While it has been widely written and discussed that Occupy Wall Street and the broader Occupy movement are at their core, fundamentally anarchist projects, very little has been written from the inside about the experiences of activists and organizers working under the Occupy banner who identify as such. While Occupy tends to operate on core anarchist structures and principles, and many of the initial organizers of OWS were indeed self-identified anarchists, the movement is losing its most experienced and radical elements at a rapid pace and many Occupy encampments and assemblies never had an experienced anarchist core to begin with.
These factors have led to a situation where many newly-identified, inexperienced anarchists, as well as others who do not identify as such, are using the tools of anarchy, such as consensus, horizontality and direct action, with no foundation for their application, or mentors to help them learn. The Occupy movement must recognize how it is marginalizing one of its most valuable resources and reverse this talent drain if it is to survive as a radical movement opposed to the state and capitalism, and in support of community self-determination and liberation.

Why didn’t local, existing anarchist communities get involved in Occupy in many cities? Why are they now leaving Occupy Wall Street in droves? What do these organizers bring to the table, and why do we need them?
The modern anarchist movement has, at its core, a deep commitment to anti-oppression work. This means recognizing that it is not just the government and capitalism that oppresses us, but an interconnected web that strikes at the soul of every individual differently. Patriarchy, racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism and ablism all work in tandem with capitalism and the state to preserve the existing white supremacist, male-dominated, heteronormative culture those institutions require to thrive. Therefore, a huge part of the work of the anarchists is to attempt to unlearn the rotten socialization of this culture, and to create “safer spaces” where systemically marginalized folks can feel safer to live, work and organize.
On a whole, Occupy has done a pretty lousy job at this. The Safer Spaces Working Group at OWS was consistently marginalized and ignored. Patriarchy and white supremacy reared its head constantly, as white male organizers were consistently given more credibility than female organizers or organizers of color. As a result, many of our most experienced queer, female-identified and organizers of color dropped out in the first few months of Occupy Wall Street and a trickling loss of talent continues to this day.
In Occupy New Orleans, where I lived and organized for a little over two weeks, a group of experienced anarchist organizers (majority female-identified people of color) who helped start the occupation were pushed out by a group of predominantly white male “anarchists” who would loudly disrupt general assembly and mock the women of color facilitating.
Eventually, this group successfully pushed out the experienced anarchists; they stopped participating in the project. The conflict started because the one group were completely resistant to acknowledging white privilege or patriarchy, were infuriated at the women of color who brought up these concepts, and then used all of their privilege to launch verbal and physical assaults until they had won some kind of twisted power-struggle. When, weeks later, my female partner and I attempted to have a quiet, civil conversation with them about the importance of these concepts, she left in tears after being screamed at by a hulking, shirtless man who loudly proclaimed her to be a “cunt”.
Perhaps just as responsible for the drain of experienced anarchist organizers as the lack of safer spaces is the constant struggle against co-optation from external forces and the infighting with one another.
Many of our most experienced organizers spend far too much of their time deflecting perceived co-optation threats from progressive groups like Move On, liberal front groups like “99% Solidarity” and the “Movement Resource Group” or labor unions. While these more institutional, hierarchically organized groups have certainly tried their hardest to steer Occupy towards single-issue, reformist, or electoral focuses, we can most effectively combat them by defining who we really are through our actions and example. The thousands of person-hours wasted in conversations with these groups, and with one another about them, has certainly hurt our focus more than their actual attempts did, and these interactions led directly to the burnout and abandonment of Occupy by many of our most experienced and radical organizers.
Additionally, all too often in Occupy groups, the general assembly and other consensus tools are not used to build trust and mutual respect, but rather function as legislatures, with various factions vying for control and pushing their agendas. A truly effective mass movement must operate like a giant squid, whose tentacles reach in many directions with many goals and tactics, but all in solidarity with each other. A true diversity of tactics. The imposition of such authoritarian, anti-anarchist concepts as demands, centralization and peace pledges has also attributed to the loss of much talent in this movement, even in its infant stage.
In Austin, TX, I stayed at the home of a community of anarchists who had been pushed out of Occupy Austin on the very first night of their encampment. Their crime had been the raising of a single tent, in defiance of the “deal” struck between the more reform-minded organizers who had negotiated with City Hall in exchange for a temporary, legal and purely symbolic encampment there. They were met with verbal assaults, physical abuse and attempts to literally destroy the tent in question. Instead of organizing with Occupy, these anti-authoritarians used their energy to help create a structure for local anarchists in the city to cooperate and work together, being in solidarity with one another despite differences in tactics and strategy.
Experienced anarchists have much to offer the Occupy movement. They understand the tools of consensus intimately, as many have been practicing them in their homes and on their projects for years. In many cases, they are already self-organized into affinity groups that can pull off secure, instrumental direct actions when needed. They are committed to the task of social revolution that Occupy espouses, and are often students of previous emancipatory social movements. They have, for quite some time, been creating the structures of dual-power that Occupy will require to survive, working on projects like Food Not Bombs, Really, REALLY Free Markets, community centers, infoshops and collective houses. Many have helped organize mass mobilizations during the Global Justice movement of the 00’s that actually shut down summits and gatherings of the economic and political elite, a lineage that Occupy, with its mostly symbolic days of action, could certainly learn from. Many have been involved in the environment resistance movement, and have a plethora of advanced skills and tactics for resistance, such as lock-downs, tree-sits, tripods and equipment disruption, that many urban Occupy activists have no experience with.
This piece is meant not to cause further division, but rather as a humble contribution to what will hopefully become a healing and reconciliation process. Occupy is among the most powerful and well-positioned social justice movements of our time, and it would truly be a shame if many of the folks most committed to and experienced with these principles and their application, continued to either not be involved at all, or to feel pushed out and leave. If our movement is to grow, we must learn to create safer spaces for systemically marginalized organizers and activists to work and thrive in. We must respect and be in solidarity with one another despite our unique backgrounds and tactics for resistance. I like to think that the history of anarchists and Occupy is still largely unwritten, and I am more convinced than ever that we need each other to create a true alternative to the state and capitalism.
Pingback: Occupier Blames Movement’s Limbo On Anarchist Attrition | Daily Easy News
Pingback: Occupier Blames Movement’s Limbo On Anarchist Attrition | Strange News
Really interesting and pertinent analysis; makes a lot of sense. I feel such lessons have to be publicly digested, and talked through – across the anti-capitalist layers in Occupy.
The fact that the Democratic Party has utterly failed to co-opt Occupy is a big positive in the current balance. As long is liberals are kept at bay, there’s hope for further radicalization.
I’m not an anarchist, but that doesn’t matter, because we need self-reflective thoughts like this, if the struggle against capitalists and their state is to continue. Tnx.
I like what is written here, but you no us anarchist don’t conform to well, stuff always seems to get jacked peace and love.
I don’t know about this post. It doesn’t resonate with my experience at Occupy Toronto, where the anti-oppression anarchists largely didn’t show up at all, leaving the anarchist communists, environmental justice and some of the better marxists to do the work of setting up journalism, safety teams in camp (marshals), and long term educational work. Also, I think that while anarchists can learn a lot from anti-oppression, anti-oppression and anarchism are not the same thing.
Anti-oppression work is the best tool in our arsenal for building a working-class struggle. We can’t rise up against the capitalists and the state when we are still struggling with all the divisive garbage they have socialized us to think about each other. We have to work against their poisonous and rotten culture in our own heads before we can effectively change the entire system outside of our heads.
Reblogged this on The Socialist News.
Thanks!
I think this message is really important and valuable, and the efforts to marginalize anarchists in the movement is something I’ve consistently opposed. But it’s important to be realistic about where most people in this society are coming from, and how thoroughly socialized they are in other ways of seeing the world, and how difficult changing those patterns can be. One cannot expect legions of recently-politicized people, who have been told all their life that Congress is a democracy, to suddenly wake up and know how to do direct democracy. These things take years of learning and old habits can take generations to unlearn. You mention Global Justice — remember that, while anarchists played important roles in that movement, they did so by finding ways to work with people of many other persuasions, building their own subcultures while interfacing with other communities which constituted themselves differently. The same has been true with Occupy, as you know better than most.
Anarchists, I think, will continue playing a vital role in the movement not by expecting it to conform overnight to their own ideals on threat of their departure, but by continuing to be a patient, articulate, upbuilding presence, working with a variety of others toward common goals, and meanwhile showing through words and actions the power of their ideas.
Heya Nathan,
I think that the comparison we both brought up with the Global Justice movement is a really important one. They did, like Occupy, work with and engage other groups and communities and engage with them, which is really important work. Perhaps differently from the GJ movement, however, is the constant push-and-pull and disagreements from within the ranks of our movement. Occupy has been pretty welcoming to everyone on the Left-of-Center spectrum, which has made it really difficult at times for more radical organizers and activists to feel safe and comfortable. Having to work with folks that refuse to call my friends but their preferred gender pronoun, for example, has made it impossible for those friends to remain organizing in that environment, and has made it really problematic for myself, trying to be an ally to them, to stay as well. That’s just one tiny example, but hopefully it provides some small insight as to why so many really rad folks have left. I think the Global Justice movement had far more cultural homogeneity, which has plusses and minuses, but certainly made it easier for them to organize effectively together and have affinity for one another.
I think anarchists can continue to play this role, but maybe by just working in climates that feel safer and healthier for us to be in. The whole Occupy thing seems to be becoming a web of interconnected struggles now, where friends work together, in solidarity with different groups of friends working on something else parallel to it. Seems like a good model to me, for now.
chris
Thanks for this great piece on the proper rules for anarchists’ groups. Would you be interested in forming a consulting group to give other anarchist groups the be fit of your expertise? For a fee, of course. Copyright and patent protections are probably a good idea as well. Can’t have a bunch of lawless rule-breakers steal your ideas.
How much can I get for THIS if we copyright and patent the idea? I’m sure we could make a bundle if we could just get a chain reaction to happen and then charge anyone who used the idea with anarchistic thought infringement.
I enjoyed your thoughts on this Chris! I am on the verge myself of leaving the movement–but for different reasons!
There is very little discipline in the movement! I meet so many people that do not even bother to get a base level grasp of the issues! It is as if–some trendy fad came along called ‘occupy’ and every street hustler in NYC hitched their wagon to it.
I can handle the traditional liberals and even reformists if they are informed! These are folks who can be radicalized–because they understand the gravity of the problems we face under uncontrolled capitalism.
I love the piece, and as a person who is very close to the cause and issues you speak of. I want to ask you,
Have you ever considered that the reason that OWS didnt want to involve the standing anarchist infrastructure is because it is actually comprised of big govt?
Anon and OWS are both tied to the UN, or big govt at the top.
Occupy was anarchist? That’s news to me. Did I miss that vote? Oh, right: it never happened and would never pass any general assembly in the country. Most certainly now OWS. But carry on talking about yourselves, the one thing anarchists most definitely excel at: narcissism.
Seriously: call an anarchist meeting. See who shows up. Then you can have a vegan circle jerk about how everyone else wants to co-opt you. You can’t claim ownership — it’s not yours. It was a participatory democratic movement. Seriously.
Pingback: Recreating Oppression in OWS « nola feminist allies
I have a question about the Austin incident–how is raising a tent without the agreement of the group, however misguided the compromise with the city government might be, a consensus-oriented action? I mean this with all sincerity and in no way condone the abuse directed at the people who raised the tent. I am not an anarchist, but have reading quite a bit of Graeber and others in the wake of Occupy, and want to understand the practice of anarchism more. It seems to me if a group of people has a specific goal and a more general commitment to consensus, they would discuss their goal with the group, and in the face of overwhelming opposition, voice their opinion and back off for the sake of group building and trust. Of course, basic principles such as egalitarianism, anti-racism cannot be compromised, and if a majority in the group espouses some form of these then there can be no compromise. But none of these seems to be at stake in the tent tactic. So, if you can help me to understand your position, I would appreciate it.