posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 02:09 PM
a reply to: Not Authorized
I think the historical record is fairly clear. Anarchism broke into two distinct and very different directions about the time of the building toward a
Russian Revolution. One branch went very much in with Karl Marx and burgeoning Communism as the world would come to know the knew experiment. The
other went the way of rejecting central and total controls from Government as Communism took that branch of Anarchism directly into.
The American side and perhaps other branches members have mentioned and I hadn't had the chance to thoroughly explore, took a far better approach in
my view. That being something along the lines of a commune model, before the 'hippie' approach of the 1960's jaded that word beyond repair for some
Basically, I could see a Governing system similar to what I lived a part of in Occupy. The General Assembly and community's direct participation at
the community level. Communities forming to loosely build into the model of the states we have now. However, NOT with the central and invasive control
over life as a comprehensive thing, as we see it now.
The BIGGEST problem with Occupy's modern and very short experiment with limited direct representation was scale. No one considered that what worked
wonderfully for 150 people in camp...failed spectacularly for several thousand people in one of the last and largest nights for gathering at Zuccotti
Governing by representation is simply a required part of living in enormous populations, unless those populations are truly like minded ..which we're
The question comes in degree and power for where I think it really broke down the most to differentiate Anarchism and Communism. Anarchism saw power
coming from the bottom up. Communism is from the top down.