Thom Hartmann: Is there a role for Anarchists in the OWS movement?

[thomhartmann]

Dennis Trainor, documentary filmmaker & was w/October2011 DC joins Thom Hartmann. From its beginning - the Occupy Movement has preached non-violence in it's demonstrations and protests. But now - splinter cells of the movement are popping up - using violence to send their message. Is there a role for anarchists in the movement to re-build the American economy?

The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann on RT TV & FSTV "live" 9pm and 11pm check www.thomhartmann.com/tv for local listings

[demosincebirth]

1. Yea, that's all we need on our side is anarchists. Destruction of anything public and private is

their goal...nothing else.

[rhett o rick]

2. And what is your source of that information? Did you watch the video? nm

[demosincebirth]

5. Where have you been? Does one really have to watch videos to really know what they stand for?

[rhett o rick]

7. "Where have I been". That's your response? Go pick a fight with someone else. nm

[RufusTFirefly]

4. Bullshit

You know as much about anarchism as I do about hydrangeas.

I'm tempted to suspect your motives but will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are just woefully misinformed.

[demosincebirth]

6. You know, I don't do fools well, so I won't answer. nt.

[ZombieHorde]

10. The establishment has you well trained.

If you have any interest in the truth, as opposed to what you have been told to believe by corporate news, you may want to check out anarchist authors, such as Noam Chomsky.

[RufusTFirefly]

3. Ironically, the framing of this discussion perpetuates "Anarchism = Violence" myth

Last edited Thu May 3, 2012, 04:49 PM - Edit history (1)

The discussion itself is a lot more nuanced, but I fear that many people will take home the simplistic -- and wrong -- equation.

As uncomfortable as it may be for all those folks who see anarchism as nothing but black clothes and window busting, the very foundation of Occupy Wall Street is based upon anarchistic principles such as horizontalism and mutual aid.

As for the violence, not only is it overblown (a product of the "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality), but I suspect that much of it is the work of agents provocateurs.

If you follow the trajectory of OWS coverage over time, the efforts to squelch and discredit the Occupiers have morphed.
No longer a bunch of lazy hippies with no plan (a characterization that failed to catch on), they are now increasingly being portrayed as dangerous terrorists. Watch as this new spin gains steam.

[patrice]

9. First: Ascribing to horizontalism does not necessarily mean that you (singular or plural) actually

achieve that state. Beginning with the fact that centuries of old habits don't just disappear because we start using the word horizontal and including the fact that many people don't know that they don't know what they don't know all results in a "horizontality" that is extremely easy to disrupt and/or paralyze through its own horizontal processes. Which fact suits a significant minority of a certain type of activists just fine, because they are proceeding on the principle that the ONLY thing ANY of us need is an end to any form of order or control and most especially an end to government, which is eminently achievable by disruption of any and all political processes.IOW, this isn't just about overt violence, but rather also covert violence carried out against the processes of horizontalism amongst a group of people who are predisposed to having significant and essence -tial problems real -izing, i.e. manifesting, authentic horizontal relationships, especially NOW.

Second: It is an unfair assumption to say anyone who brings this stuff up wants to discredit the Occupy. Some people have seen a great deal up close and personal and care enough that we CAN'T lie about how we ARE NOT what we claim to be. Just going through the motions of horizontality, without the authentic commitment TO ONE ANOTHER, doesn't work. Yes, there are plenty of rational reasons for that, which are more authentic than the claims that we are the worst, these are reasons that are more authentic than the "Occupy is physically violent" meme.

[patrice]

8. What's needed is balance, but it is SO EASY to disrupt balance in something like the Occupy, so

anarchy/ism gets a conveniently easily buzz on and attracts other ideological inclinations that define the value of what they think (though not necessarily DO) in terms of how much sacrifice is made in the name of their own truths. And that's not how many people sign on with these ideologues and DO THE WORK of constructing their truths, because, conveniently, that "can't happen in this poluted evil world", so what is necessary is to remain as ideologically pure as possible NO MATTER WHAT THAT COSTS ANYONE ELSE.

This is troubling to me for a variety of reasons, the first of which are my questions about its authenticity, especially in light of what one might speculate is an extremely HIGH need for a scapegoat to assuage millions of consciences over the crime of invading and occupying a sovereign nation known as Iraq and either directly causing or indirectly supporting the deaths about about 250K INNOCENT people.

A convenient form of that scapegoat is GOVERNMENT (in the abstract as it turns out (rather than in the concrete, i.e. the government that is in fact *US* in either positive or negative)) and I don't have to tell you the synergy that anti-government attitudes get from other quarters who don't give a crap about what we did to Iraq, synergy that creates what looks to me like an in-ordinately high interest in anarchy/ism, quite a bit of it amongst some demographics that don't really have that much to lose, a.k.a. the bourgeoisie, or the remaining middle-class who still have at least family resources that they can fall back on.

[limpyhobbler]

11. The problem is idiots, not anarchists

Most anarchists are peaceful. There are apparently a few violent people in the crowd and mixed in with the movement. They are possibly going to ruin the whole thing.

I know some like "leaderless". But I think we need a leader. Like Martin Luther King. He would be about 83 years old now. I wonder if he had not been murdered how different our country would be today. There is a time for leaderless and there is a time for leaders and discipline.

The anti-globalization movement in the 1990s and 2000s made the mistake of fetishizing formlessness and restisting hierarchy and organization. We didn't form lasting institutions with any real power. Horozontalism is nice, but I'm thinking now could be a time to start foming some hierarchies and incorporating more officially in The System. I'm not suggesting to abandon principles of participatory society. But do create institutions and start laying the foundation for a 100-year inter-generational struggle to create a better world.

Occupy is influenced by anarchist ideas but it's not just about anarchism and horozontalism to the exclusion of all other ideas and organizating principles.