Occupation Without Message

Many observers have failed to realize that the occupation is a positive act of protest in itself, regardless of any specific message that the participants attach themselves to. The act of self-organization, the practice of direct democracy, and the creation of a community based around an ill-defined discontent are not insignificant factors in understanding why people have gathered here. These group actions speak louder than any of the words that have been ineffectually prodded out of any individual person.

The pressure to formulate a list of demands serves only one purpose: to settle them quickly and end the occupation. Are we to celebrate the day we can finally put an end to the inspired discussions, give up the invention of alternative social arrangements, and leave our festival of solidarity only to return to a life submissive to the same economic imperatives employed on slightly more level playing field? No, we must see that 'reform is not a breath of liberty, it is the respiration of tyranny.' The hostile critics who cry “get a job!” (while completely unknowing of how many of us do have jobs, and the various reasons we do not), give both a perfect illustration of the central concern of negotiators, and a portent of what the policy makers will soon say once reform has been made. How miserable their lives must be, that the slightest interruption in the absurd quest for production and consumption at all costs can arouse so much fear and anger in them!

This has been the predominant attitude towards the recent events in the Middle East as well. The instant the regime was overthrown in Egypt, the U.S. media cheers, “Great! Mubarak is gone! Get back to work!.” Why would anyone want to get back to work? No post-protest government will function as healthily as the organization in Tahrir Square, precisely because the miserable indifference of a well-regulated work force and the “every man for himself” attitude engendered by capitalism are violently opposed to the enthusiasm, spontaneity, and spirit of camaraderie generated by a community of protesters. The same is true for Liberty Plaza, as for any other occupation site, no matter how small in number or uncertain in aim.

If we demand anything at the moment, it is an end to the demands being made on us. The occupation offers a place where time is severed from its monetary equivalence and spent luxuriously, commercial relationships based on mutual exploitation are replaced by human ones, and a political system that directly involves the community in decision making is made possible. The more we strive for emancipation on a small scale – through the skill sharing of working groups, the diligent democratic processes of general assemblies, the free giving of food, music, knowledge, etc. - the more senseless it becomes to translate our creative energies into policy changes that will reintegrate us into a world directed by coercion, bitterness, and greed.

-Ryan Wallace

Economic disenfranchisement must be addressed at the bottom...

One problem that was encountered today during a sympathy protest at UNC Charlotte was the ability for homeless people to gain access for food at the occupation site. Some individuals at this protest balked at the idea of the occupation site being used to service the needs of the most disenfranchised (the homeless). The economic collapse made the ultimate victims out of the homeless. They exist as the ultimate precarious individuals, ones who have been ignored and who show the end result of poor economic policy and a social system developed out of lack of care. The moral thing to do is to use the idea of the community to care for the homeless and let them into the community.

The problem with the society we have now is that ultimately individuals who have nothing to spend or invest (capital or labor wise) are ultimately deemed worthless and non-existant. The idea of the homeless individual is one who has conceded to not exist in the society as a whole, they have been deemed extra precarious and cast aside. Their ontology diminishes by the mere fact of the existence around them; they never choose to exist as homeless people (who would?), but instead have it cast on them. If the occupiers truly want to stand for justice, then developing the occupation as a place where the homeless can be taken care of is the best way to start.

The whole notion of the occupation is to reaffirm the social contract, to show that we are all equal players in our society. The first thing should be to address those who have ultimately been forgotten in the social contract. Show that a distribution of limited resources (the donated resources) can be distributed to other needy members of the community. Setting this as an example would be the best way to show that this can be done in the larger community.

                                                                                                          - Mark Brinton

False Logic

In the beginning of the following video, a women remarks on Occupy Charlotte's march on the Bank of America Headquarters that a.) it is not the best idea to march on a Saturday, when people are not at work, and b.) the protesters should get a job.  Watch -

Aside from the obvious retort that we are marching on a Saturday because many of us do have jobs, there is a flawed logic behind this.  It is an often refrain of detesters that people who protest do not have jobs.  I suggest the logic is as follows - A person who opposes the system (whether it be the economic or political system) cannot participate within the system, therefore they cannot possibly keep a job.

There are many reasons why this is false, but the main reason I bring it up is to shed light on similiar logic used by some lifestyle anarchists or by those who wish to drop out of the system.  This logic is as follows - A person who opposes the system cannot possibly work within the system.  If a person works within the system they cannot possibly oppose the system, therefore they are poseurs or illigetimate.  

I won't go into the arguments about how one cannot escape the system, therefore must subvert the system from within.  I merely want to demostrate the similarly flawed logic of seemingly completely different perspectives.

                                                                                                    -Eric Virzi

LIVE FEED OF OCCUPY WALL STREET

globalrevolution on livestream.com. Broadcast Live Free

ARGUMENTS FOR NOT VOTING

    As a society our government is not created by us, but consented to. Our system is a social contract, where rights are given away in order to ensure protection of other rights.  By voting we give consent to this system, in essence, by participating we give authority to the state. This occurs regardless of who wins, it is the participation in the system that allows for this consent.  Therefore, by not voting, we deny consent and negate the system as a whole.
    With this negation occurring, you refuse the present state of the social contract and instead force the current formation of government (the personification of the social contract) to have a.) No credibility and b.) No ability to function as a legitimate entity.  With this in place, the social contract would as it currently stands dissolve, because of the lack of consent to its continual existence.  In dissolving this, a new contract would be forced to be had.  This contract would encompass a new set of values that would encompass the problems and concerns of the body that must consent to it in order for the contract to exist.  All of this would be only be possible by a.) Not participating.  b.) Enough of the plurality not participating,therefore, allowing for the system to be negated, (this percentage would have to be between 20-25% in order to be feasible.)  c.) Having this action of negation dissolving the form and function of the system as a whole.
    To explicate, it would negate the current form of the contract and the function that exists from the practice of it.  This negation would eliminate power structures. This occurs by negating the system and the structures that support and rely on it. The "contract" protects this system and without consent, it would not be able to function.  Resources would be reevaluated, refigured, and dispersed with an absence of hierarchal power. All of this would lead to a new social order and a greater and more profound equality.

                -Mark Brinton

LIBERTY IS MYTH

PAPER - dialectical critique of Mill's Liberalism.

ANARCHISM AND PEACE

Paper on Anarchsim - Abstract...

Anarchism has a long history in which it has morphed and varied.  In this essay some of the major themes and ideas of anarchism are discussed in the hope to shed light on the current understandings and potentialities of anarchism.  The argument this essay attempts is to show how anarchism, as developed and understood by social anarchism, is necessary for the possibility and development of positive peace.