Of course I try not to be too much of a cynical guy, but I’m always a bit dubious whenever somebody from the leftist establishment like Danny Glover or Michael Moore comes to speak to us. Even though I know that they have accomplished a lot over the years for progressive movements, obviously their doctrine didn’t result in the kind of radical change we’d like to see. But tonight there was something interesting in that drenched General Assembly of 170 or so die-hard Occupy Oaklanders including myself tonight. One guy got up between the vote counting and said that “a very great man” was going to speak to us tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. I recognized his name but can’t remember now. A friend of mine told me a week or so ago that I should research this particular person though, because he said that this guy is basically the leader of their whole ideology. it’s good for them to finally reveal their leaders. We know they are dogmatic and organized, unlike the rest of us. We should show up at 2:00 and see what this guy has to say. A lot of our goals are in sympathy. But I fear that he is just riling people up to do more damage to Oakland in the name of some weird fantastic revolutionary fantasy that has nothing to do with solving our problems here in Oakland. It probably has something to do with rallying people for this building occupation that they are trying to get people behind.
I like the idea of occupying a building but I reject their shadowy approach to it: they come to the GA in an anonymous group, refuse to tell us what the building is (understandably, security is a concern, but the whole thing is super-duper iffy), we refuse them approval and they use a Halloween night vote to justify it anyway. They are vocal enough that they can’t even restrain themselves from celebrating on the floor of the GA after they lose. I fear that they are preparing to create a situation that will serve their violent ideology, represent a net loss for the 99% trying to seek basic fairness and not a violent revolution, and certainly a loss for Oakland. I don’t believe most of these people give a crap about Oakland or would spend 5 minutes here normally. Honestly, do you? At least their leader is finally showing his face. The “anarchist community”, lol, you gotta love it!
Well, you put up a short blurb from wikipedia so I put up a short blurb from wikipedia. Fair’s fair. But I did go down and hear him speak, and quite a lot of what he said and actually more of what others in his group said was quite interesting. The moment when all the men swore not to rape or to hide rape was inspiring. But at two points, Jensen urged that the police should turn their guns on the 1%. And I see this kind of talk as divisive, confrontational, and in support of violent revolution. I also criticize the fact that Jensen refused to take any Q&A period or to allow anyone to offer any feedback or criticism of their ideas. One man got up and tried to complain about them speaking down to us from the outside, but they refused to respond to him.
I don’t really believe in great men. I believe that when the circumstances are right, you never know because any human being (at least, a non sociopath) could become “great” or “heroic” at any given moment.
I believe you are right that many of the anarchists do not condone violence. Most of them however do seem to mock and deride any notion that vandalism is a bad thing. It seems pretty ingrained in their culture, and they don’t seem to seriously consider the impact that the images of the vandalism create in American society at whole, how alienating they are to many of the 99%. And I’m disturbed than even some anarchists I’ve spoken to who describe themselves as pacifists will refuse to condemn violence when it’s used by others.
I agree, Jensen wasn’t speaking so much as a leader as just a thinker. However, quite a few people at the event including myself objected to the fact that he did not allow for any Q&A period or for any feedback. It seemed he came to speak to Occupy Oakland, but not to listen to Occupy Oakland. I appreciated a lot of their statements, and I thought the moment when we swore an oath not to rape or to hide rape was inspiring, I wish to share that moment with all the other Occupy camps and urge them to take the same oath. But I’m not convinced the particular anarchists who are most of the group occupying Oakland are actually part of the relatively sane and appealing school that Jensen seems to be a part of.
A small voice, no it didn’t just dawn on me, but I’ve been having a dialog with them for weeks and I can see how ultimately nothing matters to them except their dream of overthrowing industrialized society. They will never work with their fellow citizens within the framework of the U.S. Constitution. We don’t know what the exact goals of Occupy Oakland and Occupy Wall Street are, but I thought we were at least determined to attempt to save civilization and not destroy it.
You are very wrong David. Anarchism rejects hierarchy, which means there are no ‘leaders’ of the movement.
I don’t know if the person who mentioned Jensen was an anarchist. Maybe he was…I don’t know. I think it’s weird that you find it “amusing” when you don’t even know who Jensen is. Maybe he IS a great man.
I get the fact that you are concerned about violence. I think that your fears are clouding your thinking though. I don’t think that anarchy and violence are synonymous. I also don’t think that all anarchists in general and all anarchists in our camp support violence and/or destruction.
Until you (and I) have actually read the text “Endgame,” I would submit that it is neither wise nor prudent to make any judgment calls about how scary anything sounds.
david – what is it that i need to awaken to, exactly?
do you mean it has only just now dawned upon you that several anarchists (of different leanings) are in the oakland encampment?
i’m sure that a well read person like you is already familiar with the story about how the whole “occupy” stuff got started in the first place.
you are pointing out divisions in a boogeyman fashion that should have been obvious to you once you signed on to this movement in oakland.
a small voice, seriously, wake up — they are a “THEM”, they have their own hierarchy, their own leaders and inspirational writers, their own ideology (the same ideology that led them to completely fuck up the WTO protests in Seattle a decade ago), they have their own section of the camp (I think you know what I’m talking about if you have been down there and seen the huge structure of tarps they’ve built on the Western side of the camp). They act like a clan, but they — and you — ask us to treat them as individual members of the 99% and to embrace their violent tactics under the false name of “diversity of tactics.” I will not march willingly with stormtroopers and i will not support or defend them with my body. I think in the next few days we will see how few people in Oakland are going to do that. Or I hope that. Because these people will willingly use Oakland just like they used Seattle to prove a point, and they don’t give a fuck about saving the 99% and fixing the corruption in our system, they believe in the total overthrow of industrialized society.
a small voice, seriously, wake up — they are a “THEM”, they have their own hierarchy, their own leaders and inspirational writers, their own ideology (the same ideology that led them to completely fuck up the WTO protests in Seattle a decade ago), they have their own section of the camp (I think you know what I’m talking about if you have been down there and seen the huge structure of tarps they’ve built on the Western side of the camp). They act like a clan, but they — and you — ask us to treat them as individual members of the 99% and to embrace their violent tactics under the false name of “diversity of tactics.” I will not march willingly with stormtroopers and i will not support or defend them with my body. I think in the next few days we will see how few people in Oakland are going to do that. Or I hope that. Because these people will willingly use Oakland just like they used Seattle to prove a point, and they don’t give a fuck about saving the 99% and fixing the corruption in our system, they believe in the total overthrow of industrialized society.
Ok, from the same source, wikipedia:
“Endgame is about what he describes as the inherent unsustainability of civilization. In this book he asks: “Do you believe that this culture will undergo a voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living?” Nearly everyone he talks to says no. His next question is: “How would this understanding — that this culture will not voluntarily stop destroying the natural world, eliminating indigenous cultures, exploiting the poor, and killing those who resist — shift our strategy and tactics? The answer? Nobody knows, because we never talk about it: we’re too busy pretending the culture will undergo a magical transformation.” Endgame, he says, is “about that shift in strategy, and in tactics.”
Sounds pretty fucking scary to me, sounds like he is saying that the people of America should be FORCED to adopt a radical attitude that destroys all Western civilization, since they aren’t wise enough to choose it on their own. Like I say, there is a LOT of elitism in this group of anarchists.
Yeah, it sounds like he’s a pretty good guy, but I found the anarchist’s description of him as “a very great man” to be amusing. And he is talking about an end to industrial civilization. We will not get the 99% behind that. But, he has a right to speak to us just like anybody in the community has the right to speak, so again I urge people to go listen to what he has to say.
Derrick Jensen, according to wiki, is very CRITICAL of Western American violence and is highly aware of the role violence plays in modern society. He recommends a return to “sustainable living” and looks to the wisdom of the indigenous cultures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Jensen
Here’s a short blurb about Jensen from wiki:
“Jensen’s work is sometimes characterized as anarcho-primitivist,[4][5] although he has categorically rejected that label, describing primitivist as a “racist way to describe indigenous peoples”. He prefers to be called “indigenist” or an “ally to the indigenous,” because “indigenous peoples have had the only sustainable human social organizations, and… we need to recognize that we [colonizers] are all living on stolen land.”[6]”
I really hope there is a good turn out for this guy. I wish I could attend.
The speaker who will be addressing the crowd at 2pm is named Derrick Jensen. It’s on the calendar on this website.
David – why the cynicism toward “THEM” and “THEIR leader?” why the walls and divisions? I don’t understand why you are taking this stance and this attitude toward something (anarchy) and someone (Jensen) you admit to having little knowledge about.