Nobody likes to hear someone jabber on about German philosophy, but bear with me for a moment.
After the death of G. W. F. Hegel, the great philosopher of contradictions, his followers split into two antagonistic factions. The dividing line between them was directly political: Left Hegelians and Right Hegelians. To make a long story short, the Left-wing Hegelians went in many directions, but their school of thought ultimately culminated in Marxism. The Right-wing Hegelians, for their part, turned Hegel’s philosophy into a fanatical form of Christian fundamentalism that later set the stage for European fascism. The same exact thing has happened to the Occupy movement over the past couple of months. It has split into mutually antagonistic and irreconcilable Left-wing and Right-wing factions.
There is a place in the middle of the United States of America called Tulsa, Oklahoma. Tulsa has yet to produce its own Hegel, but it has produced a vibrant Occupy movement. Local Occupy groups all across the U.S. have recently been splitting between the Left and the Right, but the curious case of Occupy Tulsa has seen such a dramatic rift that it serves well as an example to demonstrate the stakes involved in this greater trend. The divide in Occupy Tulsa has proceeded along truly Hegelian lines: one the one hand, you have socialists of various sorts, and on the other hand, you have the ideologues of fringe right-wing groups, people who call themselves simply “libertarians”, but who in reality espouse a dangerous xenophobia and a psychotic desire to flee the modern world. The example of Tulsa gives us a perfect, clear picture of the contradictions within Occupy as a whole, because the local split has proceeded in such a plain and unambiguous way: There is a “Left Occupy Tulsa” and a “Right Occupy Tulsa”.
Selecting Stones previously contributed an examination of Occupy Tulsa at a time when the movement was at a much earlier stage of its development, long before the split. Perhaps we were naive, but, more likely, the contradictions of Occupy Tulsa simply hadn’t had time to reveal themselves yet. Now, they have. Another German philosopher of much less stature, a man named Herbert Marcuse, once said that the Battle of Stalingrad was a fight between the Left-wing and the Right-wing students of Hegel. In that life-and-death struggle, the Left Hegelians won: the Soviet Union beat the Nazis. But now a little reprise of the Battle of Stalingrad is raging once again in Tulsa. They’ll just have to fight it out.
We need not get into all the details here of Occupy Tulsa’s short but turbulent history. The long and the short of it is that Occupy Tulsa was founded by socialists, by the Left, but it didn’t take long for inroads to be made by libertarians, by the Right. The Right-wing was even clever enough to initially pose as Left, starting a Tulsa IWW, but under the thumb of a few so-called “anarcho-capitalists”. Teenagers dressed in black — that is to say, anarchists — also made their appearance at Occupy Tulsa. They played off the ambiguities of both their ideology and their teenage angst in a bid to bounce back and forth between Left and Right. In the end, though, they wound up siding with the anti-immigrant xenophobes and racists of the Right, a fact which speaks volumes about the character both of anarchists and of their libertarian friends. The split was formalized when the Right-wing faction took over Occupy Tulsa’s Facebook page, and then subsequently marginalized or expelled the group’s Left-wing faction, some of whom regrouped to start over again, and to start a local Marxist reading group. This is why, in practical terms, there are now two separate and independent instances of Occupy Tulsa.
Internecine drama makes for good stories, but the important point for us is the outcome, and the current state of affairs. Left Occupy Tulsa is busy rebuilding from the ashes, but already preparing to engage in new projects designed to reach out to a larger group of Tulsans, especially those on the North Side, the city’s poorest area. Right Occupy Tulsa has a nice spot staked out at the city’s downtown library for its weekly General Assembly, but — just as we would expect — it hasn’t really been doing anything. But the interesting thing about Right Occupy Tulsa is its course of ideological development. It started out as a few Ron Paul supporters and “Don’t Tread On Me” flags, but it has expanded in a crazy — and sinister — direction. Now, much of the leadership is directly sympathetic to (or affiliated with) the ultra right-wing John Birch Society. Also, much of Right Occupy Tulsa is affiliated with what is called the R3 Republicans, a bizarre mixture of cultish Ron Paul hero worship and free market utopianism that borrows from the aesthetic of the Open Source software movement. Right Occupy Tulsa also has links to something called the Center for a Stateless Society, a tacky website espousing a wild form of neo-feudalist anarchism which wants to somehow turn back the clock to the time prior to the Industrial Revolution. Of course, these insane ideologies are certainly not confined to Tulsa. Take Occupy Austin, for example.
It is absurd to search for common ground between Ron Paul supporters and Marxists, and the reason is simple: The former represents the perspective of a business owner, and the latter represents the perspective of that business’s workers. Magnets of all types share the basic common characteristic that they attract other objects, but this doesn’t override the fact that a positively charged magnet and a negatively charged magnet are opposites of each other that can never stick together. Magnetism speaks well for the world of natural forces, but in the world of social forces, there is an even more basic law of motion: No relation is more inherently antagonistic than that between employer and employee. The dramatic split of Occupy Tulsa into Left-wing and Right-wing factions has given us a little window onto this fundamental reality of life in a capitalist society.
There was once a man named C. L. R. James from the small Caribbean island of Trinidad who was wiser by far than the aforementioned Germans. He wrote somewhere that, in a revolution, you’ve got to pick your side and stick to it. Here in America, we’re not dealing with a revolution (yet), but supporters of the Occupy movement — whether in Tulsa or in New York City — would nevertheless do well to listen to these words of advice. Whose side are you on?
Dan
March 15, 2012
You’re so funny Frank. Chris only showed up to One district 1 neighborhood meeting, and left early. We have been involved in the fight since it started.
Activism certainly isnt a dick waving contest, nor is it a contest to see who can get themselves dragged off pointlessly by security at the Republican sideshow circus. It’s about working to accomplish real change and actively work to use one’s resources where they are most effective and where they are most needed – right here. But that’s something you fail to grasp as you run off to OKC, Wichita, and now St. Louis. You do so little in Tulsa that you should consider dropping that trademark you guys picked up. You’re not doing anything with it, anyway.
Daniel Lee
March 14, 2012
FYI – It was the “Left” Occupy Tulsa which posted the signs in the North Tulsa parks, protesting the demolition of the rec centers, while the right-wingers sat at a booth in the financial district. http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Signs-say-No-to-demolishing-3-Tulsa-Rec-Centers/_GgqZu-jsE6DSlZK4qE5JQ.cspx
Frank Grove (@fragro)
March 15, 2012
Actually Chris Nichols from the Occu-House was working on this with local activists, and many from the General Assembly were on call and ready to stand in front of the bulldozers had the demolition gone through on Friday. Now that it’s postponed we will have significantly more numbers back from Occupy the Midwest. Only with critical mass can we accomplish change. Congrats on the news report though, sounds like they have the organizational semantics right finally.
Activism is not a dick waving contest. Grow up. The reason you don’t think we’re doing anything is because we don’t tell you since you went mad with power. Even Stephanie Lewis thinks you are crazy.
How’s the CPUSA membership going?
Dylan J. Tucker
March 9, 2012
Did anyone else notice that opposite poles of magnets attract each other? The rest of the article was about as accurate.
ZEMW
March 8, 2012
There are so many falsehoods in this article. I was involved with Occupy Tulsa before the split actually happened, and the friction was never about marxism or leftist ideas or anything else. Usurpers tried to control the majority by propagating lies and ignoring the process that lets everyone have a say, while simultaneously attempting to siphon funds into their own pockets.
It’s good that you checked in with both sides before posting the article, because it really saved you from making an ass of yourself. Oh wait… you didn’t. And even if no one else knows the truth, I do. And from the looks of the comments here, so do some other people.
Murl Thomas
March 6, 2012
I looked over both groups and began participating in the one that I felt was actually working toward things I could get behind. Community projects to benefit the less fortunate was something Jesus had a high opinion of, and I like positive actions. The one time I sat and listened to the other group talking, it was pretty much just a gripe session. Frankly, I’ve had it with the disaffected. I may not agree with everyone’s social or political leanings in this group, but hey, this is America and we don’t have to agree with each other to work for the common good.
Sick Ofliars
March 6, 2012
Awwwww… What a shame.
Daniel Lee and Stephanie Lewis are Liars, and vocal ones at that…. they’re are the type of people who are proactive with lies in order to get their version into the heads of strangers before they can be “infected” with the truth.
As Daniel Lee calls it brilliant only shows that he must have been one of the primary sources. Much of the language used comes directly from his fat, faux-socialist face and had never been said before he and Stephanie pissed everyone off and decided to leave and start their own group to lie. They lie. They collect money with their lies. They are liars and are committing fraud.
The problem with mainstream media is it’s preference to only listen to the liars in the world for the “truth”. Lawrence, you have a great future in the mainstream media.
Daniel Barham
March 6, 2012
I must say, for an article which is probably so well-meaning and filled with lofty parallels, this was woefully misinformed and often flat out false. Instead of paraphrasing, I will just post offending passages and respond.
-”The divide in Occupy Tulsa has proceeded along truly Hegelian lines: one the one hand, you have socialists of various sorts, and on the other hand, you have the ideologues of fringe right-wing groups, people who call themselves simply “libertarians”, but who in reality espouse a dangerous xenophobia and a psychotic desire to flee the modern world. The example of Tulsa gives us a perfect, clear picture of the contradictions within Occupy as a whole, because the local split has proceeded in such a plain and unambiguous way: There is a “Left Occupy Tulsa” and a “Right Occupy Tulsa”.”
This is the first of the true falsehoods. There is certainly no “Right Occupy Tulsa” and “Left Occupy Tulsa,” the split was never over these ideological issues. Even though it would probably be easier for me to sling mud in this manner and call the “Left Occupy Tulsa” as you take to calling it, right wing, they aren’t. Neither group is. The split took place because a very small group of people attempted to wield undue influence and control over the rest of the group, often shouting people out in GA’s, censoring them (with the excuse that Facebook might get rid of the page if there was too much open discourse and disagreement), and banning people for no good reason. There were also a laundry list of other issues I will not bring up that led to Stephanie Lewis and Daniel Lee being removed from positions where they could abuse power. In this way, if there was said to be a split, the split was over Authoritarianism vs Libertarianism; in other words, how much the civil rights or laws of a power structure should be focused upon the interests of authority or the citizen. The current Occupy Tulsa General Assembly sided with the voice of the assembly members instead of siding with the then-shouting indignant voice of authority.
“The Right Occupy Tulsa” was the result of the the group’s attempt to decentralize power from a few ‘leaders’ back to the General Assembly, where everyone has an equal say. The split was followed through because various members of the Occupy constantly complained about these two or three overly powerful ‘leader’ figures, which often acted in manners which were widely considered narcissistic and power-hungry. This is basically a summary of fair democracy and the ideals of Anarchic-Syndicalism in the vein of Chomsky and Zinn. We used horizontal power to overcome vertical power.
“The Left Occupy Tulsa” was the result of a small group of members inability to acquiesce to a horizontal General Assembly. They decried it had no authority and that they would make their own, which they proceeded to do. This General Assembly that they created was exactly the vertical power structure they could have wanted, where the “General Assembly” does not have any say unless the aforementioned ousted leaders, give it the go-ahead.
I will not be calling them by the above monikers for the length of this rebuttal, as I think that they are unfair characterizations of both sides. I will instead refer to “The Right Occupy Tulsa” as “Occupy Tulsa General Assembly” and “The Left Occupy Tulsa” as “The Occupy Tulsa splinter group.” The issue of left and right is not only a red herring here, it is actually false to think that the ideology espoused by either side is ‘right wing’ by nature.
-”The long and the short of it is that Occupy Tulsa was founded by socialists, by the Left, but it didn’t take long for inroads to be made by libertarians, by the Right. The Right-wing was even clever enough to initially pose as Left, starting a Tulsa IWW, but under the thumb of a few so-called “anarcho-capitalists”. Teenagers dressed in black — that is to say, anarchists — also made their appearance at Occupy Tulsa.”
See, this is not the long and short of it. In summary, all of these groups were in the Occupy since the very beginning. Although there is certainly a higher concentration of leftists in the group, Ron Paul supporters and other right-wing libertarian types have long held the Occupy grievances. The entire Occupy movement is, more or less, bi-partisan as long as members agree on grievances. You also make ignorant assumptions about the type of people that call themselves Anarchists, which include such minds as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. In summary, they didn’t sell out from their roots; you just have no idea what you are talking about.
-”Left Occupy Tulsa is busy rebuilding from the ashes, but already preparing to engage in new projects designed to reach out to a larger group of Tulsans, especially those on the North Side, the city’s poorest area. Right Occupy Tulsa has a nice spot staked out at the city’s downtown library for its weekly General Assembly, but — just as we would expect — it hasn’t really been doing anything. But the interesting thing about Right Occupy Tulsa is its course of ideological development. It started out as a few Ron Paul supporters and “Don’t Tread On Me” flags, but it has expanded in a crazy — and sinister — direction. Now, much of the leadership is directly sympathetic to (or affiliated with) the ultra right-wing John Birch Society. Also, much of Right Occupy Tulsa is affiliated with what is called the R3 Republicans, a bizarre mixture of cultish Ron Paul hero worship and free market utopianism that borrows from the aesthetic of the Open Source software movement. Right Occupy Tulsa also has links to something called the Center for a Stateless Society, a tacky website espousing a wild form of neo-feudalist anarchism which wants to somehow turn back the clock to the time prior to the Industrial Revolution. ”
This entire paragraph is falsehood. The Occupy Tulsa splinter group is not ‘rebuilding from the ashes,’ they still remain a group of about 3-6 people that do not engage in very well coordinated or well focused actions. They are not engaging in significant community outreach projects and they are not engaging in national outreach at all, They only like to make it seem this way. This can be evidenced by simply talking to normal people in Tulsa that know Occupiers or by speaking to national Occupy movements and asking who they actually interact with. In both occasions, the names you will hear will not be those in the splinter group. I guarantee it.
Moving on, The Occupy Tulsa General Assembly is not significantly comprised of Ron Paul supporters, they are present, but they do not make up a majority the core organizers by any means. In fact, I can think of a few organizers that started the Occupy Tulsa that are still organizing, who are anti-Ron Paul. But that doesn’t strike me as an insult as much as a misconception. What is blatantly mudslinging is the accusation that the Occupy is in any way connected with the John Birch Society, R3 Republicans, or Center for a Stateless Society. I will not even offer a defense against these claims, as addressing them lends them more credence than they deserve. In short: they are lies.
I can tell, just by the tone of this article, that you are very misinformed about the movement in its entirety and also misinformed about the Occupy Tulsa in specific. I am not sure if this misinformation comes from your conjecture and skin-level observation, or if you have been purposely misinformed by interested parties, but next time you write an article please do some actual research before making such absurd claims.
A. Philips
March 7, 2012
As a small correction Howard Zinn was a member of the communist party usa. I don’t see much in the way of anarcho-syndicalism in the General Assembly. If they were organized into industrial unions then maybe. This can happen when people take advantage of new organizations to gain power. It happens in any group, will continue to happen in General Assemblies. Unless the General Assemblies become more formal about how they are run.
Daniel Lee
March 7, 2012
“There is certainly no “Right Occupy Tulsa” and “Left Occupy Tulsa,” the split was never over these ideological issues.”
Untrue. One of the core reasons underlying the split was that we on the Left (the Original Occupy Tulsa) wanted to focus on social justice issues on a local level, things that we could directly impact. The Right wing-ers (ie, “Moccupiers”) are only concerned with economic reform on a national level, wasting time and resources on things they cannot change or effect with so small numbers, while emphatically ignoring the extreme poverty and injustice happening right on their door step. Who gives a crap about Glass-Steagal when there are people starving, and minorities getting brutalized by one of the most corrupt police forces in the nation? Classic Right/Left divide.
“The split took place because a very small group of people attempted to wield undue influence and control over the rest of the group, often shouting people out in GA’s,”
…Viewing video footage would show actually that it was the Moccupiers that were the most destructive to group unity – Rick Piercall, Samuel, Nick, all did exactly that.
“censoring them (with the excuse that Facebook might get rid of the page if there was too much open discourse and disagreement), and banning people for no good reason.”
…wrong again. Facebook moderation when I was running the FB page from the time I created it t the time it was hijacked, was done along common moderation policy – no spamming, flame wars, trolling, etc. I very clearly listed that the page was an information site only and that violators would be banned. People got butthurt, too bad.
“There were also a laundry list of other issues I will not bring up that led to Stephanie Lewis and Daniel Lee being removed from positions where they could abuse power.”
We were never “removed” from anything. We denounced the GA for abusing power it should never have had, and as Organizers, withdrew Occupy Tulsa’s recognition of the GA as an official arm of the movement.
Blah blah blah “We used horizontal power to overcome vertical power.”
Bullshit. There never was a “power structure”. You, as with the other Moccupiers, clearly fail to understand the difference between positions of responsibility and figureheadship. You all looked to Stephanie and myself to be told what to do instead of taking responsibility yourselves, but when we did tell you what to do, you called us dictators. So F you.
“The Occupy Tulsa splinter group is not ‘rebuilding from the ashes,’ they still remain a group of about 3-6 people that do not engage in very well coordinated or well focused actions. They are not engaging in significant community outreach projects and they are not engaging in national outreach at all, They only like to make it seem this way.”
Try 15-25, we have coordinated 6 protest demonstrations, a rally which drew about 50 participants, marched in the MLK Jr. day parade, held a blanket drive for a local animal shelter, distributed food to the homeless, executed various direct actions around the city, held a Teach-In at TU, protested against Park Rec center closures in North Tulsa, occupied city meetings, and are working on a large event in April that will be the biggest effort yet. Go speak for your Moccupy group, you have no idea what we are doing.
“I can think of a few organizers that started the Occupy Tulsa that are still organizing, who are anti-Ron Paul.”
Just wanted to stop you right there. I started Occupy Tulsa. I created the first FB page on September 23rd, held media interviews, planned the first meetings and the first event. Stephanie joined me as co-organizer a week later. You didn’t show up till much later. Get your history straight.
As for Ron Paul supporters making a significant majority of your group, I’ll give you a list: Frank Grove, James Tuttle, Emily Vickers, Peggy P, John Harlien, Chris Nichols, Brittany Mercer, Eli Silva, Jeff Key, Sandra Kirkpatrick, Chris King, Misty Sparkman, Tyler Badcock, Angela Daniel, Nathan Davis, Shane A., and many others I cant name off the top of my head but who make up a significant part of the people who come to the Moccupy GA on a regular basis.
Grow a brain and think for yourself, instead of adopting the group-think these idiots are foisting on their followers.
Chris King
March 7, 2012
“As for Ron Paul supporters making a significant majority of your group, I’ll give you a list: Frank Grove, James Tuttle, Emily Vickers, Peggy P, John Harlien, Chris Nichols, Brittany Mercer, Eli Silva, Jeff Key, Sandra Kirkpatrick, Chris King…”
Dear child Daniel,
You are so ignorant and sad, you make me feel genuine pity for you; pity is a human emotion–you can look it up in one of your Magick Crowley books, I’m sure he wrote many chapters on how to manipulate it that you’ve memorized.
Now go get your black candles, paint your toenails black and get back to your satanism. Didn’t it make you happier to howl your Crowley Gibberish to invoke the “dark spirits” in your Mom’s basement than to mouth off with this sort of embarrassment?
I mean really man, doesn’t your little coven witch/warlock/orgy playmates miss you?
Hey Everyone! I have a proposal for a community service for the needy! Let’s help Daniel find some little “harry potter” or vampyre friends to take his mind off of his poor representative, ideas of Marxist-leninism! I wonder if all of his ‘working class’ comrades understand or even know about all of Wulfric’s occult adventures? We’ll I hope they find out and can ask him about it. Here is a brief biography I’ve gone through the trouble of putting together for him based on his internet footprint… YOU’RE WELCOME DANIEL. (*^3^)/~☆
His name is Dan – a Celtic Pagan who lived in the Seattle area with his beautiful wife Mary, and son Brendan. A displaced Irishman (at heart, since his ancestry is somewhat dubious), he once described himself as having the soul of a bard and the talent of a teenage emo.
He has a long history working a functionary or corporate shill in retail, for example, he worked as a self-described Coffee Nazi for the Java-Juggernaut Starbucks as an Ass. Man…(Assistant Manager. Not literally Ass Man. Though sometimes he wondered what it would be like.) Just like now with “lefty groups”, he has been known to haunt Irish pubs as a poseur wherever they can be found, as well as Half-price bookstores and Magick shops (he always takes time to send a shout-out to Moonflower Magicks, a now-defunct ‘bookstore’ where goths and Anton Levey lovers would hang out and stroke each others magick wands and cup each others krystal balls).
He’s a BIG Tolkien junkie – and he was pretty proud of himself for getting the special edition LOTR trilogy box set for $50 five years ago.. “booya.”
He worked at learning Irish Gaelic, and was interested in learning Old Irish (for ritual purposes)…. [lucky he already has a 'beard' because that stuff is normal-girl repellent].
He’s been known to call himself an eclectic Pagan for over six years or so, but his interests are in CR – Celtic Reconstructionism – actually…. he was pretty happy with himself when he finally found out there’s a name for it.
Daniel called himself a “constantly evolving person” – or at least, he tried to be ; ) – After moving from Seattle to California with his wife and son, he found himself here in the Tulsa, the Rhinestone on the buckle of the Bible Belt by way of Sedalia, Missouri. (Why all the moving Daniel? Aren’t you happy anywhere or have you repeated the same pattern and alienated yourself in those places too? Three major moves in less than five years must have been pretty expensive… your little ass man job at starbucks pay for that? Just wondering.)
Hey, it’s a tough area to be Pagan, so he is needing a local coven and his little family hopes to be welcomed in with open arms; they continue to dicover (sic) more and more blessings from “the Goddess” and they continue down their path.
Where he pretends to be at spiritually: he’s described himself as Pagan. The coven he has been a part of is Eclectic Wiccan, and he had been dedicated to learning from that path…(until “communism” looked more attractive to him.) He also has a background in Celtic Reconstructionism, and many things in CR appeal to his made-up “Irish” background – including an affinity for the Irish pantheon and mythology, as well as being a devotee of, what Daniel has called, “that sweet Irish nectar, Guinness.” However, he likes to expand his horizons, and has learned a lot from Ceremonial and High Magick sources as well as Chaos Magick. (I’m sure it dovetails right in with his versions of authoritarianism, Marxism, and Leninism.)
Does anyone have any experience working with the Goetia? Daniel read Lon Milo DuQuette’s book “My Life With the Spirits” a while back, and has been interested in Goetic evocation ever since. Obviously he’s not too fond of the judeo/christian JHVH conjurations since he refuses to work with that particular deity, and he dislikes the air of disrespect the lesser Key os (sic) Solomon has for the spirits, so he was working on creating a pagan-centric version that politely and respectfully gives the spirits their due honor, while still maintaining the proper authority and safety for the conjurer (himself). He’d gotten to the point of actually creating a triangle of art, but “life” happened and interrupted his work. However, he has a more temporary version in his mom’s basement which he’s used to call up a servitor he created that seemed to work quite well.
Of course other satanist-poseurs of his caliber will know what any of that nonsense actually means, but who cares? If we can help Daniel get some friends from the background he’s more used to working with, then maybe he’ll stop trying to bust the union he joined and then lied about, commenting with grade-A Top Class Ignorance, or endangering the court case with the city by running his ignorant mouth off at the media.
Peggy P.
March 6, 2012
Obviously this was written from one point of view, probably from an interview with someone from the marxist branch. It’s a sad, pathetic attempt to malign the people that refused to be “led” by a minority of people who didn’t want to operate in the Occupy-approved, non-hierarchical method of consensus.
Daniel Lee
March 6, 2012
LOL your own statement belies itself – “occupy approved” and “non-heirarchical”. You have set up a hierarchy already – Those within the GA tell everyone else what to do. Screw the GA. It has no authority, and is being used by the Bourgeoisie to distract people from the real issues at hand – class war, and one being waged by far more than just 1%.
RanDomino
March 6, 2012
Marxist scum! Next time the people rise, you’ll be on the wrong end of it, you bastards!
Daniel Lee
March 7, 2012
Riiiight….Thanks Joe McCarthy.
Joe Briggs Jr.
March 6, 2012
Well, as you can see, while the leaders of Occupy Tulsa are busy arguing their ideologies, the affinity groups of us are busy working away on our projects.
Frank Grove
March 6, 2012
There is no affiliation in Occupy Tulsa with John Birch Society. The source for that information is a single meeting on the Ron Paul meetup that no one from Occupy Tulsa attended.
This piece serves the 1% and those who would like to divide the movement for their own self-serving interests.
Daniel Lee
March 6, 2012
This man is a Ron Paul (Tulsa R3′s) Organizer and has been since he was 17. The John Birch Society in Tulsa IS the R3 group. An easy Google search will find several more links to other JBS / R3 meetings. This also includes an End the Fed event in OKC in 2009 which was sponsored in part by a Ryan C Underwood – http://www.meetup.com/members/4619622/ who is another R3 organizer. Underwood spoke at the rally and was introduced by Bob Donohoo, JBS Section leader with ties with the KKK. Here’s footage of the event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jiJgSyYilE
A little digging shows that Donohoo set up JBS meetings with the R3′s in 2009. The R3′s involved in the Right-wing Occupy Tulsa splinter group are directly connected with JBS and Donohoo.
Amanda H.
March 6, 2012
This is some of the worst editorial work I’ve ever seen. Those that contributed should be ashamed of themselves. It is extremely biased and unrepresentative of the truth.
RanDomino
March 6, 2012
I don’t know about Occupy Tulsa specifically, but you clearly don’t know shit about C4SS. All that their website is is articles. It would take you literally two clicks to read one. Why not start with Kevin Carson, an pro-market anti-capitalist? Your head would probably explode.
Fuck Marx, fuck Lenin, fuck Trotsky, fuck their idiot followers.
Prole Center
March 6, 2012
I took a look at the C4SS website and read a bit. I wasn’t quite as turned off by their views as the comrades at Selecting Stones, but I don’t really get “market anarchism.” Also, there was no real mention that I could see of the class struggle which also seems out of place for Anarchists.
But, as I said before in a previous post, let’s build a little unity of the Left here! Let’s not do the enemy’s work for him. There is much we can agree on that if acted upon will actually begin to build a genuine Working Class movement in this country. Come on, the fate of the human race is literally riding on the U.S. Proletariat getting its shit together. I really believe that.
RanDomino
March 6, 2012
“I wasn’t quite as turned off by their views as the comrades at Selecting Stones, but I don’t really get “market anarchism.””
C4SS has both libertarian anti-capitalists and libertarian arch-capitalists, unfortunately; which is why I pointed to Carson in particular, who points out that capitalism (as the ideologues see it) could theoretically coexist with worker cooperatives and communes. Of course, without a State to enforce capitalist property, capitalism would either regenerate a State (via feudalism, aka thuggery by the bourgeoisie) or capitalism would become merely vestigial as people abandoned it in favor of more sustainable and less-alienating forms of political economy.
A kind of ‘market anarchism’ substitutes gift economics for quid pro quo exchange. ‘Market’ simply refers to the mechanism by which producers and consumers connect; contrast it to ‘Command’ or ‘Planned’ economies like Syndicalism or State Capitalism (Bolshevist ‘Communism’). In the latter, decisions about distribution are made by a central agency; in any kind of Market-based economy, decisions about distribution are made by the producer.
For example, a baker may decide to give all his bread to his neighbors, or to his family, or keep it himself, or throw it away. BUT! That baker has other needs- ingredients, for example; also things he can’t make such as shoes and measuring cups and so on. If he is generous, it’s more likely that he’ll help build a vibrant community in which the people who provide those things will also be generous. In this way, all needs can be met, along the truest sense of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
“Also, there was no real mention that I could see of the class struggle which also seems out of place for Anarchists.”
It’s not the best in that regard, but don’t forget that in an Anarchist society there would be neither bourgeoisie nor proletariat; the goal is to *negate* class, not to bring about the dominance of the workers- since “proletariat” is defined as “those who work but do not own” and “bourgeoisie” is “those who own but do not work,” and victory in the class struggle would make the workers into owners and the owners into workers, negating class itself.
“But, as I said before in a previous post, let’s build a little unity of the Left here! Let’s not do the enemy’s work for him. There is much we can agree on that if acted upon will actually begin to build a genuine Working Class movement in this country. Come on, the fate of the human race is literally riding on the U.S. Proletariat getting its shit together. I really believe that.”
Marxists have betrayed us far too many times for there to be peace or even cooperation. They do it every opportunity they get, and we need to stop falling for it.
Justin Hayden
March 6, 2012
But how does any anarchist system propose we achieve that classless society? How does an anarchist system account for potential civil rights violations if a group of people self-determine to be racist, which could easily happen in the more extreme areas of the world? How does an anarchist system account for a self-determining group of people who choose to exploit the environment and pollute excessively?
The state has been used to create and exploit the lowest class – legions of under-educated and underprivileged. They are not going to simply cease being exploited with the dissolution of the state and suddenly repossess the resources that have been taken from them by the wealthiest and strongest; they are a product of the state, so it is the state’s responsibility to even the playing field.
RanDomino
March 6, 2012
“But how does any anarchist system propose we achieve that classless society?”
Prefiguratively.
“How does an anarchist system account for potential civil rights violations if a group of people self-determine to be racist, which could easily happen in the more extreme areas of the world?”
In what way? If they’re simply refusing to engage in business with certain classes of people for no good reason, that has to remain their right. It does not do any actual injury. If they’re attacking minorities, that’s obviously a matter of self-defense.
“How does an anarchist system account for a self-determining group of people who choose to exploit the environment and pollute excessively?”
The communities affected by that pollution should be organized enough to defend themselves (with the help of allies, which could easily mean a significant proportion of the population via modern-style social networks, both online and offline).
“The state has been used to create and exploit the lowest class – legions of under-educated and underprivileged. They are not going to simply cease being exploited with the dissolution of the state and suddenly repossess the resources that have been taken from them by the wealthiest and strongest; they are a product of the state, so it is the state’s responsibility to even the playing field.”
The State won’t do it for us unless we’re strong and organized enough to either do it ourselves (thus threatening to make the State obsolete, which motivates it), or to take control of the State (in which case we might as well cut the middleman and just take control of the economy). The State is the playground of professional charlatans, nothing more.
Justin Hayden
March 6, 2012
Your responses here and further below echo the sentiments of others I’ve seen, and in my opinion, they fail to adequately answer my questions. Prefiguratively supposing classlessness from a huge, heterogeneous, incredibly imbalanced population is fantasy.
I’d also like to point out that refusing business for any reason other than an inability to pay is the exact same kind of behavior that was prevalent during the first half of the 20th century.
What’s the difference between the state controlling the economy and the market? Both types of suppliers manufacture the very demand they’re sufficing, so why allow that demand to freely consume shared natural resources at an exponentially increasing rate?
The state is the only entity with enough size and scale to mobilize resources and labor to reverse the damage we’ve done to the environment; leaving that matter up to small bands of individuals who might care enough to do something about it is … well … par for the course from what I’ve heard of most advocates of a direct transition to anarchist systems.
RanDomino
March 6, 2012
“Prefiguratively supposing classlessness from a huge, heterogeneous, incredibly imbalanced population is fantasy.”
Sure, but the population isn’t like that. It’s not one huge mass. It’s a colossal number of small organizations, affinity groups, families, work units, etc., each having no more than a dozen or two members, and each person being part of several. That’s how the world is actually organized.
“I’d also like to point out that refusing business for any reason other than an inability to pay is the exact same kind of behavior that was prevalent during the first half of the 20th century.”
Yes, and? So it’s racist. That’s unfortunate. What stopped people from starting their own, non-racist businesses? The State.
“What’s the difference between the state controlling the economy and the market? Both types of suppliers manufacture the very demand they’re sufficing, so why allow that demand to freely consume shared natural resources at an exponentially increasing rate?”
Why would anyone manufacture a demand in a gift economy?
“The state is the only entity with enough size and scale to mobilize resources and labor to reverse the damage we’ve done to the environment; leaving that matter up to small bands of individuals …”
Who said anything about small bands of individuals? By forming Federations for mutual defense and harm prevention we can leverage huge swaths of the population to protect each other in an organized way, without resorting to being ruled.
Justin Hayden
March 6, 2012
Okie doke.
I don’t know what else to say. I have to be honest – part of me thinks you’re not being serious and are fucking with me. If all of that falls into place, that would be swell.
I’ll cross my fingers for the development of a culture, without any aid from a state authority, that values the gift economy, even though in America, over the last few decades, it took the state’s intervention to halt complete exploitation (namely the Civil Rights Act, restrictions on redlining in the banking industry, other parts of the Community Reinvestment Act, public funding for education, etc. etc.).
I’ll leave you with your own words:
“Yes, and? So it’s racist. That’s unfortunate.”
RanDomino
March 7, 2012
It’s people like you that make me feel bad about hating Marxists. Were you not such a threat, only pity would be appropriate.
Justin Hayden
March 6, 2012
C4SS’ website rejects the idea that any of the problems our current society faces are a result of market forces but by intervention by state entities on behalf of the market, presumably through legislation and other means. There are examples that support this idea, and there are examples that do not.
Pro-market anti-capitalism still degrades the human experience to simple commodification. The point of my existence becomes the creation of a good to which others can collectively apply an arbitrary, “market determined” value (which can be artificially manipulated), making my existence equivalent to my ability to produce something others are willing to buy. If others decide they don’t demand what I want to produce, then I have to change my behavior to fit their demands, which relegates me to either only working to produce goods that are needed (like food) or figuring out a way to exploit the system so that I can make enough money to do what I want.
My desires become a hobby – nothing more.
At least in a socialist system, the needs of a society are a responsibility shared by every individual, minimizing the amount of specialization and time needed to accomplish tasks demanded by everyone.
Justin Hayden
March 6, 2012
*Correction for the first paragraph – “intervention by state entities on behalf of players in the market.”
RanDomino
March 6, 2012
Precisely why Anarchism embraces Gift Economics, which eschews the idea of exchange value of commodities entirely without resorting to domination by a bureaucracy.
Justin Hayden
March 6, 2012
So, a population of 7 billion will suddenly embrace gift economics if an anarchist system took hold tomorrow, and those who already have so much will simply forfeit everything voluntarily?
Anarchism as you describe it seems possible only with a small population of relatively homogeneous and equally informed participants, or after several generations of culture shift and social remaking (which is precisely what communism, as prescribed by Marx and others, seeks to accomplish).
RanDomino
March 6, 2012
“So, a population of 7 billion will suddenly embrace gift economics if an anarchist system took hold tomorrow, and those who already have so much will simply forfeit everything voluntarily?”
Who’s proposing that “an anarchist system” could possibly “take hold tomorrow”? There’s nothing anarchist about a coup d’etat, if that’s what you think Revolution means.
“Anarchism as you describe it seems possible only with a small population of relatively homogeneous and equally informed participants”
Actually, that’s the basis for an Anarchistic society, yes. The generic term is “affinity group”.
“or after several generations of culture shift and social remaking”
Yes, I have no doubt it could take a very long time to rebuild society from the ground up. But such a transformation can only be done from the *bottom* up.
Prole Center
March 6, 2012
Syndicalism and a system of federated communes like the old soviets in Russia is the general idea for most Anarchists, I think. Anarchists were strong supporters of the soviets but were against the Bolshevik’s consolidating them into a top-down, centralized state. It’s still an idea that I like, although I can see its potential flaws and weaknesses as I can see dangers and pitfalls in consolidating power in a centralized state that has the potential to become overly-bureaucratic and unaccountable to the public. There must be a way to deal with all of these concerns and form a united front.
RanDomino
March 6, 2012
“Syndicalism and a system of federated communes like the old soviets in Russia is the general idea for most Anarchists, I think.”
Direct worker control is certainly preferable, but it seems like more and more Anarchists are moving away from Syndicalism per se. In Syndicalism, the economy is planned by a central board of some kind- generally delegated, but still planned centrally. There is still the danger of bureaucratization.
Instead, market mechanisms (producers and consumers making their own choices about distribution) can be employed, trusting in the cleverness and basic decency of the common person to chaotically but chaotically order the economy just as Anarchists trust the common person to harmonically order society.
Also, Anarchists have learned another important fact in the past 100 years: People hate work. They really do. “We work because we have to, not because we want to”. Syndicalism seems to assume that people are basically workers, which is simply anachronistic.
Tiffany Phillips
March 6, 2012
Lawrence, I’m curious who you spoke with in the “Right Occupy Tulsa” group for this article? Which GAs did you attend or watch via LiveStream?
I ask because the picture of the group that you create has been far from my experience.
Tiffany Phillips
March 6, 2012
What has the “Right Occupy Tulsa” been doing? On 1/20, we joined with others across the US to Occupy the Courts against the Citizens United ruling. We’ve held a teach in about different systems of elections both in practice and in theory. We’ve sent members to Occupy Kochtown. Supported the other Occupies across Oklahoma by working with them on their events and bolstering numbers.
I would point out that only one of the two OTs you write about is coordinating with Occupies around Oklahoma and the region. That would be the “Right” OT. Or does this now mean that all of the other OK Occupies are suspect to having been infiltrated?
I would also note that I myself am certainly NOT a right winger, and I call those fighting words. Though in a discussion on a FB group page, Daniel Lee did just refer to me as a “liberal bourgeoisie poster child.”.
Feel free to check out my FB postings and I think you’ll quickly be able to draw your own conclusions on that.
Daniel Lee
March 7, 2012
How does anything you’ve done so far actually impact the extreme poverty and social injustice here in Tulsa? You went to OKC, you went to Wichita, you’re planning on going to St. Louis, What are You Doing To ACTUALLY Occupy Tulsa? To make a real difference, right here, in this city, to fight injustice, to bring about equality, to expose corruption. Here. What are you doing about it?
Justin Hayden
March 5, 2012
Anarchism is essentially the goal of communism. The state eventually withers away, after social inequities are solved.
Additionally, given the environmental inequities created by years of capitalist exploitation, the state is the only entity with enough scale to avoid impending environmental collapse.
RanDomino
March 6, 2012
The state does not “eventually wither away”. The bureaucrats simply become the next generation of bourgeoisie. Unless the means of production are in the hands of the workers /directly/, and even then /taken by the workers/ rather than given from on high, capitalism regenerates. Why are we still having this argument? It’s been almost 100 years since the failures of Marxism should have become apparent. Ahh, but, of course, they weren’t ‘failures’ if the goal of Marxists is to, in fact, themselves become the new elite!
Prole Center
March 6, 2012
I tend to agree with your observation that the state won’t just wither away, but you shouldn’t make blanket statements about the intentions of people you don’t know. I recently read a book by an ex-CIA case officer who stated quite frankly that they had a very difficult time infiltrating and operating in countries like the USSR and East Germany because they were “closed” societies. This meant that their security was really tight. They were forced to operate like a police state to keep the U.S. imperialists out. The same goes for Cuba today. Yeah, I know that can be used as just an excuse, but in this case there happens to be clear proof of it. I hope you don’t think that the USSR just collapsed on its own. The U.S. had something to do with it I assure you.
RanDomino
March 6, 2012
“you shouldn’t make blanket statements about the intentions of people you don’t know.”
Certain psychological profiles tend toward certain types of organization. Maybe not all Marxists see themselves as tyrants, but rather as the only ones who can ‘guide’ humanity into a socialist paradise, as ‘shepherds’- but from the perspective of the flock, the differences are merely semantic.
“I hope you don’t think that the USSR just collapsed on its own. The U.S. had something to do with it I assure you.”
Something, sure. In particular, it was the threat needed to point to to keep the populace in line. The USSR’s collapse was purely economic- State Capitalism is simply a less-efficient form of capitalism.
Justin Hayden
March 6, 2012
What about the global, systemic failures of capitalism and its necessity of a low-wage labor pool?
Why is it that Stalinism and Maoism are the only eventualities of communism? There are a variety of reasons for why the China and Russia became what they are.
If I don’t know how to install a piece of software, it’s not the software’s fault but mine.
Prole Center makes a good point about how capitalist countries helped to undermine the success of any communist countries; it’s like playing basketball with a person, breaking that person’s leg, then pointing out how horrible at basketball they are. There are many schools of thought that point out that communism cannot exist in a world where capitalist powers are free to exploit and influence them economically.
RanDomino
March 6, 2012
“Why is it that Stalinism and Maoism are the only eventualities of communism? There are a variety of reasons for why the China and Russia became what they are.”
Sure, but look at e-v-e-r-y other Marxist-Communist revolution. The same problems are everywhere!
“If I don’t know how to install a piece of software, it’s not the software’s fault but mine.”
Except that the user is all of humanity, and you can’t change human nature. At some point you’ve got to admit that the program is just plain wrong.
“Prole Center makes a good point about how capitalist countries helped to undermine the success of any communist countries”
Yeah, well, they exist, and they’re going to do that. If there’s no path from point A to point B in the actually-existing world, then what you’re looking at isn’t even a bad plan. It’s just no plan.
Justin Hayden
March 6, 2012
Many “Marxist-Communist” revolutions of the 20th century were not simply “Marxist-Communist” revolutions but essentially “Stalinist-Maoist” revolutions influenced by those powerful states.
RanDomino
March 6, 2012
Stalinism and Maoism are still in the Marxist-Communist tradition. Leninism may be a slight aberration, but Nationalist Communism was an aberration that was necessary for the Bolsheviks to take power- but at the same time it helped destroy the revolutionary nature of the movement/Party.
Justin Hayden
March 7, 2012
Since Stalinism and Maoism are “in the Marxist-Communist tradition,” they are therefore the only products of “Marxist-Communist tradition”?
If the possibility that something better is possible cannot be afforded to Marxist thought, then why should anyone afford that same consideration to the tenants of the free market, which have, to this point, only engendered worldwide social and environmental exploitation for the benefit of a fraction of the world population?
A. Philips
March 7, 2012
The same can be said about the Anarchists as they have failed to even have a successful revolution.
Prole Center
March 5, 2012
I think it was Rudolph Rocker who said, “Every Anarchist is a Socialist, but not every Socialist is an Anarchist.” Whatever ideological beefs exist between Marxists and Anarchists, I think most of them can be worked out by those who truly struggle for liberation of the Proletariat. We need class unity! However, there can be no common ground with bourgeois pseudo-radicals. A commitment to Working Class freedom from ANY form of domination and exploitation is what makes me an Anarchist, but I’m just as happy to be known as a Socialist, or even a Communist.
- JW of Prole Center
RanDomino
March 6, 2012
Absolutely not. Marxism is inherently tyrannical.
Prole Center
March 6, 2012
I don’t agree with everything that Marx said or did (like kicking Bakunin and the Anarchists out of the 1st International, for instance), but I know folks who self-identify as Marxists that I respect a great deal. Certainly we owe Marx a great debt of gratitude for completely deconstructing capitalism and inspiring millions of the Working Class to fight for their liberation. The fight has had ups and downs, but it ain’t over yet.
I suppose you think it is tyrannical that Cubans receive excellent, free health care and university education, that homelessness is unheard of, etc., etc.? As an Anarchist I’m not a big fan of states, but all states are not the same. We must give credit where credit is due, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to fight and agitate for more progress towards true classlessness.
RanDomino
March 6, 2012
Marx didn’t inspire shit. The overwhelming force in the anti-capitalist movements before 1917 were Syndicalist and other variations of Anarchist.
Cuba is probably the best that can be hoped for in a Marxist system, but it developed in unique historical circumstances that can’t be hoped for elsewhere- isolation, exodus of dissents, relatively small population, etc. Even then it’s probably going to fall to the same fate as the USSR as state capitalism gives way to individual capitalism (starting with housing). That’s not progress, but a plateau.
Justin Hayden
March 6, 2012
The overwhelming force for anti-capitalism is the contradiction of capitalism itself.
Joe Briggs Jr.
March 5, 2012
For your information, we’re busy restoring this house we bought together up north. We call it THE OCCUHOUSE. It’s gonna serve as headquarters for the general assembly. It already is a private backyard tent city for us original resident workers. Then another affinity group is making a COMMUNITY GARDEN on some property they recently acquired on the west side. I donate to that group too.
Joe Briggs Jr.
March 5, 2012
For your information, we’re busy restoring this house we bought together up north. We call it THE OCCUHOUSE. It’s gonna serve as headquarters for the general assembly. It already is a private backyard tent city for us original resident workers. Then another affinity group is making a COMMUNITY GARDEN on some property they recently acquired. I donate to that group too.
Daniel Lee
March 5, 2012
Brilliant work. Lawrence succinctly sums up the situation of the Right and Pseudo-Left (Libertarian) coup of Occupy Tulsa. The individuals responsible show a sociopath tendency to try to manipulate and control the movement, but when gaining control, they have very little idea of what to do with it. This is perhaps because their ultimate goal is to not accomplish anything while still making a splash in the news. A mic check here, a tussle at a campaign rally there and it’s enough to earn the “authentic activist” badge without doing anything that actually threatens the status quo. In the end, they discredit Occupy with their actions, while the poor and the oppressed continue to be exploited by their Bourgeois masters.