret masters’, the ones I have any experience of talk every problem to death.  However, I think there are several books about the internal politics and sociology of communes which you might want to look up.

(By ‘politics’ I mean the theory and practice of whose will (if any) shall prevail (in a community).)

I think communes are probably not necessarily a good example of anarchic conflict resolution because they can potentially enforce totalitarian conformity of culture and conduct through policies of admission, exclusion, and expulsion.  They are more like camps in enemy territory at this point; useful at the moment, but not necessarily a model of the life of the world to come.  This is more or less the same caveat I posted about religious communities previously (I think).

Report this

By Foucauldian, February 29, 2012 at 11:19 am Link to this comment

Your thoughts, TC.  Put something on the table.

Report this

By Foucauldian, February 29, 2012 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

Michael Ozark should chip in since he’s part of one -
-in a way.

Report this
troll's avatar

By troll, February 29, 2012 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

perhaps heterochromatic will pick one he’d
like to use…

maybe you should start with an anarchist
commune

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 29, 2012 at 10:15 am Link to this comment

Anarchic systems: bunch of people sitting around in a park?  Flea market?  Everyone who happens to be walking on 33d Street between Lexington and Park?  The Internet?  A commune?  The local feral cat colony?

Report this
troll's avatar

By troll, February 29, 2012 at 10:08 am Link to this comment

(left out an ‘o’ there - try ‘choose one’
leaving the choice up to you Anarcissie)

Report this

By Foucauldian, February 29, 2012 at 10:06 am Link to this comment

Insofar as any anarchic system is a political system
—and I can’t see how it could avoid being that
unless we think of it only as a lifestyle—it must
have as certain structure. 

Hannah Arendt’s thoughts on politics (in an article
vs. Frantz Fanon) is one model.

Report this
troll's avatar

By troll, February 29, 2012 at 9:58 am Link to this comment

within

Report this

By Foucauldian, February 29, 2012 at 9:54 am Link to this comment

Conflict within or without?  The former seems to pose
a lesser (logistic?) problem because of pre-
selection.

Report this
troll's avatar

By troll, February 29, 2012 at 9:51 am Link to this comment

chose one

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 29, 2012 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

Which anarchic systems?

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 29, 2012 at 9:29 am Link to this comment

mostly it’s the Association of Poets, Old Ultraviolence
Anarchist Division

Report this
troll's avatar

By troll, February 29, 2012 at 9:28 am Link to this comment

heterochromatic’s question re: conflict
resolution in anarchic systems needs
addressing

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 29, 2012 at 8:09 am Link to this comment

It’s also incorrect—few anarchists call for ‘speedy violent revolution’, etc.  But as you see, no one cares about the facts.

Report this

By tomcat, February 28, 2012 at 11:24 pm Link to this comment

A well executed poem. You have a talent.
Now, what WILL it take to bring the revolutionary spirit to life in you, Elisa?

Report this

By elisalouisa, February 28, 2012 at 9:16 pm Link to this comment

Some comments just do not make sense

So much so that one need not be dense

To know that mankind by poems is not ruled

And drugs keep some of mankind fooled.

Anarchists call for speedy violent revolution

While those who know know that’s not a solution

Someone must tell the ones who dream

That the power/elite have a scheme

Where the oligarchy takes command

Leaving the lesser folk dust in the sand

As they formulate a new world order

Bringing mayhem without a border

Our culture a thing of the past

And death is here at long last.


elisa

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 28, 2012 at 7:58 pm Link to this comment

Mankind is ruled by poems.  For better or worse.

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 28, 2012 at 7:48 pm Link to this comment

List——humans need their dreams and the dreams inspire.

Report this

By Listener81, February 28, 2012 at 7:35 pm Link to this comment

“and that’s how ANARCHY is best thought of….as belonging to the realm of poetry
and rheteric and not to the real world of mundane men.”
That is what anarchy is: poetry that has NO RELEVANCE in the real world.
  Poetry WILL NOT PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE. Poetry WILL NOT GIVE PEOPLE HEALTHCARE. Poetry will not CHANGE THE BANKING SYSTEMS. Poetry WILL NOT END THE PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. Only REAL, POLITICAL ACTION will change things.
  I prefer the example not of WORDS, but of ACHIEVEMENTS. When I look at the achievements made in Brazil, Denmark, Canada etc I see something more inspiring than any 19th Century proto-Emo poetry.

Report this

By tomcat, February 28, 2012 at 6:50 pm Link to this comment

I am not mundane..in any sense of the word.
Imagine!
We’re all much more than we’ve learned to be.
To free ourselves to imagine, we first reject our programming, as well as the programmers, and move to unplug from their grid…yeah, take the red pill.

Then you’re free…
“at least in your mind, if you want to be”.  (Sly)

THAT is responsibility…knowing what’s real and being true to that certainty.
In being responsible to ourselves….and by extension to humanity, we must consider all of the possibilities to bring about a society, and world, which is a reflection of our best selves.

There are no restrictions….hence…no limits.

The purer form of Anarchy of Emma Goldman may need the pragmatism of Chomsky’s version.
It’s good to hear her, though:

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/goldman/Writings/Anarchism/anarchism.html

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 28, 2012 at 12:50 am Link to this comment

and that’s how ANARCHY is best thought of….as belonging to the realm of poetry
and rheteric and not to the real world of mundane men.

Report this

By tomcat, February 27, 2012 at 11:55 pm Link to this comment

ANARCHY.

Ever reviled, accursed, ne’er understood,
Thou art the grisly terror of our age.
“Wreck of all order,” cry the multitude,
“Art thou, and war and murder’s endless rage.”
O, let them cry. To them that ne’er have striven
The truth that lies behind a word to find,
To them the word’s right meaning was not given.
They shall continue blind among the blind.
But thou, O word, so clear, so strong, so pure,
Thou sayest all which I for goal have taken.
I give thee to the future! Thine secure
When each at least unto himself shall waken.
Comes it in sunshine? In the tempest’s thrill?
I cannot tell—but it the earth shall see!
I am an Anarchist! Wherefore I will
Not rule, and also ruled I will not be!

JOHN HENRY MACKAY.
1891

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 27, 2012 at 9:01 pm Link to this comment

Ana—good comment and I’ll raise my coffee mug in a toast to you and to better
days ahead.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 27, 2012 at 8:51 pm Link to this comment

heterochromatic, February 26 at 7:44 pm

‘Ana——-maybe a question of size and scale?
any large and complex society that hasn’t included a military?
I don’t go all the way to necessary but I’m stuck with what exists.’

What exists is always changing, so while we’re stuck with it and in it, we’re also changing it. 

I don’t think the future of life is confined to its history.  If human beings are, then life will eventually go on without them.

Report this

By Listener81, February 27, 2012 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment

I see people going on and on about the ridiculous notion that anarchism can work. Yes, a thousand years ago in an age when the highest technology was slings and boomerangs, things LOOKED like anarchism. But, in an age of automobiles, cars, Ipads and trance music, the state is necessary.
  I mean, who will stop roving bandits from stealing a shipment of Ipads from a factory? Who will punish them? Who will ensure the fair pay of the people in the factory that made the Ipad? Who will ensure that the electricity that goes to my house so I can power the Ipad doesn’t get its cables cut?
  And yes, even tribal society had a state: chieftains, elders, etc. Only difference is now the state gives us more rights and we have a greater say in things.
  In a republic, the people own the state, and the state keeps order. Without order, you have human beings at their worse. Human beings evolved from predatory apes that hunted in packs and as a result we are still hard-wired for following leaders, pray on things and seek dominance. In a capitalistic society, we can channel that urge for dominance in a positive ways and have a Social-Democracy to ensure that the game is played fairly without damaging the people on the bottom.
  The state functions as to protect us from ourselves, which is something no tribal society, aside from a few bands of dozen or so, could do…and what, are we to go back to tribes? So, in NYC with millions of people, what happens there?
  Anarchism is a system that doesn’t even work on paper (at least Leninism sounds good until you see it in practice) and is more a fashion statement than any real movement.
  In the end, you are judged not by what you destroy, but what you create, and anarchism hasn’t created anything.
  Oh, and I actually enjoy the state, thank you very much, as do most Americans. So what, are we to be exterminated if you are to have your way?

Report this

By tomcat, February 26, 2012 at 9:22 pm Link to this comment

This interview segment with Chomsky provides some clarity on Anarchism as related to governance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDHBvQRyOr0

Follow this link for the first of five parts
Chomsky on anarchism interview from 1979:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW7nnLNANtQ

Whether in governance or any other workplace in the society, direct democracy is the decision-making process.
It’s important that we understand that anarchism is a well thought out idea on organizing a society, with no apparent relation to the black block anarchists of Hedges’ article….
where he uses the word anarchist about ten times,
knowing that readers have minimal understanding of the word, and probably a negative perception of it.
Let’s all learn about real anarchism instead.

BTW, Anarcissie, thanks for your posts….precise, bright, prescient,.....keepin’ it real!

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 26, 2012 at 8:44 pm Link to this comment

Ana——-maybe a question of size and scale? 

any large and complex society that hasn’t included a military?


I don’t go all the way to necessary but I’m stuck with what exists.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 26, 2012 at 8:28 pm Link to this comment

Sure, there are social structures in any primate society.  The question is whether rulers and a military-bureaucratic hierarchy serving them is necessary for humans.  And that depends on your intuition of human nature, which is one of those big philosophical questions you don’t want to talk about.

Report this

By Foucauldian, February 26, 2012 at 5:40 pm Link to this comment

One possibility—by appointing an agreed-upon
moderator.  Such a system of settling disputes is
already in effect, to provide relief to the
overworked court system and, compared to the latter,
it’s quite informal in makeup.

But why would you assume, at this stage, that force
anarchism on anyone, not as a concept, I mean, but
way of life?  I should think at the early stages at
least, it would be a voluntary kind of thing, no?

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 26, 2012 at 5:27 pm Link to this comment

I don’t think that anarchy means disorder or that governments are necessary,
Ana.


I DO think that if you have a group of a couple of dozen humans, you’re likely
to get structures….and if you get larger groupS existing together without
sufficient land for them to live entirely separately, you are likely to get formal
structures.

when conflicts arise, as they do, and they can not be amicably settled via
discussion or via the conflicting parties avoiding each other, what’s the
anarchist method of dispute resolution?

anarchism is fine with me, except for the fact that I live in a big and crowded
city.

are there now, Ms Ana, or have there ever been anarchist cities?

Report this

By Foucauldian, February 26, 2012 at 5:08 pm Link to this comment

Well, Ana, it all depends on how receptive some
people are to new ideas and vistas.  As long as
some are, I don’t mind giving it a shot, if only
because dealing with some of the more intelligent
questions provides me with an opportunity to
articulate my ideas better, get clearer, make
progress—all of the above.  Each conversation
has its own rhythm and inherent possibilities.  Of
course, there may also come a time when you have to
give up on someone and call it quits.

It remains to be seen how it goes with Hetero.  At
least he’s right about Hobbes in that his writings
remain the most influential as of this day in
having shaped the political and economic history of
the West.

Report this

By Foucauldian, February 26, 2012 at 4:57 pm Link to this comment

But the structure is not only culture-bounds (as
there certainly are some cultural variations)but
essentially “human”—and politically-neutral more
or less (i.e., would there be much of a difference
between those kinds of act across the many societies?

And what’s wrong with calling it “anarchistic”?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 26, 2012 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment

Macresarf1, February 26 at 12:47 pm:

‘I have nothing against anarchism, but the history of the human race has been a search for some sort of order.  In many ways, present governments are anarchic; they refuse to fulfill their promises to the large majority of people, and therefore, can’t be depended upon. ...’

So you do have something against anarchism—you think anarchy is a situation in which some entities refuse to fulfill their promises to the large majority of people.  The irony of mentioning that these entities are governments doesn’t occur to you.  What can I say?  You and heterochromatic think anarchy equals disorder; you have never heard of self-organizing systems.  The implication is that only violence can bring about order.  No one can be bothered to even read a single Wikipedia article—they already know it all.

So, what’s the use, Foucauldian?  What are we learning from this?  We might as well spend our days reading the editorials in the New York Times.

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 26, 2012 at 3:11 pm Link to this comment

certainly true, but they occur within an elaborately structured structure

Report this

By Foucauldian, February 26, 2012 at 2:11 pm Link to this comment

How about such things, Hetero, as lending a neighbor
a cup of sugar or helping a friend, even a stranger,
in need?

That’s my understanding of what Ana’s talking about. 
A great many of our day-to-day relations with the
people we know or come in contact with are not, just
for example, “financial transactions.”  They’re not
even transactions.

Report this

By Macresarf1, February 26, 2012 at 1:47 pm Link to this comment

I have nothing against anarchism, but the history of the human race has been a search for some sort of order.  In many ways, present governments are anarchic; they refuse to fulfill their promises to the large majority of people, and therefore, can’t be depended upon. People think they like FREEDOM, but living in confusion and uncertainty soon attracts them to order, especially women somehow with children.  And so, perhaps, anarchy or some order of anarchism is possible at the end but seldom lasts long in the beginning.  As one of you pointed out, no one has been able explain how the Madagascar model can be applied in the long term
to our present situation.

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 26, 2012 at 1:32 pm Link to this comment

———Most of the human race lived mostly anarchically during most of its
existence.  Most of daily life (outside of employment, anyway) is anarchic.———


how would you know that?

why would there not have been a structure in any dozen-or-more aggregation of
humans? 

don’t know how you can say that most of daily life is free of societal regulations
and live in a city. seems to me that we’re regulated up the butt and beyond.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, February 26, 2012 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie,

Most of the human race lived mostly anarchically during most of its existence.  Most of daily life (outside of employment, anyway) is anarchic.  It is the state and its intrinsic violence and inequality which require justification.

 

Well put.

I have more dealings now days with red light and speed camera’s.  Last time the Police fund called for support I informed them they had been outsourced by stationary drones with stationary drones.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 26, 2012 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment

I’m not going; I can hear the grinding of axes all the way over here.

Report this

By Foucauldian, February 26, 2012 at 11:23 am Link to this comment

Well, no.  This point has got to be hammered in until
it sinks in.

You can’t let fly-by-night commenters get away with
murder.

BTW, there’s another, recent piece on TD on
infiltrators—right down your alley.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 26, 2012 at 11:17 am Link to this comment

It’s not hard for me to stay on a subject because I keep saying the same things over and over again.  My recent remark about the anarchy of daily life is a staple of anarchist discourse, and yet again and again I’m told that there are not and never have been any anarchic communities.  I’ll see this assertion again in a week or a month.  Maybe next time I’ll succeed in letting it go by.

Report this

By Foucauldian, February 26, 2012 at 8:59 am Link to this comment

Of course I’m aware of that, EL, but I don’t view it
as as symptom of any sudden change of the trend
(insofar as the original intent of “the law” is
concerned).  I see it rather as symptomatic of the
economic breakdown (i.e., of capitalism) in the West,
along with the political breakdown (as exemplified,
e.g., by the “Citizens United”).

In short, the West is running on fumes and all these
are desperate measures.

Report this

By elisalouisa, February 26, 2012 at 8:45 am Link to this comment

In the last 20 years Fouc, we have seen the power elite get away with more than just highway robbery. Our social programs have been and continue to be cut, with our Congress stating that there are no funds available. Well, take a look at the link below and you shall see where such monies of the people have gone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-alan-grayson/the-fed-bailouts-money-fo_b_1129988.html

Report this

By Foucauldian, February 26, 2012 at 8:23 am Link to this comment

The laws were always in favor of the “power elite,” 
which minor concessions now and then to appease the
hoi polloi.

Report this

By elisalouisa, February 26, 2012 at 8:00 am Link to this comment

TC:The effects were to open up the country’s wealth to be plundered by multinational corporations, while the average person in that country suffered severely.

The laws were revised by the power/elite to favor them and rob the 99%, and what laws were not revised were ignored. All criminal. Even more sinister is that much of the funds plundered were invested globally to favor countries other than America. Corporate powers and individuals that gained from the theft of the 99% invested heavily in candidates for government office who would be/are their puppets, leading to the state of affairs we have today.

Report this

By Foucauldian, February 26, 2012 at 7:36 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, February 26 at 5:58 am

You should stick to this message, Ana, and run with
it.  Not much else, really, is required except—
and this, to some, may be the hard thing—
extrapolating the very same, day-to-day relations
to include all other relations as well, work-based
relations in particular.  It is here where
imagin.ation seems to betray us.

I can’t keep track of these threads anymore. 
People seem to shift positions, stay off topic,
etc.  Too many trees.  I don’t know how you manage.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 26, 2012 at 6:58 am Link to this comment

Most of the human race lived mostly anarchically during most of its existence.  Most of daily life (outside of employment, anyway) is anarchic.  It is the state and its intrinsic violence and inequality which require justification.

Report this

By tomcat, February 25, 2012 at 9:18 pm Link to this comment

Elisalouisa,

Thanks for the heads up on the Graeber interview (I assume you watched the 2011 interview).
It was enlightening and informative.
I appreciated hearing how anarchists are (naturally) opposed to war.
I also was reminded of my learning in the 90’s about the IMF and World Bank, and how few people even today know about them.
Most people here know Naomi Klein, and her book “Shock Doctrine”.
In her book she lays out the history of economic colonialism…going back to the 1970’s and perhaps earlier…where, same as now, austerity measures were imposed on people as terms of getting loans (indebtedness), just to keep countries afloat.
The common features of these Chicago School of Economics (Milton Friedman) measures were:

1.Privatzation 2.Elimination of Unions 3.Elimination of tariffs on exports 4. Devaluing the country’s currency

The effects were to open up the country’s wealth to be plundered by multinational corporations, while the average person in that country suffered severely.

Anyway, the Graeber interview:
 
vodpod.com/.../5243716-charlie-rose-a-conversation-.

Report this

By elisalouisa, February 25, 2012 at 8:12 pm Link to this comment

Macresarf1:You are entertaining a romantic fantasy, Tom and arcissie, which
goes against human nature.’

Just saw a video where David Graeber was interviewed by Charlie Rose a few years back. It’s amazing that anyone takes this guy seriously. The OWS publicity has done him a world of good. The only successful anarchy Mr. Graeber could mention was Madagascar and who knows how successful that one is. Such a way of life does go against human nature, which always seeks to have just a bit more than the guy next door and work just a bit less than that same guy.Capitalism satisfies that dream that may come true, even though in reality it more often turns into a
nightmare.

Report this

By tomcat, February 25, 2012 at 6:25 pm Link to this comment

Macresarf1,

I am not the corporation.


I don’t give a SHIT how corporations feel!

If they could feel


They have no place in my world

No one’s going to tell me the rules of my playground


it’s time to break free

Report this

By tomcat, February 25, 2012 at 5:26 pm Link to this comment

Crazy Miranda
lives on propaganda
she believes anything she reads
it could be one side or the other
Free Press or Time Life covers
she follows newsprint anywhere it leads
but still she can’t seem to read and nobody
knows nobody knows what she needs it could be love

All the pretty ladies textbooks
tell her how to have the “next look”
The Bible tells her stay as plain as you are
she wants all the pretty boys beside her
to write some pretty words to guide her
to tell her they love her body as well as her mind
she wants some kind of sign—a sign of love
oh never mind—she’s not your kind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwOr_Z7MeRI
Jefferson Airplane

Report this

By elisalouisa, February 25, 2012 at 5:07 pm Link to this comment

Macresarf1:“Tell me, Tom, if you were sitting on your front stoop, and a string of masked men, dressed in black, came up the street toward your home, smashing things as they came, would you applaud their actions? Would you feel tolerance welling up within you? Would you cry out, “I don’t understand why you are desecrating our neighborhood, but I’m GIVING YOU THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT!” Would you perhaps, if you really felt the sexy urge rising up within you, pick up a rock, and say, “Here, let me help you destroy my home.”If so, the great majority of human kind would call you nuts! [Private property is anathema to anarchists, I know, but most people of the poor, working and middle class will not applaud the destruction of what they have managed to scrape together.
Most people will fight off vandals, or no matter how much thye may distrust them otherwise, they will welcome the arrival of the police.You are entertaining a romantic fantasy, Tom and arcissie, which goes against human nature.’

So true Macresarf1, yet beyond the understanding of some well intentioned people whose goal it is to justify such action.

Report this

By Listener81, February 25, 2012 at 4:54 pm Link to this comment

By Anarcissie-
“If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that wherever there are meetings of activists or dissidents, where more than a few people are present, there there are almost certainly informants also.  Sometimes the informants are also among the most effective people in the group.  There is no way of identifying them a priori.  I have known several people who later turned out to be informants.  They look and act just like everyone else.  They do not arrive with ‘INFORMANT’ stamped on their foreheads.”
  And if YOU KNEW WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT you would know that agent provocateurs ARE ALWAYS the ones promoting violence, never the people promoting workable political solutions. When oh when did the FBI or some other group send people in to disrupt a protest by promoting non-violence and suggesting that they start registering people to vote?
  By your definition, Bayard Rustin was an informant! (do you even know who he was?)
  “As for ‘violence’. practically anything you do can be defined as ‘violent’ and ‘illegal’ if the authorities and their servants feel like it, and the kept media will follow their lead.  The chance that any action will be defined as violent increases in direct proportion to its effectiveness.  This includes walking around with or without a sign, or sitting in a park, as we have observed.”
  Yes and the populace quickly wises up and sees it for what it is. That is why the people were won over to the Civil Rights movement and the anti-war movement, because they saw images of people getting beaten by police simply for holding signs. Now, compare that to the anarKKKists in Occupy Oakland who burned a stolen flag and roughed up a woman who was pleading with them not too.
  We all know what violence is. Its use by activists plays right into the hands of the enemy and isolated the majority of the populace who would support a non-violent movement…them again, the trust fund baby anarKKKists never were interested in winning over the populace.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 25, 2012 at 3:54 pm Link to this comment

heterochromatic, February 25 at 9:56 am:

Ana—-is not the intrinsic violence of the government based upon the intrinsic violence and self-centeredness of the human?

That may be.  But if it is, then the human race will soon destroy itself, because it has the power to do so.  While the brief moment of the Götterdämmerung might be interesting, the prospect of the silence which will follow it strikes me as very tedious.  As the Irish say, you’re a long time dead.

So I’m working on the long shot that something else is possible.

‘Formerly, man could not do as he desired.  Now, he can do as he desires; and he must change his desires, or perish.’ —Albert Einstein or William Carlos Williams or one o’ them.

Report this

By Gandalfs Beard, February 25, 2012 at 12:27 pm Link to this comment

PS: And KUDOS to Tomcat for laying out the FACTS on the
ground instead of rambling on with unsupported opinions
like so many others.

Report this

By Gandalfs Beard, February 25, 2012 at 12:27 pm Link to this comment

PS: And KUDOS to Tomcat for laying out the FACTS on the
ground instead of rambling on with unsupported opinions
like so many others.

Report this

By Gandalfs Beard, February 25, 2012 at 12:20 pm Link to this comment

Let’s just ditch the labels then and call it how it
actually is. Old school “liberalism” doesn’t actually
mean liberal policies.

It means that THEY (THE RICH) should be FREE to do
WHATEVER the hell they want without restriction,
while WE THE PEOPLE are FORCED AT THE POINT OF A GUN
to do WHATEVER they tell us to do. That’s not
“liberal;” that’s not “libertarian.”

Rich people LOVE Big Government when they are in
control of it, and they are. What Rich people hate is
a Government that ACTUALLY provides for the welfare
of the populace at large. 

They HATE a Government that regulates their
industries, taxes them, and restricts their ability
to over-ride democracy. But they will NEVER, EVER
really want to give up Government. They want ALL of
the benefits of the State and NONE of the COSTS,
which is why they are now pulling out all stops to
turn the Western Nations into Third World Nations.

It’s always been that way and it always will.
Whenever the Rich start blabbing about
“libertarianism” they are lying out of their ass.

This goes DOUBLE for the founders of the US, a bunch
of RICH WHITE DUDES who codified a Constitution that
DENIED the franchise to anyone who was NOT a Rich
White Dude.

The people, or the “rabble” as the Rich like to call
us, have LITERALLY SHED BLOOD IN A LONG CLASS WAR to
obtain economic and political rights we would not
have had otherwise.

So ENOUGH with the BULL**** about “Class Conflict is
not Class War.” And ENOUGH with the “John Birchers
are liberals” BULL****. Birchers are about as liberal
as the Nazis.

Report this

By tomcat, February 25, 2012 at 12:13 pm Link to this comment

Excerpts from Solnit’s piece:

The grand thieves invented ever more ingenious methods, including those sliced and diced derivatives, to crush the hopes and livelihoods of the many. This is the terrible violence that Occupy was formed to oppose. Don’t ever lose sight of that.

Oakland’s Beautiful Nonviolence

So it’s important to recall that the initial impact of Occupy Oakland was the very opposite of violent, stunningly so, in ways that were intentionally suppressed.

Now here’s something astonishing. While the camp was in existence, crime went down 19% in Oakland, a statistic the city was careful to conceal. “It may be counter to our statement that the Occupy movement is negatively impacting crime in Oakland,” the police chief wrote to the mayor…

The police attacking the camp knew what the rest of us didn’t: Occupy was abating crime, including violent crime, in this gritty, crime-ridden city.

Then, Occupy Oakland rose again. Many thousands of nonviolent marchers shut down the Port of Oakland in a stunning display of popular power on November 2nd.

That night, some kids did the smashy-smashy stuff that everyone gets really excited about.  (They even spray-painted “smashy” on a Rite Aid drugstore in giant letters.) When we talk about people who spray-paint and break windows and start bonfires in the street and shove people and scream and run around, making a demonstration into something way too much like the punk rock shows of my youth, let’s keep one thing in mind: they didn’t send anyone to the hospital, drive any seniors from their homes, spread despair and debt among the young, snatch food and medicine from the desperate, or destroy the global economy.

There’s no question that they should improve their tactics or maybe just act tactically, let alone strategically, and there’s no question that a lot of other people should STOP BEING SO APOCALYPTIC ABOUT IT.

Those who advocate for nonviolence at Occupy should remember that nonviolence is at best a great spirit of love and generosity, not a PRISSY ENFORCEMENT SQUAD.

Despite this, many people who had NO FIRSTHAND CONTACT with Occupy Oakland inveighed against it or even against the whole Occupy movement.

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 25, 2012 at 10:56 am Link to this comment

Ana—-is not the intrinsic violence of the government based upon the intrinsic
violence and self-centeredness of the human?

Report this

By tomcat, February 25, 2012 at 10:47 am Link to this comment

Perspective from Rebecca Solnit   2-21-12
“Why the Media Loves the Violence of Protesters and Not of Banks”

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175506/tomgram:_rebecca_solnit,_why_the_media_loves_the_violence_of_protesters_and_not_of_banks/#more

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 25, 2012 at 8:49 am Link to this comment

I’m using the term liberal in its historical sense, not as the word is used in contemporary journalistic gabble— John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, minimal government, life, liberty and property, etc. etc. etc.  Jefferson and Locke would have found Barry Goldwater rather too enthusiastic about the state.  In the material I have seen from the Birch society, they seemed to be mostly following this line, but as I said they were greatly on about Communism, which caused them to betray many of the libertarian principles they claimed to espouse.  They may have become something else more recently.  Someone mentioned racism, but historically racism and liberalism have often gotten along very well.  Locke justified slavery, and Jefferson practiced it.

On the other side of the issue, I think I would like it if you people who are so enthusiastic about government would make some effort to deal with the intrinsic violence of the government philosophically.

Report this

By elisalouisa, February 25, 2012 at 7:55 am Link to this comment

As to Anarchy and the John Birch Society, they both favor limited/very limited government, local control. Some followers even have the opinion that the Federal Government should not be in the business of building federal highways.

Their beliefs as to the evils of government are quite similar.

Report this

By Gandalfs Beard, February 25, 2012 at 3:16 am Link to this comment

SOMEONE (ahem…you know who you are) keeps touting the
“It’s not a Class WAR” line. Most of us directly in the
line of fire and experiencing the physical and economic
violence of State Power in support of the International
Corporations and Banks beg to differ.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-
reading/gerald-caplan/dont-tell-us-its-not-a-class-
war/article2349194/

Report this

By Gandalfs Beard, February 25, 2012 at 12:09 am Link to this comment

@ Elisalouisa:

Please actually READ the REST of that article; not
just the quote you posted.

The article makes it very clear that the Birch
society is a radical Right Wing organization owned by
Corporate Interests.Their own publications put forth
any number of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

They hate Socialism and they hate Jews; basically the
same philosophy of the Nazis, i.e. their philosophy
cannot POSSIBLY be described as Anarchist.

@ Anarcissie, When you read the Bircher literature it
will become clear that they are more in line with
Birthers and they have never, ever, been described as
liberals in any way.

And in fact, the Bircher racist anti-Communist
rhetoric fuels the Tea Party’s own racist anti-
Communist rhetoric. Modern anti-Socialism is as
virulent and ubiquitous in Right Wing circles today
as much as it ever has been in the past.

Tomcat’s post is on the mark about what most self-
described anarchists’ goals are, which is really more
like libertarian/democratic Socialism; the workers
themselves owning the means of production instead of
Ultra-Rich Corporate owners or the State.

Report this

By tomcat, February 24, 2012 at 9:53 pm Link to this comment

Noam Chomsky is an anarchist.
Read Chomsky.
Also plenty of info to google.
Some anarchist (no ruler) principles were adopted in the worker-owned collective communities in Spain, and in OWS.

In OWS, those concepts are consensus decision-making, egalitarianism, no leaders, as well as occupying itself.
Consensus was first used by the Iroquois Council, and by Quakers and Green Party groups in the U.S.

David Graeber, though a “co-founder” of OWS, had litle if, any involvement in the daily activities and decisions of OWS.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 24, 2012 at 7:52 pm Link to this comment

I don’t know how the Birchers think of themselves now, but back forty or fifty years they defined themselves pretty much as classical liberals, along the same lines as Barry Goldwater but further out, and they were much more on about Communism than anyone is today.

I posted the Wikipedia link because I get so bored with people ranting about anarchism when they don’t know anything about it.  This is your opportunity to rant knowledgeably.  As for David Graeber, his writings are all over the Internet; it is not at all hard to find out what he thinks.  But this would mean actually reading the material—apparently too shocking a proposition to even contemplate.

Rant on, then.  Rage away.

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 24, 2012 at 7:51 pm Link to this comment

no——the use of state power to enforce law as
protection against criminals is not anarchic at all,
el.

Report this

By elisalouisa, February 24, 2012 at 7:33 pm Link to this comment

John Birch: I want of government only protection against the violence and injustices of evil or selfish men.

http://mondaymorningeconomist.com/wordpress/?p=35

Could that not be considered some form of anarchy?

Report this

By Gandalfs Beard, February 24, 2012 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment

The John Birch Society is NOT Anarchist. They have
NEVER claimed to be anarchists. They are a racist
anti-Communist organization founded by Robert Welch
of Welch’s Grape Juice fame.

In other words, they are just another Corporate
Disinformation propaganda machine. They love to ply
the Conservative base with Bogus Anti-Semitic
Conspiracy Theories. They are not anti-government,
they are anti-democratic-government.

Please do not post disinformation about the John
Birch Society.

Report this

By Macresarf1, February 24, 2012 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment

“Understanding why a protester throws a a bottle or breaks a window gives perspective.

“THEN, hopefully, perceptions will change.
Rather than judging a protester’s actions, one’s perception (the filters through which
one views the world) will be tolerance first.
I.E., the IMPULSE becomes one to give the protester the benefit of the doubt.”

  Tomcat—anarcisse, too—the average person, the person the Occupy Movements want to attract, not the oligarch 1% certainly, nor the violent anarchist 1%, the good people of America will not
recognize a plain clothes agent, but they will flee the Movements if they are led into dumb situations by such provocateurs. And characters in black masks running down the street throwing bottles through windows will scare them off, too.

  Tell me, Tom, if you were sitting on your front stoop, and a string of masked men, dressed in black, came up the street toward your home, smashing things as they came, would you applaud their actions? Would you feel tolerance welling up within you? Would you cry out, “I don’t understand why you are desecrating our neighborhood, but I’m GIVING YOU THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT!”

  Would you perhaps, if you really felt the sexy urge rising up within you, pick up a rock, and say, “Here, let me help you destroy my home.”

  If so, the great majority of human kind would call you nuts!

  [Private property is anathema to anarchists, I know, but most people of the poor, working and middle class will not applaud the destruction of what they have managed to scrape together.]

  Most people will fight off vandals, or no matter how much they may distrust them otherwise, they will welcome the arrival of the police.

  You are entertaining a romantic fantasy, Tom and arcissie, which goes against human nature.

Report this

By elisalouisa, February 24, 2012 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment

Absolutely, one should read as to the various types of Anarchism. The John Birch Society advocates a similar lifestyle. What type of anarchism is David Graeber promoting? A global anarchism? One must ask what all this all is about prior to getting on board. Is the main issue right now one to create mayhem? When the whole picture comes into view perhaps the word “cancer” may be a more proper description of what is taking place after all.

Report this
katsteevns's avatar

By katsteevns, February 24, 2012 at 9:38 am Link to this comment

@ elisalouisa

I don’t know much about Anarchism. Seems to me that as long as our “democratic” government is screwing over its subjects, the Anarchists will always have a platform. I suspect that socialist economies have fewer Anarchists.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 24, 2012 at 8:05 am Link to this comment

Macresarf1, February 24 at 12:07 am:

‘Listner 81 speaks truth, evidently drawn from long, hard experience.

Police informants need to be identified, and toughs getting their violent kicks need to be ostracized.  The Occupy Movements need to take in all those willing to stand witness and use a variety of NON-VIOLENT tactics. ...’

If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that wherever there are meetings of activists or dissidents, where more than a few people are present, there there are almost certainly informants also.  Sometimes the informants are also among the most effective people in the group.  There is no way of identifying them a priori.  I have known several people who later turned out to be informants.  They look and act just like everyone else.  They do not arrive with ‘INFORMANT’ stamped on their foreheads.

As for ‘violence’. practically anything you do can be defined as ‘violent’ and ‘illegal’ if the authorities and their servants feel like it, and the kept media will follow their lead.  The chance that any action will be defined as violent increases in direct proportion to its effectiveness.  This includes walking around with or without a sign, or sitting in a park, as we have observed.

I realize most of the people in this discussion are not and never will be activists, but there is the odd chance that someone might someday feel inspired.  If so you need to wise up.

Report this

By elisalouisa, February 24, 2012 at 7:42 am Link to this comment

Their propaganda machine is par excellence. That violence is directed at what the American people have been told is an enemy and also such violence is protecting “their” interests.  Many have bought into that. Favorite pass time of Americans is flag waving. Some Joe Sixpack truck drivers have flags on their trucks. Violence against their country? No way.
Didn’t answer my questions about anarchy did you? No one ever does. In describing Anarchy all I hear is about a small community where everyone loves one. Pleaase!

Report this
katsteevns's avatar

By katsteevns, February 24, 2012 at 6:48 am Link to this comment

By elisalouisa, February 24 at 5:13 am

“The more you are violent the fewer people you will win over.”

I beg to differ. Bush Jr. winning a second term flies in the face of your statement, as will the second term of Obama.

Report this

By elisalouisa, February 24, 2012 at 6:13 am Link to this comment

You might say “they” is me katsteevens. So far I know what I have.  What is it you are promoting? There are many forms of anarchy. Where have they been successful? Even the kibbutzs’ in Israel must be subsidized. David Graeber was not truthful as to the aims of OWS, from the very beginning. Why should anyone
believe him now? He does not strike me as being one “for the people.” There is more here than meets the eye.  Who are you to say what Americans believe? I, like many others, don’t believe in draconian capitalism. As to your violence. The more you are violent the fewer people you will win over. Not only that you give
law enforcement a reason to come down hard.  You’ll never win that one.

Yes, I dream of a society where one shares the bounty of the earth. I also know that human nature is such that at this time that cannot be. There will be those who again seek control and/or work for a system where they can be at the top of the heap. Those who stole our government will be there to take over if anarchy prevails and if truth be told may be behind the scenes encouraging such violent demonstrations.

Good posts Macresarf1, Listener81 also. All for nought, as responses only add fuel to a raging fire.

Report this
katsteevns's avatar

By katsteevns, February 24, 2012 at 5:04 am Link to this comment

@ Listener81

Everyone wants to believe that their country is the best, it’s only natural. But believing it doesn’t make it so, it only serves to help people endure hard times.

A perfect example of this delusional thinking is how the whole black community banded together to vote for a president based on his lies and his skin color. That shows me how uninformed we are about the depth of corruption within the executive office and the media.

The OWS movement has little to do with race and universal civil rights, at least at its inception. It was mostly a “white” thing. If the white community did not start losing there homes or jobs, there would be no OWS. There is no one in OWS screaming about the armies of minorities being herded into the prison system or portions of our cities turning into war zones, problems far more serious and devastating than the middle class losing homes or jobs.

The authoritarian minded Conservatives and the business community run this country and they want no part of any social democracy(whether they realize it or not). Capitalism and democracy are adversaries at the core.

I challenge anyone to succeed in influencing in any way, let alone dismantling the totally corrupt institutions of the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF. All awash with unelected officials who care not an ounce what you or I want or need. Yet they destroy countries, cultures and lives with the stroke of a pen.

Most Americans spend their entire lives not having the slightest clue as to the devastation that this country has wrought throughout the globe in the past 100 years, not a clue. And that makes it all the more easier to believe that this is “the best country in the world”. Thank the propaganda machine and the status quo.

As a nation, we have swallowed the blue pill.

Report this

By Listener81, February 24, 2012 at 1:27 am Link to this comment

“Walls of peacefully protesting people shall win the day.  It is slow, tedious—yes, boring and possibly dangerous—but that is what just might work in the long run.”
  thank you, macresaf. And I especially thank you for being honest and saying what the movement often is: boring.
  When I was an activist in New Jersey we spent so many hours doing nothing more then getting signatures on petitions and passing out fliers. Let me tell you, it was BORING WORK. But why do it? Because it NEEDS TO GET DONE! We managed to get a truly independent guy elected to mayor and he stood up to Wall-Mart and changed things more then every anarcKKKist combined.
  So many of these black bloKKK kids get into activism because they want the excitement of confronting the police and breaking stuff. That is NOT what a real political movement is about. It is about slow, painstaking change. Want excitement? Join the x-games. Want to change America? Get ready to have doors smashed in your face and spend long hours stuffing envelopes and talking to people who don’t want to hear it.
  That is the path to victory: real, non-violent political actions. As they said in the Civil Rights Movement: keep your eyes on the prize and hold on, hold on.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZWdDI_fkns

Report this

By Macresarf1, February 24, 2012 at 1:07 am Link to this comment

Listner 81 speaks truth, evidently drawn from long, hard experience.

  Police informants need to be identified, and toughs getting their violent kicks need to be ostracized.  The Occupy Movements need to take in all those willing to stand witness and use a variety of NON-VIOLENT tactics.

  Walls of peacefully protesting people shall win the day.  It is slow, tedious—yes, boring and possibly dangerous—but that is what just might work in the long run.  Random violence never will; it draws and excuses police oppression.

Report this

By Listener81, February 24, 2012 at 12:13 am Link to this comment

“Who is they? Anyway, “they” will give it ALL away before this is over…all in the name of saving face. Cuz “they” believe that “they” are part of the “greatest country in the world”, are guided by divine providence whose destiny it is to police the planet.”

  “They” probably means the majority of Americans who are not poor, but are slowly seeing themselves falling into poverty. Oh, and I am black, was raised in the ghetto, and I always believed America is the greatest country on Earth, as my father, a black man who grew up poor in the segregated south, taught me to believe.
  America is a great nation, but it is a work in progress. There are ways of making America a better nation to ensure social justice, economic fair play and environmental protection. Other nations have shown the way: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Economics/SocialDemocracy.html
  But for America to get there needs hard work by people willing to dig their heels in and register voter, run as candidates and support candidates, get petitions signed, form alliances between unions, civil rights groups, farmers etc, organizer protests and the whole shabang…all things that the black bloKKK idiots are incapable or unwilling to do.

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 23, 2012 at 10:31 pm Link to this comment

——I guess you mean if we lose self-control on the “front lines”.—-

xackly what I meant.

Report this

By tomcat, February 23, 2012 at 9:59 pm Link to this comment

Hetero,
Seems we’re in agreement.
Just one thing….
“we lose our shit and we lose everything”....
I guess you mean if we lose self-control on the “front lines”.

OWS is 99% nonviolent.
That’s further testament to the need to focus on the positive, and have tolerance and perspective regarding the rest.

There is little, if any purity in the world.

I’d bet that CH or Elisalouisa could easily be pushed to doing things they might not be aware they could do.

To expect purity in this movement is nonsense…literally.

Report this
katsteevns's avatar

By katsteevns, February 23, 2012 at 8:27 pm Link to this comment

By elisalouisa, February 23 at 6:48 pm

“At least they know what they have”

Who is they? Anyway, “they” will give it ALL away before this is over…all in the name of saving face. Cuz “they” believe that “they” are part of the “greatest country in the world”, are guided by divine providence whose destiny it is to police the planet.

No, this ego will not deflate any time soon. The drugs are too good and cheap to even give a thought to rehab.

Your great great grand kids will wonder, if that remains legal, why no one bothered to read 1984.

Report this

By elisalouisa, February 23, 2012 at 7:48 pm Link to this comment

You can’t go on a rampage because someone is being evicted or for that matter you wish to promote Anarchy by creating anarchy. Go after Wall Street, not those who advocate nonviolence. As to some people being evicted from their homes,  get an attorney who will work pro bono publico. That might get you some public support, whereas violence does not. In fact, shattered windows, looting, and other acts of a lawless nature will cause “the people” to support the powers that be even more so. At least they know what they have and violence is even more proof that anarchy is something they do not want.

Report this

By Listener81, February 23, 2012 at 7:40 pm Link to this comment

Once again, reading the lame brained comments by the anarKKKists leaves me laughing. It would be funny if these kiddie-in-hoodies weren’t such a problem for Occupy.
  Yes, I am sure they are right…smashing windows and throwing rocks at the police will indeed overthrow the government. And tactics of voting, pushing a Social-Democratic agenda and organizing political action? Those are nowhere near as effective as throwing rocks at cops…
    And still, I have yet to find an answer to the question…WHAT HAVE BLACK BLOKKK TACTICS EVER ACCOMPLISHED? WHAT HAVE THE ANARKKKISTS EVER BUILT?
  NOTHING!
  Social-Democratic/progressive tactics have given us healthcare, workers rights, environmental protection, civil rights, rights for women etc etc. Gays no have the right to vote in Washington State…and LOW AND BEHOLD it was won without people throwing anything at the cops.

  For progressives to win, we have to get people elected (it happens every year in America) For anarKKKists to win, they have to take down the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, FBI, Marshals, and every State Police and local Police agency, not to mention deal with the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of regular Americans who like government and will form militias and bring their own guns out.
  Electing people vs. a handful of kids taking down the biggest superpower on Earth…you have got to be on crack to not know which is more likely to happen.

  F**** of, you racist, do nothing violent anarKKKists punks. Us REAL progressives don’t want your kind around us anymore.

Report this

By Listener81, February 23, 2012 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment

A message to the black bloKKK parasites from Anonymous:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LD8UohyYPWA#!

Report this
katsteevns's avatar

By katsteevns, February 23, 2012 at 7:18 pm Link to this comment

Good luck with that. Not in our lifetime.

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 23, 2012 at 6:31 pm Link to this comment

sorry, kitty.

the state has a monopoly on violence.

we beat them with words when we can convince the populace of the illegitimacy of
state violence.

we lose our shit and we lose everything.

Report this

Page 3 of 12 pages  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  Last »

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook