Over or Into The Wall?

Written By: - Date published: 1:11 pm, October 15th, 2011 - 39 comments
Categories: activism, class war, community democracy, democratic participation, political education, Politics, uncategorized - Tags: , , , ,

Does this sound familiar?

We have no official spokespeople. Correspondingly, no single view should be seen as necessarily representing the views of (the movement) as an organisation or of other people who are a part of (the movement). We are many contributors and participators from many diverse constituences and viewpoints. We are many voices.

You might be forgiven for thinking that extract comes from a contemporary leaflet produced on the back of one of the many occupations happening today. But it’s from ten years ago when an attempt was made to build a movement here in New Zealand to counter the government’s support in the  invasion of Afghanistan.

That movement withered. It withered for very definate reasons. And that is what this post is about. See it as a cautionary tale if you will.

When the movement began, it attracted people of all ages from a very wide range of political, religious and cultural back grounds. In the interests of ensuring that matters proceeded in as democratic a fashion as possible, it was agreed that there would be no ‘branding’ of any action or protest undertaken. As such, traditional organisations were excluded from decision making in recognition of the fact that they would bring a power imbalance to the table. Individuals who belonged to such organisations were encouraged to participate as individuals rather than as representatives of their particular organisation. So (for example) unionists were a part and parcel of the decision making processes and took part in actions, but the unions they belonged to and the particular agendas of those unions were not.

No information that was produced (and there was a lot of it!) carried organisational logos and no banners or flags used in actions promoted any specific political organisation.

It was felt, that as well as preserving the democratic integrity of the movement, denying organisations a platform for self promotion would make it easier for people to become involved. People weren’t being asked to identify with anything they might feel uncomfortable with beyond the actual issues at hand.

And it worked.

An ever growing spread of people gravitated towards the nascent movement, drawn solely by concerns over the invasion and connected issues. Where some people might have had initial misgivings about operating in new ways that didn’t involve having the organisational structures they were used to in such a situation (heirachical decision making processes; nominated leaders etc), those misgivings were quickly set aside. People soon found that it wasn’t necessary to have everyone agree on a particular matter to have that matter expressed either in action or as printed literature. (There were considerations beyond mere numbers to be taken into account, but  there’s no need to go into that here) So for example, a presence outside the local MP’s office ‘only’ required that enough people were ‘up for it’ to make it happen. And whereas some had no interest in religion, those who did could (and did) generate a presence that offered a counter perspective at a large prayer congregation held at the time. The Octagon was occupied for three days and nights with food, music and politics on the menu. In terms of literature there was, by way of example,  some that argued for UN involvement in Afghanistan and some that argued against UN involvement. It was reasoned that people could make up their own minds on where they stood and engage correspondingly.

In short,  there was ample opportunity for people to express themselves and their concerns, to getn involved in ways they were comfortable with and free from the shackles that come with majority rule or any insistence that a unified front or voice be presented.

However, the authoritarian left simply couldn’t live with that concept and insisted that their democratic rights were being undermined. By democratic rights, they actually meant the right of their organisation to self promote and the right to elevate their organisation’s particular political prescriptions above all others and to recruit people into their organisation. As such, they would only arrive at any meetings as mouthpieces for their organisation rather than as individual citizens and never offered support to actions emanating from those meetings.

In the end (and awash with irony) it all broke apart and there were two somewhat opposing peace presences in the city.

Finally the same old routine of marches peppered with one organisations logos, and rallies where people were spoken at by people using P.A. systems, rather than where people could enter into conversation with one another and explore ideas,  re-established itself as the norm. A lot of the people who had initially gravitated towards the opportunities presented them by the somewhat (to them) novel organisational structures of the movement, initially participated in the marches and rallies organised by the authoritarian left. But within that framework  they became subject to a dominant party line, no longer had the opportunity to do their own thing and were sidelined from the decision making process. Eventually, disempowered and disgruntled, they disengaged.

As I heard one person observe at the time – why should he, as a Christian, be asked or expected to march beneath banners that espoused a particular political ideology he didn’t ascribe to, and that his very presence would seem to endorse, when he didn’t ask or expect others to march behind or below any religious symbol?

Then, as now, the overwhelming majority of us are used to decisions flowing down from heirachical decision making structures. It’s not that we’re incapable of operating in a different, more democratic environment. In fact, in my experience, people take to it rather fast and readily. The problem is an inability to perceive the danger presented to any budding democratic scenario by heirachical organisational structures.

That’s my reservation when I read of the various occupations happening at the moment, including, the solidarity actions planned today in New Zealand. Eventually, if not initially, organisations with inherently disempowering organisational structures will attempt to involve themselves in what’s going on. They have pre-existing financial resources and organisational structures that would promise short term gains.  But if they get a foot in the door, the vitality and opportunity presented by genuinely democratic modes of organising will be sacrificed to preserve the organisational integrity of whatever organisation it is that inserts itself into proceedings. And I’m not just talking about one of the authoritarian leftist sects here. It could be the unions or any one of a number of liberal organisations that are structured along heirachical lines.

If anything genuinely new is to emerge from the citizen inspired events emerging around the world, then awareness of the pitfalls presented by orthodox organisations, and strategies to deal with them, must be developed.

 

 

 

39 comments on “Over or Into The Wall? ”

  • Comments are now closed

    • Bill 1.1
      15 October 2011 at 2:59 pm

      I’m going to give the writer of that piece the benefit of the doubt and assume they wrote down a fair and balanced portrayal of Matt Jones’s manner and attitude. And from that perspective, all I can say is that it’s really fucking depressing.

      If Matt Jones had spoken as an individual (and he should have done and made it very clear that he was) rather than putting himself up there as some kind of spokesperson and tying the whole shebang to unite, then I would have no problem whatsoever with what he’s saying. But instead he appears to assume a right to pontificate on other peoples’ focus and in doing so, not only sanction or elevate certain issues but dismiss others by simple ommission.

      Looks to me as though it’s straight into the old bullshit of manufacturing uniformity and delineating the parameters of possibility.

      • Oligarkey 1.1.1
        16 October 2011 at 6:57 pm

        I think that’s exactly what the right wants. Individualists who simply view themselves as individuals. They’re much more easily controlled by the big finance/business fascists that run the show in the west. IMO the movement fell apart because there was no cohesive worldview being represented. No collective economic arrangement amongst the participants. But there needs to be something active as well as reactive for a movement to survive. There in lies the problem. In Anarchist groups you get Alpha male types who shout down others anyhow. Ring any bells Bill?

        IrishBill: Take a month’s ban for that comment about the author.

        • Bill 1.1.1.1
          17 October 2011 at 10:02 am

          That’s an ‘interesting’ little go there, Oligarkey.

          So let’s go through it.

          Individualists…or lifestylers, Randists etc…are a waste of space to my mind. Individuals exist within a social context that informs their freedom. I think we agree on that point.

          Big finance, business, government and all their attendant organisations and structures rely on people grouping themselves into heirachical configurations that mimmick their own; that become a part of the environment they dominate. The individual is dis-empowered via his or her affiliations to ‘representative’ organisations. And those organisations are, in their turn, dominated by or subject to the more powerful configurations of government, business, finance etc.

          In a situation where people gathered around an oppositon to the so-called ‘war on terror’ in the first instance, then common or compatable visions of a wider world view could only have eventuated or become apparent after some period of time spent with people engaged in dialogue. Movements grow. Movements develop. Movements do not come as pre-packaged ‘one world’ monolithic visions. You’re ‘represenative cohesive world view’ would appear to be the antithesis of a movement.

          Financial arrangements or financial management were bloody problematic. Orthodox financial arrangements require that peoples’ names are attached to bank accounts etc. And that presents a target for the authorities in the event of them playng hard ball. And you’re right. No adequate solution was found or developed to deal with that.

          The active and reactive was expressed quite clearly by the desire to have ‘freedom to’ and not lmit ourselves to ‘freedom from’. Again, time is of the essence to develop and formulate such matters. And in the end, the movement existed for a short period before being effectively hi-jacked by those who echoed the view you apparently espouse these days – that a cohesive world view had to be represented. (Do I really have to step through all the problems and undesirable consequences associated with representation and ‘many people, one voice’ scenarios?)

          And on to your last wee playing the person bullshit. Never been a member of an anarchist group. But you know that. As for shouting people down. Nah. Passionate? Yes…even strident on occasion. But shutting people down and denying them a voice? No. Impatient with incurable idiots like yourself on the other hand? Absolutely….but even then, only eventually.

          • Oligarkey 1.1.1.1.1
            17 October 2011 at 3:09 pm

            Billy

            “Impatient with incurable idiots like yourself on the other hand?”

            That’s it. Glad to see the true colors come out. I know more than a few people who have been put off being involved in movements in Dunedin because of your authoritarian behavior. What do you expect from an irritable, nasty little alcoholic prick though. You’re as much in to hierarchy as any Trot i’ve ever met. At least they’re up-front about it. They usually have the brains to occupy the position as well.

            You’re comment is beyond ridiculous. Had your comment not been a day old before coming to my attention, then you might well have earned yourself a ban for being an incurable idiot only capable of indulging in baseless slurs rather than debate. Consider yourself warned.

  2. ak 2
    15 October 2011 at 2:38 pm

    You’re right Bill. Divide and Conquer is the only tool the 1% has ever needed. It’s why individualism is their constant refrain and why their tools like Nick’s automatic knee-jerk is an instant wedge attempt.

    Unite is the correct word, in its deepest and widest sense: OWS phonetically correct, but perhaps Occupy, Unite, Reclaim Society would be more effective.

    99% OURS: let’s take it back.

    • Draco T Bastard 2.1
      15 October 2011 at 2:39 pm

      Yep, agree fully. The 1% have been taking our society from us so that they could take our wealth for far too long. Time to take it back.

    • Bill 2.2
      15 October 2011 at 3:09 pm

      There is nothing wrong with individualism when it exists within and is subject to a social context. That’s freedom. Individualism only gets batshit crazy when the Randist type nonsense that denies society as a moderating influence is trotted out.

      And honestly, I think you are missing the main thrust of the post. If we persist in trying to organise a democratic and empowering future whilst similtaneously relying on or utilising anti-democratic and disempowering organisational structures, then we will fail. And almost all of the left today uses anti-democratc and disempowering organisational models.

  3. Tiger Mountain 3
    15 October 2011 at 2:52 pm

    Bill, the opposition is very well organised via the small matter of the state superstructure-army, police, institutionalised education and religion and msm. The economic system (capitalism) has delivered structural inequality and racism along with high unemployment and precarious employment. Feel good denial of the forces involved is not going to cut it.

    The OWS movement whatever its future has done us all a major service though with ideological cut through via the bold 1%er vs 99%er description of society. The right historically has thrived on creating disunity driven by perceived differences-ethnicity, gender, immigrant/indigenous, town/country etc.
    The OWS ‘broad brush’analysis is inclusive and cuts to the chase as to who the main enemy is for the worlds people.

    • Bill 3.1
      15 October 2011 at 3:17 pm

      As far as I understand what you are saying, I agree wholeheartedly. Broad brush analysis is good becasue it leaves all the doors of possibility open. And within that space, people can generate their own varied informed analyses, without having to pitch their perspective against the perspectives of others in a battle for ideological dominance.

      But what do you mean when you say “Feel good denial of the forces involved is not going to cut it.”?

      I’m not under any illusion with regards the coercive and oppressive capabilities of the state and the financial/corporate interests that sit at their shoulders.

  4. prism 4
    15 October 2011 at 3:17 pm

    I think Bill was making a point that amongst the 99% there are organised groups who will attend every protest of size, and be inclined to subsume it and use the vitality of the movement to press ahead to a goal based on the organisation’s viewpoint.

    I have noticed how hard it is to get a mass of people to articulate their ideas and how often only open-ended questions and returning to the points made, which should be written on a whiteboard, will canvass properly those attending. Discussion then will show the problem freshly beyond the usual common sense understandings. But often someone who has had leadership experience will take over and start defining the problem and narrow it down before the others can express all their concerns and reasons and possibly give examples for context. Only then should the group place the ideas in groups which can then be seen to suggest possiblke actions that will deal to their concerns.

  5. Afewknowthetruth 5
    15 October 2011 at 4:43 pm

    The stablishment will misreport (or fail to report) unity of purpose amongst those who protest, and will attempt to marginalise and ridicule anyone who opposes the establishement. Divide and coquer is a standartd tactic which has proven successful for centuries.

    Consider Mark Twain, who was bitterly opposed to Americal hegemony around 100 years ago. Although he was of high social standing and had much popular support, the system chewed him up and spat him out because he stood in the way of increased profits for corporations.

    Consider Ned Kelly, who was seen as hero by many (most?) of the folk in Victoria. The system chewed him (and his family) up and spat them out.

    Unfortunately, few people recognise the system for what it is, or recognised how the system works, so they think that some kind of partial demolition of the current system is possible.

    Take everything away from the bankers but leave them the ability to create money out of thin air and shortly afterwards they will have taken possession everything again. I forget who said that, but it comes from the nineteenth century.

    Another unfortunate thing is that revolutions always require the spilling of blood. Middle- class America is not ready for that yet.

    • Colonial Viper 5.1
      15 October 2011 at 9:03 pm

      Another unfortunate thing is that revolutions always require the spilling of blood. Middle- class America is not ready for that yet.

      Blood is already being spilled. Or more accurately, the US middle class is being bled dry. Only the husks of the American middle class dream remain now.

      But I hear what you say about revolution.

      Hence the timing and setting up of a terrorist/assassination ‘false flag’ against Iran. Got to keep the people distracted on and fearful of external enemies.

  6. Carol 6
    15 October 2011 at 5:39 pm

    In my experience with the women’s movement in London, it was it’s greatest strength that there was no one organisation that represented or organised it.

    • Carol 6.1
      15 October 2011 at 5:55 pm

      Premature post… no edit button.

      I don’t think you can ignore the external pressures that undermine widespread movements, but others that also enable them to build over time.

      The UK women’s movement of the late 70s early 80s was a loose network of autonomous groups, some of which quickly came and went. These groups were also inter-linked with a variety of left wing groups and organisations. There was always the factions, the bitter in-fighting amongst left wing groups. But generally, on demos etc, my friends and I, who tended to be non-aligned, found ways to avoid associating too much with groups we disagreed with – a mutually agreed kind of co-existence.

      It wasn’t until the rise of Thatcher that she set out to undermine the basis of these left-wing (including feminist) networks in the metropolitan areas by an array of strategies.

      I also don’t think the OWS movement should be seen as an entirely new movement, unconnected with early activities of the globalisation and anti-war activism of the turn of the century/early 21st century. The other movements waned a little, but it was part of a building narrative and developing expertise in organising local-global, digitally connected actions. Once such a movement continues to build it will gain it’s own momentum. The neoliberals-neocons of the late 70s- 21st century was very well organised by right wing power, think tanks and financial power. But now they are losing control of the system they developed, and of the narrative.

      The right may regain control again, but they will have a difficult job to do due to a perfect storm of external factors/pressures/collapses. And once a movement like OWS gains a certain level of momentum, I doubt that any one left wing organisation will be able to take it over.

  7. Hilary 7
    15 October 2011 at 5:55 pm

    Occupy Wellington a great success so far in that it has provided something for everyone. When I left a little while ago there were several different groups or individuals doing their own thing but with a common theme. There was a large circle of mainly young people taking turns to talk about the serious issues and organisational aspects while another group was doing that less formally with music and yet another group doing the kinetic stuff. Others handing out leaflets to the passersby. The City to Sea Bridge is a great venue with lots of good spaces and even places to gather out of the rain which was quite heavy at the beginning, but also a great view of the waterfront and the Stock Exchange. As an older person I found it very heartening that this is mainly a young people’s movement as it is about their future. But something for all ages, and all afternoon there have been people taking the time to talk to each other about politics, but in a sort of positive way about how things could be better.

    Considering this is a movement that started with a few people only 4 weeks ago in New York, quite exciting really.

  8. dave brown 8
    15 October 2011 at 11:24 pm

    I wouldnt worry about the authoritarian left, I would worry about the fascist right.
    As for hijacks, lets hijack ourselves. The voting rule by consensus means that the lowest common denominator will guide this movement slowly through mild robin hood corrections to capitalism, and when these fail, give rise to more radical anti-capitalist actions, and when these fail, revolutionary consciousness will arise, and what once seemed impossible will now be seen as necessary, and we’ll have a popular revolution.
    Then we can look back and say fuck, who organised that not all at once but once and for all.

    • Bill 8.1
      16 October 2011 at 9:53 am

      I agree that consensus rule promotes the lowest common denominator (or minority rule). But then, thats only the case where absolute consensus is required. I’ve read a bit on the occupations in Madrid and have to say, it would appear that absolute consensus is being used to arrive at decisions. That’s a mistake in my opinion for a host of reasons including the one you mention. Ascribe it to a curve of learning and developing and refining perhaps?

      Anyway, as I noted in the post, this was not the case in Dunedin at the time and the decision making processes meant that multiple actions could be planned and executed similtaneously. People participated in those decisions they had a stake in to the extent they had a stake in them. eg If a particular action was going to have a negative impact on some of those withn the movement if it was carried out in a particular way and those people were otherwise not involved in the particular action being advocated or planned, then they would come to the unfolding decision and provide input on that basis and on that basis only.

      • dave brown 8.1.1
        16 October 2011 at 12:36 pm

        Bill, consensus decision making may empower the minority that holds out. But in the actual circumstances we are talking eg resolutions about Wall St, taxing the rich etc etc, the only serious problem is from the far right like the Tea Party and that would soon get the consensus rule watered down to exclude them. We are not back in 2001 or 2003 when the hard left proposals to stop the war were too extreme for the pacifist majority who wanted to pressure governments, and who then quickly got demoralised when their pacifism failed. Time to draw the correct conclusions, the left minority was not authoritarian, the majority was pacifist in the face of imperialist agression.

        Things are much more advanced today. The occupy movement is a predictable response to the global crisis of capitalism and futility of Iraq and Afghanistan. Any progress so far has been through mass responses to massive austerity attacks sparked by individual martyrdoms. These huge manifestations of outrage are not going to be hijacked by right or left unless these succeed in hijacking the movement from drawing the conclusion that capitalism has be be overthrown by means of armed struggle. In other words, when the imagining of the impossible does not turn into doing what is necessary. In Egypt for example the Army is consolidating its rule because of illusions in its neutrality. Those illusions have been tested and are now largely gone. But massive strike action is still needed to split the ranks of the army away from the SCAF regime. In Syria the barbarism of Assad is finally producing an armed response from the defecting military personnel.

        In other words when the occupy movement joins forces with the unions, the organised left, as it has begun to to, and when it occupies the schools, hospitals, universities, factories, call centres etc THEN it can build a general strike that will bring nations to a halt, and with it the capitalist system. But unless it defends itself, arms itself against the cops, paramilitaries, fuckist goons, then it can expect to continue to get smashed.

        • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1
          16 October 2011 at 12:51 pm

          But unless it defends itself, arms itself against the cops, paramilitaries, fuckist goons, then it can expect to continue to get smashed.

          Remember that even 100 years ago, NZ worker protests and union action was often and successfully smashed by violent and authoritarian sanctioned means. Massey’s Cossacks for example.

  9. dave brown 9
    15 October 2011 at 11:27 pm

    Why moderate the word ‘fascism’ it’ll be in our face soon enough why not our vocabulary?

    [lprent: Because the word is over-used in out of context situations. Basically it is used as a political swearword (along with many other phrases and words) by some people. Now that I really don’t mind the language, as anyone who has read one of my notes is aware (I like well-crafted insults). However we aren’t after the well-crafted insult people. We’re after the idiots with carriageway ruts worn in their neural pathways.

    It is a very high probability word with certain irritating types of quite stupid trolls. Because it is so predictive (like other words) as a indicator of those trolls, I auto-moderate it so that the human moderators can decide if it was used in context or not. The reject rate was over 95% and is still about 50-60%, presumably because the targets are kind of stupid and incapable of figuring out how we trap them so consistently and kill their messages before anyone else has to suffer reading the drivel. Ummm I saw one complaining the other day while looking at links to us…

    Umm.. Here you go – from the blog of the predictably stupid and his followers.

    frosty talking about this site:
    I posted a response, won’t make it past moderation as usual, but it’s obviously not somebody from the left. Even a P-user wouldn’t stoop so low as to have an affair with a lefty.

    Short (like all comments there) but contains at least two major incorrect presumptions in two sentences. Of course we have a number of systems to trap fools. Anyone who can argue can get past them without any problems – all they have to do is present an argument. If you cannot present one then you’ll have a problem because the really dumb automatics can pick it up and isolate it – and that appears to be this moron.

    So figure out alternatives, because the alternative from your side is a lower standard of idiot to argue against. ]

    • felix 9.1
      16 October 2011 at 1:28 am

      Funny thing about that WhaleOil thread is that none of them are outraged by the idea that “the rich deserve more”, in fact many are actively endorsing the sentiment and some want to take the idea even further.

      So what’s the problem? If they believe what they say then they should be delighted that someone else agrees with their views enough to spend time and money promoting them.

      No, they’re just upset about it being said out loud. Cowards.

      • lprent 9.1.1
        16 October 2011 at 8:18 am

        Yep. And the pathetic ineffectual whining. Urrgh. I would hate to have to read that pile of no-hopers every day – it is like listening to the lazy adolescents talking about their rights rather than their responsibilities.

        All this over what looks to me to be unsubstantiated rumor, where the gullible fool has been spun a story or just made it up as he often seems to.

  10. weka 10
    15 October 2011 at 11:46 pm

    Really important post Bill.

    • Bill 10.1
      16 October 2011 at 9:59 am

      Thankyou. I just wish there was more widespread discussion on the issues across the entire left spectrum. But then, such a discussion would not be in the interests of the gatekeepers and power brokers within the left. So I’m not holding my breath.

      Also. I’m pretty sure a lot of people just ‘dont get it’; think that the way things are done is immutable and natural and are genuinely blind to the implications of different organising models.

  11. David 11
    16 October 2011 at 1:04 am

    Bill, your ‘very definite reasons’ don’t fit with my experiences of the anti-war movement in Auckland and Christchurch.

    During 2002, the anti-war movement became focussed on stopping the impending invasion of Iraq.
    It withered in mid 2003, soon after the invasion took place. The thousands of people beyond the committed ranks of socialists, anarchists and Christian pacifists who made up the core of the movement felt demoralised by this failure and stopped attending protests.

    Its true the initial Auckland anti-war group was damaged by the antics of one small faction, but the new group, Global Peace & Justice Auckland went on to organise very big and broad protests against the invasion of Iraq, and is it still going today. It’s two main leaders are of course those terrible old leftists John Minto and Mike Treen, both now working for the dreaded Unite union.

    In Christchurch, Peace Action Network was similarly successful at mobilising a series big protests. It too involved representatives of unions, religious groups and those I guess Bill would call the ‘authoritarian left’, as well as anarchists and Green Party members. Some participated as individuals, some as representatives of groups, others as something in between.

    I agree that it if members of one group go into a meeting with a rigid and pre-determined position it can be damaging, but the bigger issue in my view is not whether or not people see themselves as individuals or members of a group, but the attitude they bring to working with others.

    • Bill 11.1
      16 October 2011 at 9:40 am

      The post was about how unfolded in Dunedin at the time.

      As far as I’m aware, the anti-war presence in Christchurch, Auckland and elsewhere didn’t attempt to develop the same organisatonal structures that were being developed and utilised in Dunedin back then.

      One of the features of that foray into genuine movement building was the awareness that such a movement would have been sustanable over the long term, rather than rising on the back of a single issue and then fading away.

      Had it survived that initial incursion, or assault, of old style ‘top down’ politics, it would have been around and active when GE protests were needed. And it would still be around today.

      That’s one of the marked differences between a movement and a protest. One persists because it is not predicated on a single focus or event and the other has no reason to survive beyond the timescale of the thing it is formed to protest against.

      The bottom line is that a movement will not…can not…flourish if old style top down organisations are allowed to impact on it. As I wrote in the post, it’s not about excluding the people from those organisations (quite the opposite!), but about excluding the organisations and their deliterious effects.

      If a movement is to grow from events afoot today, or from events in the future then, not only the sectarian left, but the likes of Unite and Mana must, as organsations, parties or unions, be removed from the picture.

  12. Carol 12
    16 October 2011 at 7:16 am

    A global day of peaceful protests, except for Rome, which in part turned violent. Of course the violence gets big headlines.

    Al Jazeera-Eng TV (on Stratos) are reporting that it was a small faction that got violent. They reported that other protestors were handing some of them over to the police and cheered when the violent ones got arrested.

    http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2011/10/2011101515123592784.html

    Black smoke billowed into the air in downtown Rome as a small group of violent protesters broke away from the main demonstration. They smashed car windows, set vehicles on fire and assaulted two news crews of Sky Italia, the TV station reported. Others burned Italian and EU flags.

    Witnesses said the violence was caused by several dozen hooded radicals known as “black blocs”, who wear black clothing to hide their identities and have been involved in the organising process of protests since early in the movement.

  13. Pete George 13
    16 October 2011 at 2:25 pm

    Very interesting post Bill.

    If you want to exclude organisations with specific agendas from being involved in and taking over the process, shouldn’t you also discourage “left” from the discoures too? If it is keep at the level of a mass of individuals to be democratic and representative then political labels and leanings shouldn’t dominate either. There are a lot more than “the left” in 99%.

    Maybe you are just using “the authoritarian left” as an example to be wary of.

    I dropped in to Aotea Square yesterday but was dismayed at seeing some prominent faces.

  14. AAMC 14
    16 October 2011 at 2:35 pm

    “But if they get a foot in the door, the vitality and opportunity presented by genuinely democratic modes of organising will be sacrificed to preserve the organisational integrity of whatever organisation it is that inserts itself into proceedings. And I’m not just talking about one of the authoritarian leftist sects here. It could be the unions or any one of a number of liberal organisations that are structured along heirachical lines.

    If anything genuinely new is to emerge from the citizen inspired events emerging around the world, then awareness of the pitfalls presented by orthodox organisations, and strategies to deal with them, must be developed.”

    +1

    I haven’t got the time now to read the entire thread, all I can suggest is, if people want to grasp this opportunity and to promote real change, rather than let those vested interests have the podium, GET DOWN TO YOUR LOCAL OCCUPY EVENT, participate in the general assemblies. If there can be a growth from people non aligned with existing movements, it can work, as it has around the world. Catch is, the well educated middle class uni leavers aren’t feeling the pinch yet as they are in USA and Europe.

  15. AAMC 15
    16 October 2011 at 2:44 pm

    Here it is in Spain

  16. AAMC 16
    16 October 2011 at 11:16 pm

    #occupyauckland being trolled by neo-liberals, the crew down there not engaged in twitter so losing the debate. I’m away for a week, can’t defend the OWS idea alone, get on twitter and have this debate there! The networking on twitter has the potential to make this grow, as it has around the globe, but not while in the hands of the vested interests alluded to above.

Links to post