Dear Occupiers (a letter from anarchists)

[Carl]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2085827

TBF  (1000+ posts)        Sun Oct-09-11 01:37 PM
Original message
Dear Occupiers (a letter from anarchists) 
 This was posted today on Occupy Wall Street's FB page. I may not agree with all elements of it, and you may not either, but I thought it was pretty brilliant as a whole:

Why should you listen to us? In short, because we’ve been at this a long time already. We’ve spent
decades struggling against capitalism, organizing occupations, and making decisions by consensus. If
this new movement doesn’t learn from the mistakes of previous ones, we run the risk of repeating them.
We’ve summarized some of our hard-won lessons here. Occupation is nothing new. The land we stand on is
already occupied territory. The United States was founded upon the extermination of indigenous peoples and the
colonization of their land, not to mention centuries of slavery and exploitation ...

The problem isn’t just a few “bad apples.” The crisis is not the result of the selfishness of a few investment
bankers; it is the inevitable consequence of an economic system that rewards cutthroat competition at every level of
society ...

Police can’t be trusted. They may be “ordinary workers,” but their job is to protect the interests of the ruling class ...


Much more here (in pdf form so you can print it if you like for easier reading): http://cloudfront.crimethinc.com/images/occupy/dearoccu...
 

Cal Carpenter  (1000+ posts)      Sun Oct-09-11 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. This is very important - thanks for posting.
 In some of the Occupy sites, it seems like they are trying to reinvent the wheel. They need to be open not only to the insight of current anarchist groups, but also historical examples of this type of movement - where they have failed and succeeded...

This is an early time in a potentially powerful movement, and I hope ideas like the ones above (and I am not an anarchist) are being considered and discussed, as opposed to the current mainstream thinkers and opportunists who will co-opt and destroy this movement before it gets anywhere.

The Chicago site has 'fetishized obedience to the law' to a fault, there are many there who are calling them out on it. I hope they are making progress. It's the main reason, IMO, that the numbers there are so small. At Wall Street it is obvious that the numbers grow everytime there is a disturbance involving arrests etc no matter who 'started it'. Tactics are important. Direct action should not be taken lightly but it can help galvanize and mobilize more people when done strategically.

The movement needs to be careful not to romanticize or idealize some notion of the US as being a great country founded on 'freedom' and 'democracy' that has somehow gone astray - those are dangerous traps.

OWS and it's offshoots are getting the conversation started, helping people learn what words really mean, and the difference between political rhetoric and reality. There is much potential here but it will take a lot of discipline and hard work to get anywhere.

Intellectual honesty is key. Romanticizing rhetoric ('speaking truth to power' aka begging for crumbs) will destroy the movement.

white_wolf (1000+ posts)        Sun Oct-09-11 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. In nearly any circumstances no. I despise violence, especially the senseless kind.
 If the anarchists started the conflict and left no other choice I would, but it's important to remember despite the bad blood, anarchists and Marxists have fought along side each other before. You mentioned Spain, the Trotskyists fought alongside the anarchists against Franco's fascist and the Stalinists traitors in the Spanish Civil War. As for Kronsdalt, that was a a terrible thing and one of Lenin and Trotsky's great mistakes. Honestly, I'd be much more unwilling to work with Stalinists and Maoists than anarchists, those two groups worry me.

Fantastic Anarchist  (289 posts)      Sun Oct-09-11 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #11
30. I disagree with Marxists on some issues, but they're still my comrades in arms!

joshcryer  (1000+ posts)        Mon Oct-10-11 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #30
70. IMO, I can only deal with libertarian Marxists. As soon as they start calling for hierarchy... 
 ...I am going to distance myself, because that's one thing that can very easily kill the OWS movement.

lunatica  (1000+ posts)        Sun Oct-09-11 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. That doesn't answer my question so maybe I should have asked differently
 All those things you list are things everyone wants. My question is how does it happen? With a government collecting taxes? Without any government regulating anything at all? Who decides what labor does? Unions? Nepotism? Socialism? If people are in charge of their own possession of production and the profit is there any rules of minimum standards that other groups can rely on to feel comfortable purchasing or swapping with them?

Is every decision made by committee? I don't get how that will work. Most people would rather have others do that job. 

Fantastic Anarchist  (289 posts)      Sun Oct-09-11 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. It depends on the anarchist current ...
 Individualist, Mutualist, Collectivist, Communist, Syndicalist.

Mutualism retains its free-market features (true free-market) but with Labor in control and possession of the means of production. And yes, out of the differing variants, there are committees at various levels - but everything is decentralized and federated. Free association and solidarity.

And as to who decides, it's not nepotism. All anarchists are socialists, but it's just a question of strategy on how to get him from here to an anarchist society. Proudhon, through his mutualism, believed in working within the system until it eventually the last vestiges of capitalism disappeared via worker own cooperatives. Mikhail Bakunin(collectivist and Proudhon's disciple) took a more radical and revolutionary approach (not to say that Proudhon wasn't ready for revolution). Errico Malatesta was a militant syndicalist and favored trade union action. Peter Kropotkin (communist) believed in revolution but was more scientific in terms of his research and book Mutual Aid. Josiah Warren (Individualist) had basically the same ideas and put into practice at the same time those of Proudhon's mutualisim - though neither one knew about the other.

I realize it's a bit too simple what I wrote above, but there's no way for me to describe all of the different anarchist currents in a post.

I can start you, however, on an excellent online book by Daniel Guerin entitled:

Anarchism: From Theory to Practice

For a comparison between anarchism and Marxism, you can have a gander at this (though this is admittedly from an anarchist perspective)

The Paris Commune, Marxism and Anarchism

This should clarify some of your questions.
 

tama (1000+ posts)     Sun Oct-09-11 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. Many people
 seem to suppose what anarchists are supposed to be and do. I don't suppose, people decide by themselves. Anarchism starts with the acceptation that I AM LEADER. The great current of life LEADS through me and I go with the flow. I am the boss of my own life and responsible of how I use my freedom and treat others.

Anarchists don't suppose, they do as they like. Zapatistas want to live together as communities and they have common decisions to make and common things to take care of, and they don't want to live under the rule of corrupt politicians who start to think they are more equal than others, they want self rule.

And if you read the link, it gets even worse: drugs are not allowed. Not because they oppose drugs as such, but because they are surrounded be hostile armed forces in a country raped by bloody civil war because of US drug policies, armed forces that would and could use drugs as pretext to invade and torture and murder them as is happening elsewhere in Mexico.

Anarchists are not supposed to be self-deserving idiots except in imaginations that project their own. Like all people, anarchists have priorities that demand self-discipline. And like all good people, good anarchist priorities are life and compassion. It's the way of the heart, and when heart is in the right place, mind follows and serves in good balance.
 

Hope someone can make even a little bit of sense of that. 

Warren Stupidity  (1000+ posts)        Mon Oct-10-11 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #37
81. My dad is long dead and my mom is elderly and feeble.
 I am 60 and I am an anarchist. I am not rebelling against my parents. I am revolted by a system that benefits the 1% and screws the other 99%. Libertarian socialism has a long and proud history. Perhaps you should read up on it. You might learn something.

I support Occupy Wall Street. So should you. 

socialshockwave (637 posts)        Mon Oct-10-11 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #81
85. That almost seems like a contradiction.
 "Libertarian Socialism" DOES NOT COMPUTE

 

You noticed that too huh?
Here is a clue,nothing you idiots say amounts to a real thought,just words strung together.

You see drunken willy pittstain,there is no fear on our parts because we know inevitably you useless commies will show yourself for what you are and sane,civilized people are repulsed by it.
Please please keep it up!

[DumbAss Tanker]

white_wolf (1000+ posts)        Sun Oct-09-11 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. In nearly any circumstances no. I despise violence, especially the senseless kind.
 If the anarchists started the conflict and left no other choice I would, but it's important to remember despite the bad blood, anarchists and Marxists have fought along side each other before. You mentioned Spain, the Trotskyists fought alongside the anarchists against Franco's fascist and the Stalinists traitors in the Spanish Civil War.

Right up until Franco started to get the upper hand, when they decided it was more fun to kill each other than to keep fighting him, anyway.

[USA4ME]

I probably need to go read some of the Indymedia sites regarding this OWS thingy.  If you ever venture to read their stuff, if that was all you could read you'd think the whole world was anarchists and there's a handful of very powerful people who won't let it happen.  Really 

.

[Karin]

"Libertarian Socialism" DOES NOT COMPUTE

Why doesn't that compute, shockwave?  Is it because inevitably socialism has to be instituted at the point of a gun?  That left to their own devices, people would not want your glorious system? 

[jukin]

That thread is full of people (I use that term loosely) that can count to BLUE.

[movie buff]

The website Crimethinc (Where that letter apparently originated) is written/ run by a bunch of die- hard Anarchist nutjobs who have no problem whatsoever using violence and domestic terrorism to achieve their goals.
They're the sorts of Anarchist losers who think of themselves as brave, fearless revolutionaries, yet whenever they start their explosions of violence and lawlessness (Or as they eumphemistically call them, "Direct actions"), they wear those stupid bandanas over their faces because they're too cowardly to reveal their identities, for two reasons: 1) To make it harder for the cops to identify and arrest them when they inevitably engage in vandalism and violence, and 2) To lessen the risk of their rich parents recognizing them in news footage of the protests and cutting off their trust funds (Another possible reason could be to hide how horribly rotted their teeth tend to be, due to meth- mouth).
 In contrast, you don't see any Tea Partiers hiding their faces behind bandanas, because they have nothing to hide and not only aren't afraid of being identified, they want the public to know who they are.

I once perused a bit of Crimethinc's website for laughs, and discovered the following facts about them:
1. They think having any kind of personal moral beliefs is bad (I guess that way it'll be easier for them to sleep at night after terrorizing innocent people who may have committed the hideous crime of disagreeing with them).
2. They put up an article expressing a vehement opposition to bathing regularly and other forms of personal hygiene; In it, they claim that our society's love of cleanliness is just the result of propaganda by the EEEEEEEEEVIIIIIILLLL corporations that make personal hygiene products (I am dead serious here, the article was called "Washing and brainwashing" or something stupid like that).
3. They also put up numerous articles completely justifying the use of violence in their actions.
So, in other words, to the Crimethinc freaks, bathing= BAD; Violence= GOOD.
Fortunately, the fact that they felt the need to write this open letter to the OWS crowd is a good indication that, as stupid as the OWS'ers are, at least they're not going along with Crimethinc's demented views. I'd take semi- passive, pot- smoking hippies over violent, meth- addled Anarchists any day of the week.
I'm reminded of the scene from 'The Chronicles of Narnia; Prince Caspian' when the heroes refuse to accept the help of a vicious hag and werewolf, knowing that even in their struggles, there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed.

[Ballygrl]

Is Rush on vacation this week? if not he needs to be sent that.

[Ballygrl]

Any idea why I can't open up the "manifesto"?

[USA4ME]

Fortunately, the fact that they felt the need to write this open letter to the OWS crowd is a good indication that, as stupid as the OWS'ers are, at least they're not going along with Crimethinc's demented views.

That's where the problem will eventually lie.  As the anarchists begin to slowly infiltrate and control the whole OWS thing, they'll demand violence.  Should they not get what they want from the others, they'll seek out to destroy it.  In their worldview, it will have become a faux-demonstration that's attracting attention in the wrong way.  You'll see them refer to the OWS gathering as "corporate capitalism lite" and/or "corporate capitalism in disguise."  Not saying it will ever get that far, but should it get that far it'll be the deathblow of the OWS movement.  The OWSers will have to fight a two-front war; one on banks and capitalism, another against anarchists who view them as fakes.  They aren't up to fighting either, much less both.

.

[Aristotelian]

All anarchists are socialists

Anarchism etymologically means 'without rulers'; i.e., that there is no formally constituted government.

Socialism means that the government owns the economy.

Not quite sure how they sit together - other than both being fruity loops ideas.

[Carl]

Anarchism etymologically means 'without rulers'; i.e., that there is no formally constituted government.

Socialism means that the government owns the economy.

Not quite sure how they sit together - other than both being fruity loops ideas.

I am guessing in the utopian dream sense of a community without need of government where all share and share alike and act to the mutual benefit of each other.

Human nature undoes that nonsense faster then I managed to type it out but these idiots still believe it. 

[DumbAss Tanker]

Anarchism etymologically means 'without rulers'; i.e., that there is no formally constituted government.

Socialism means that the government owns the economy.

Not quite sure how they sit together - other than both being fruity loops ideas.

They're completely incompatible concepts, DUmmie socialshockwave was actually right.  Anarchists fail pretty quickly since their non-system involves an immediate reversion to barter economy without organization or law beyond the household and the rule of fort main, which by itself quickly ends the anarchy when individuals form gangs and impose a pseudo-feudal order of their own.  Socialism is just incredibly inefficient economically, which means it can last for a pretty long time unless it is pressed to failure by competing societies with free market economies, or a neighboring militaristic society with a grudge.