A welcome mat at Occupy Wall Street's Liberty Plaza on September 21, 2011.

Sometimes people ask me to tell the Occupy movement it should do this or that. It’s tough to know what to say, since the movement doesn’t exactly respond to advice from the outside. How could it? This is a participatory, relationship-based community. No one person really is in control, so it’s not like I can just pass some nugget of wisdom on to the secret leader. (Believe me, I’ve tried.) If you want a certain idea to get internalized in the movement, the best advice I can give is to participate yourself. Join relevant committees, be patient and try to persuade people there. Have fun. But be warned: you’ll probably change your mind in the process.

Also, there is a lot more room now (in “Phase II”) for active collaboration between the movement and existing organizations. See my post on the Occupy Our Homes action for an example of this. So another means of having your way with Occupy is to come to the table (or, really, the working-group circle) with some resource or activity to offer through an existing organization. Chances are, unless they smell corruption, the occupiers will be happy to back it up. And, of course, the more you hang out with them, and listen to their ideas, the more invested they’ll be in doing so.

Lastly, you can always just start your own Occupy based on the idea you have. After all, “Occupy Everything.” Get a group of people together, get them talking about the idea, and listen to what they have to say. Start taking action. See where it goes. No matter what, don’t sit around and wait for others, whether in the movement or in power, to do for you what you think is right. If Occupy means anything, it means the power is already yours, and it’s up to you to occupy it.

All this is actually quite simple, though considering the upside-down way we’re used to the world working, it can seem hard to grasp.

A tree trunk in Athens' Syntagma Square graced by the Occupy movement's motto.

From a glance at a recent front page of The New York Times, you might guess that a political meeting in Athens this week would be full of talk about the resigning prime minister, bailout deals, and the Euro. The land that gave birth to European civilization now seems on the brink of sinking the whole continent’s economy. But, among those gathered on Monday in a basement in the neighborhood of Exarcheia—a kind of Haight-Ashbury for Greek anarchists—the agenda was completely different. They talked instead about parks, public kitchens, and barter bazaars. They even seemed pretty hopeful.

The lack of concern for political figureheads, in retrospect, was to be expected. Greek anarchists see no more reason to care about whether George Papandreou goes or stays than those at Occupy Wall Street are agonizing over Herman Cain’s sexual foibles. They have another kind of politics in mind.

Read the rest of this article »

Occupy Oakland’s first attempt at a general strike began with press coverage that had supporters high-fiving across the country. Then came the hangover. Once again we watched as angry black bloc anarchists hijacked the media message. From the powerful pictures of protesters standing atop cargo vans, headlines of a shut down port and accounts of up to 10,000 peaceful marchers—including a children’s brigade of marching toddlers—we went to scenes of fire and chaos in the streets.

What is to be done? The story of black bloc anarchists swooping in like vultures to feed off the work and effort of peaceful activists, steal the media spotlight with angry displays and then disappear has passed the point of being tiresome. How can we use peer pressure to wage nonviolence within the movement? How can we be pro-active and take what we know about defusing anger with individuals and apply it to large out-of-control groups?

As a starting point, watch this video footage (above) of the attempted dialogue between volunteer peace keepers and rock tossing “enthusiasts” in Oakland.

Read the rest of this article »

Occupy Wall Street marchers watch from the pedestrian walkway as hundreds of their comrades take to the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge on October 1.

Even as Occupy Wall Street shapes the public conversation about high finance, political corruption, and the distribution of wealth, it has also raised anew questions about how resistance movements in general should operate. I want to consider one of the matters that I’ve thought about a lot over the past month while watching the occupation and its means of making its presence felt on the streets of New York and in the media.

“Diversity of tactics,” in the context of political protests, is often treated as essentially a byword for condoning acts of violence. The phrase comes by this honestly; it emerged about a decade ago at the height of the global justice movement, especially between the 1999 demonstrations that shut down a WTO meeting in Seattle and those two years later in Quebec. While all nonviolent movements worth their salt will inevitably rely on a variety of tactics—for instance, Gene Sharp’s list of 198 of them—using the word “diversity” was a kind of attempted détente between those committed to staying nonviolent and those who weren’t.

Read the rest of this article »

By Adam Roberts.

When, in July, Adbusters called for an occupation of Wall Street starting on September 17, it asked, “What is our one demand?” Online discussions began about what that might be, in the hopes that it could be settled ahead of time, and Adbusters even suggested a few of its own, like calling for a new anti-corruption commission (a la Anna Hazare’s controversial proposal in India) or the revocation of corporate personhood. There has also been talk about a Tobin tax, or the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act, or other wonky policy proposals.

After almost two weeks of occupation in renamed Liberty Plaza, the protesters have yet to settle on any one demand, or even on the idea that they want one. (This doesn’t mean it isn’t rather obvious why a bunch of angry Americans would be making a fuss at the exact center of their country’s concentrated wealth and reckless corruption.) Still, their evening General Assembly meetings—which are devoted to big-picture items like demands—have been busy. The Assembly has so far approved two significant documents about what it stands for, documents that are indicative of what the experience of the occupation is doing to those taking part. Many who came with a particular demand in mind, even, are changing how they think about what politics, and political activism, can look like.

Read the rest of this article »

My intentions are not to direct nor predict the future of Egypt.  That is the people’s concern.  I simply wish to offer a perspective that desires to decentralize power as much as possible and create decision-making structures that are left in the hands of those closest to its consequences.  I do not know enough about Egyptian culture, history or politics to assess the viability or desirability of an anarchist society – or its compatibility with Islam in the Middle East (which is a fundamental question in need of further and broader discussion: 1, 2, 3).  While anarchist thought and resistance has contributed much to the overthrow of tyranny and the struggle for justice and freedom, anarchism’s theoretical analyses and prolific historical examples of a self-organizing society rooted in voluntary cooperation, mutual aid, and total participation in direct democracy indicate that this perspective may be reaching its heyday as a mature political and social philosophy.

During times of social unrest and uprising, images of black-clad rioters clashing with security forces stoke fears of impending, widespread violence and the undoing of society.  Such scaremongering is often attributed to the anarchists – a cult of unruly, rage-filled nihilists who care little for the niceties of civil society.  These outcast youth, idealistic and irresponsible, know little of the worldly affairs of politicos and generals. Realpolitik, they are told, still the rules of the day, even in spite of all appearances of the people’s will for democratic rule: Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Algeria.  Yet it seems the people are prevailing!  Mubarak has left.  Ben Ali was ousted.  Celebrations and the hard but exciting work of re-constructing a country begins.

But the sands will settle.  The people will empty out of the squares and return to their homes and jobs.  Children will go back to school and the stock markets will open again.  The short-attention spans of global media will have been distracted by another monumental event and the exodus of journalists and well-meaning solidarity activists will commence, leaving in their wake a trail of untold stories of liberation and bloodshed.   And so it goes.  President Mubarak, having ceremoniously stepped down and delegating power to Vice President Omar Suleiman and the Supreme Council of the Egyptian Armed Forces in control, will be little more than a stained memory in Egypt’s glorious history.  But, like so many oppressive regimes of the past, there is the very real chance an old regime may be followed by a new tyranny.  The iron fist of Egypt’s oligarchy, this time in the velvet glove of democracy, could return to its usual tricks of exploitation and domination.  The youth organizers, union leaders, intellectuals, all risk being rounded up and put into jail or disappeared back into the secret prisons.  If the people of the Egyptian society re-brand themselves as passive citizens of the Egyptian state rather than direct participants in society, democratic tyranny could ensue.  But it does not have to go down this way – there are alternatives.

“Every State is a despotism,” wrote Max Stirner, “be the one or the many.”  In the case of Egypt, Mubarak (and his cronies) were despots of the singular sort.  As Egypt reflects on itself for the future of its society and government (the state), there is a tremendous opportunity for “the Gift of the Nile” to chart a new course for inclusive democracy and social justice.  While Stirner’s personal persuasion is controversial – even among anarchists – would reject the possibility of something like direct democracy, his cautionary edict should be heeded.  Consider the recent Orange Revolution in the Ukraine which has slowly seeped back into authoritarian rule; see Yulia Tymoshenko’s penetrating analysis “The Orange Revolution Betrayed” for lessons that may serve Egypt – and all people’s movements – well.

Read the rest of this article »

Tens of thousands have been demonstrating in Tahrir Square, Cairo, in the “day of departure” today, with few reports of violence. Hosni Mubarak, despite mounting international pressure, has still refused to step down. He said in an ABC News interview that he’s “fed up,” that “if I resign today there will be chaos,” and that he’s afraid the Muslim Brotherhood will take over.

What kind of chaos does he have in mind? Tens of thousands of people demonstrating in the streets for over a week, with no sign of stopping? Or perhaps something like what he unleashed on Cairo on Wednesday, when paid pro-Mubarak mobs descended on protesters with weapons?

This is a claim dictators love to make, that they are the only ones maintaining order, and that without them, everything would fall apart. Actually, everything has fallen apart with you still in office, Mr. Mubarak, and it’s not going to stop until you leave. You’re the one creating the chaos. The thousands upon thousands of your people in the street against you today are behaving quite well in contrast.

As part of fulfilling a Freedom of Information Act request, Virginia’s Richmond Police Department accidentally released homeland security and crowd control guides—outlining how the police target protesters. The police attempted to secure an emergency court order prohibiting the release of the documents, arguing that they were in the hands of an “admitted anarchist.” But it was too late. They were already posted online. According to journalist Will Potter:

… buried in the training guides are insights into three trends in law enforcement that have been occurring not just in Virginia, but nationally: the demonization of protest, the militarization of police, and turning local cops into “terrorism” officials.

These trends, which Potter outlines in more detail, are a disappointing truth about the perception of activism in this country. As activists rightfully prepare to deal with the expected crackdown, it’s important, however, that they not resort to a militaristic defense—such as wearing body armor and gas masks.

While the inclination to want to protect oneself is understandable, activists must realize how they will be perceived, not just by the police, but by the general public. Images of armored protesters in all sorts of defensive gear, facing off against riot police, will likely not draw sympathy to the cause, but instead more support for the security forces.

Gandhi and King recognized this dynamic and that is why they were adamant that the people in their campaigns present themselves as the ordinary citizens they were—even if that meant enduring physical pain. It’s not a pleasant thought, but if activists are “in it to win it”—so to speak—they must accept that the growing threat they face is an opportunity to prove the justness of their cause, not an opportunity to return violence for violence.

Tens of thousands of students marched through central London yesterday to protest government cuts of colleges and universities, as well as proposals to triple tuition fees. Organized by the National Union of Students (wow, does the US have one of those?) and the University and College Union, the protest was described by the BBC as “noisy but good natured” and filled with students who were “articulate and animated, ready to tell anyone who would listen that they were enraged by the raising of fees.” That is, until about 200 violent anarchists broke away, started smashing windows, and hurling placard sticks, eggs and bottles at police officers. The destruction culminated in the occupation of the Millbank office complex, where the Conservative Party has offices.

As protesters surged, a succession of windows were smashed and demonstrators flooded into the entrance.

Security guards scattered and the handful of police inside were completely overrun. As the police tried to stop them, protesters clicked a battery of cameras in their faces.

A few yards away, in surreal calm, guests carried on eating in the adjacent Pizza Express.

It was a bizarre sight inside the building.

Demonstrators wearing police hats danced on tables. A protester ripped a security camera from the ceiling and danced in triumph. Slogans were spray-painted on walls. Smoke from the bonfire blew across the crowd.

The protesters smashed everything inside with relentless ferocity. Office chairs were used as weapons to destroy what was left of the glass.

The level of anger and the swiftness of the violence seemed to have caught everyone by surprise. It had lurched without warning from a well-organised, up-beat publicity event to something much more destructive.

Who were the rioters? It wasn’t obvious from close-up.

National Union of Students president Aaron Porter was aghast at what had happened, turning a huge turnout into a huge mess of shattered glass.

He looked appalled as he talked about how the protest had been “hijacked”, taking it away from the planned route.

That’s precisely what such actions do. They hijack attention away from the issue that turned out thousands of people and refocus it on the destructive behavior of a few individuals. It doesn’t matter that the protest violence pales in comparison to the state violence of education cuts or that the protest violence was directed at property and the state violence is directed at people. The average person simply will not see it that way. They will believe the students to be crazy and dismiss their struggle. Furthermore, it will only mean tougher policing of the peaceful activists the next time they stage a march.

Read the rest of this article »