Anarchists? We don't have no steenking anarchists...

When OWS, which was and is anarchist initiative and practice, a non-hierarchic grass roots movement.

I think not.

But forces controlling police saw otherwise.

A multitude of movements. Decentralized, non-hierarchic, leaderless multitude of movements = anarchic.

at my university than Occupy did in the cities in terms of keeping the peace. This was not anarchic, it was laughably ineffective.

morphed into Rainbow People. Not just "back in the 60's" and "young people today, no good for nuffin" people...

Made our move impulsively and successfully. Some of us stood trial...lost, but eventually won.

But if the purpose of the OP is ask where are the anarchists now (when you need them most?), first step is to take a look in the mirror.

No doubt there are many anarchists doing their thing in US as we speak, mostly below the media visibility, but comparison to countries like Greece and Spain is also worth notice.

I think my point was that there are no lefty anarchists here...and that's ok with me. We need effective lefty legitimate movement instead.

The point is of course factually wrong, there are lefty anarchists also on DU and much more in US generally.

So I take you don't consider Democratic Party "effective lefty legitimate movement" but expressing need for one on DU during election campaign?

Chris Hedges, to name but two). Comparing the anti-war movement of the 60s with the Occupy movement of 2011 seems to me a bit like comparing apples to oranges. Still, your disruptions on campus were about as effective in ending our involvement in the Vietnam War as Occupy's were in creating changes in the distribution and concentration of wealth. (By the time Nixon mined Haiphong Harbor, for example, the policy of 'Vietnamization' was well under way.)

I have nothing but the utmost respect for anyone who dares to 'disturb the universe' (to quote T.S. Eliot) and that applies to the 60s anti-war movement and to Occupy. But when it comes to 'effective,' I've got to call 'em as I see 'em.

The great victory of Seattle (as said, WTO not going anywhere since that) and the initiative momentum it gave to the anticapitalist movement took nothing less than 9/11 and neocon + third way war campaign to turn attention of masses to reactionary and futile; frustrated and defeatist anti-war demonstrations. TPTB created image of external threat to divert attention of people from real issues, age old trick but once again succesful for anticapitalist movement to lose initiative and momentum. That is the most important lesson of anti-war movement of 60's (after the great victories, initiative and momentum of Civil Rights etc. movements) and of those against Bush Wars. To quote Bush: "fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't git fooled again."

'bourgeois' (adjective) when modifying 'movement'.

during 1919-1920 The Palmer Raids http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids

and the McCarthy years 1950-54 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids

We've had decades without a solid left, union membership is down to 10-12%. The CPUSA (Communist Party USA) has endorsed Obama for president.

There is no strong leftist presence in this country, unfortunately, and that is why we are seeing the poor/working/middle class get pummeled.

Anarchists don't usually consider themselves left - any part of the right-left axis. They are part of anti-capitalist fronts, together with what is left of the left.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

How "anarchists" see themselves is going to be subjective, but by most objective measures they are considered leftist.

In two dimensional analysis (e.g. http://www.politicalcompass.org/index) anarchists locate on the social libertarian side of the vertical axis, not on the authoritarian side. Looking from the social libertarian bottom of the chart, authoritarian left can be just as bad as authoritarian right.

DU as whole is located in the lower left corner, but in that corner majority more to the left than to the bottom of social libertarianism/anarchism.

all the while claiming to represent some invisible faction of the working class. even tho they don't have any affiliated unions (conveniently, they oppose unionism), no organized expression for their political aims (conveniently, they oppose hierarchy), no programme for *after the revolution*. because the freedom of civil society trumps everything. and only the bourgeoisie guarantees this (in theory)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Parsons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism:
"The anarcho-syndicalist orientation of many early American labour unions arguably played an important role in the formation of the American political spectrum, most significantly of the Industrial Workers of the World"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederaci%C3%B3n_General_del_Trabajo:
"As the largest anarchist trade union in the world, the CGT has a membership of approximately 60,000 people, while representing around 2 million workers through industrial committees and collective bargaining. It is especially strong today in Catalonia, where historically, anarchism had strong support. For historical reasons, the CGT is also a main player in the Spanish state railways, RENFE. It is also part of the industrial committee of SEAT, the Spanish car manufacturer and the largest company in Catalonia. Nonetheless, the CGT does not hold the majority in any important industrial committee at this moment. The CGT has been known to call for industrial action, without support of any other unions. Sometimes it had refused to accept collective bargaining agreements negotiated by other trade unions, unless these have been appoved by general secret ballots."

Most famous contemporary American anarcho-syndicalist is of course Chomsky.

***

And as for "bourgeoisie against the proletariat", if you really want to go into history of Russian Revolution or Spanish Civil War and betrayals of people by Communist Party, be my guest.

"when you point one finger, three point back at you". but they never do. blaming everybody but themselves for their isolation and failures.

To me OWS showed anything but isolation, nationally and internationally. And as for anarchist self-criticism, it's doing quite fine, thanks.

I find your claims interesting - not in regard to their truth value, but what they tell about contemporary American society. Where do the opinions you expressed originate from, where did you hear what you are repeating here?

The meme "anarchists taking the side of the bourgeoisie" is especially interesting as you are not the only one repeating that.

from the internet and chomsky books

If you read Chomsky, how can you claim that anarchists "don't have any affiliated unions (conveniently, they oppose unionism)"?

Sure, there are many strains of anarchism also in US, one going back to Thoreau and associated today with Zerzan (anarcho-primitivism) has got also lot of attention.

because i read the news? and unionizing a Starbucks probably doesn't do much good for the colombian child slave on the coffee plantation?

The IWW is not big, but still exists and is still organizing.

http://www.iww.org/

Then all you're left with is your snark.

I'd say most of 'em are hell raisers to some degree, think that they're cool because they're out of the mainstream, but not at all left of center, no, no, not at all...they don't hew to any wing of government, they want to trash government, not elect "progressives" or "lefties."

Here's a bunch of bozos who have a right wing-ish philosophy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National-Anarchism

"In the United States, only a few web sites have been established but there has been a trend towards a steady increase.[8] National-Anarchism in the U.S. remains a relatively obscure movement, made up of probably fewer than 200 individuals, led by Andrew Yeoman of the Bay Area National Anarchists (BANA), based in the San Francisco Bay Area, and a couple of other groups in Northern California and Idaho."

"On 8 September 2007 in Sydney, Australia, the anti-globalization movement mobilized against neoliberal economic policies by opposing the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. During the street protests, National-Anarchists infiltrated the left-anarchist black bloc but the police had to protect them from being expelled by irate activists.["

Just that they existed, and this is one quirky example.

That Google will give you more anarchists of the "rightwing" flavor...if you do a bit of digging.

I have no interest in "defending" these assclowns, I hope I have made that entirely clear.

you suggested so. Interesting find, good to know any case, so thanks.

been told that I support a concept simply for pointing out the other side of the argument! I have no interest in associating myself with that bunch...

That bunch was interesting because there was some common ground with "primitivist" Green anarchism (Zerzan etc.), but also revealed what the real difference is. Fascist nationalism of that bunch is "pure" and closed, where as the philosophy and practice - such as ecovillages - of primitivist/neotribalist versions of anarchic localism are "impure" and open.

Tarring anarchism like that is like bizarro world Glenn Beckism.

I think, quite bluntly, it's a bit hard to "tar" anarchism, but that's just me.

I'd say Glenn Beck is closer to the anarchist mindset than most Democrats I pal around with, but hey, whatever, Comrade.

Anarchism is one of Beck's favorite boogie men. Just Google "Glenn Beck anarchism" and you'll see.

For me, and I think this is a fairly common definition, anarchism is a left-wing, radically democratic, anti-statist and anti-corporate movement. You can see why that would concern Beck.

Saying "Glenn Beck is closer to the anarchist mindset" is startlingly devoid of any political content.

I think Glenn Beck is what he purports to fear!

People who don't like government are anarchists, to my mind. All the shit people add on to "qualify" it and make it palatable within their "set" of buddies -- that's just window dressing and excuse-making to make the concept appeal to a specified target audience. The right-wingnut version is less popular, sure, but it exists. It's like Baskin-Robbins, a ton of flavors.

Wiki ain't controlling, but they do a fair job of covering the waterfront, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Anyone with a low regard for government, and with any sort of "bent" be it left or right, can find a home in an anarchist philosophy--even to the extent of eschewing "political" content.

"Anarchism is a belief that society should have no government, laws, police, or any other authority. Having that belief is perfectly legal, and the majority of anarchists in the U.S. advocate change through non-violent, non-criminal means."
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/november/anarchist_111610

FBI article is, of course, about "anarchist extremism", one of the four main threats of "domestic terrorism", others being:
- Sovereign citizen extremist threat
- Lone offender threat
- Eco-terrorist and animal rights extremist threats

Article continues:
"For today’s generation of American anarchist extremists, the rioting that disrupted the 1999 World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle is the standard by which they measure “success”—it resulted in millions of dollars in property damage and economic loss and injuries to hundreds of law enforcement officers and bystanders. But fortunately, they haven’t been able to duplicate what happened in Seattle…which may be a combination of the improved preparations of law enforcement as well as the disorganization of the movement."

The success of "anarchist extremism" (and of course representatives of many other political philosophies were also present) of Seattle was not "millions of dollars in property damage" etc., but that WTO process was interrupted and has been stagnated ever since, which was the purpose of the action.

OK, good enough, in that comparison the "standard of success" was not repeated by OWS, Wall Street is still corrupting politics and destroying our lives as before. That would have been indeed BIG, given that those who made the initiative were totally amazed by what it turned into, changing the national discourse and revealing how fed up so many people were with the system and how ready for radical changes. If anyone wonders why national security machines are targeting anarchists and naming them public enemy number one, that's why.

and still managed to recover. maybe the US left lost their mojo.

just putting up the links for those who are interested. Personally I think more people are towards the left than many on this website would realize. As conditions worsen we will see them act. The only question is whether the Christian fascists will be stronger. A lot of parallels with Greece ...

"The way to achieve such a state of total nonviolence (ahimsa) was changing of the people's minds rather than changing the state which governs people. Self-governance (swaraj) is the principle behind his theory of satyagraha. This swaraj starts from the individual, then moves outward to the village level, and then to the national level; the basic principle is the moral autonomy of the individual is above all other considerations."

Or just your personality?

video tape ala OBL telling others how to make secret weapon pens and blow up the bridges into Tampa during the rnc.

the report was courtesy of baynews9 and by the time I got to the teevee to see it, it was a goner.

I noticed that one too.

I haven't been following the news closely. What is this about?

about police doing house searches and looking for anarchist literature as incriminating evidence, as well as claims about anarchist threats to party conventions. But can't say if OP had those in mind when posting this.

are several varieties of Libertarians, one of which, the Liberal Libertarian, is one of the ways in which Noam Chomsky self-identifies.

There are at least a few varieties of "anarchists". I am not certain what the over-lap is between "anarchists", nor what over-lap they have in common with Libertarians.

I rw libertarian wanted to give me their party leaflet. His colleague whom I had exchanged few words in a preliminary meeting said that no use giving that guy (me) a leaflet, he's anarchist.

Point is, nope, rw libertarians are not closest associates of anarchists, we don't mingle. Prototypical anarchists live in squats tending gardens growing mostly Mary Jane and attend punk concerts drinking moon shine, money is weird concept and few ever seen any. Prototypical rw libertarians are rich white corporate people living in MacMansions, listening cool jazz and sipping expensive Chardonney while perusing stock market charts at MacIntosh screen.

At least here in Finland closest associates of rw libertarians are greens and conservatives. There was a rw libertarian party that made a short entrance to parliament, then lost all seats and broke down. Half went to main conservative party and other half to Green party. In US, as all know, rw libertarians (paulites as they are now often called) associate with Republican party.