Introduction

Because it is a “leaderless movement,” coverage of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) has inevitably taken note of its anarchist traits (1)(2). This paper attempts to explore how anarchist principles were incorporated in the organization and structure of OWS, as well as the intersection of some aspects of OWS and Eben’s propositions regarding anarchist production and distribution of goods, with full awareness that OWS is not, in the most traditional sense, in the business of producing and distributing “goods.”

Police Confrontation

The People's Library

One of the interesting features of OWS is the communal library that sprung up on-site, known as the People’s Library (6). Though this is not the most suitable context in which to bring up propositions expressly contemplating zero marginal cost goods, OWS participants have in a small way artificially changed the marginal cost of books to zero through a system of sharing and returning. The inability to make simultaneous use of the same text is clearly still a shortcoming of the system, but even this problem has been cleverly ameliorated through the creation of a public reading series using wireless headphones. In any case, imperfect as the setting might be for purposes of this paper, information distribution still appears to be greatly improved in this small sphere as attested to anecdotally by various participants, quotations from whom are too numerous to need inclusion. And indeed, the imperfect setting gives rise to the question, “How can I make OWS and its library a more perfect laboratory for anarchist distribution of (arguably) non-functional goods?” The answer should be clear to this class: digitize the books. What hurdles may be involved in such an endeavor are beyond the scope of this paper, but thoughtful input here or elsewhere would be appreciated.

General Assembly Struggles

Reportedly, the effectiveness of the General Assembly to make decisions, especially regarding how to distribute its unexpected half million dollars in donations, is increasingly being questioned and criticized by OWS participants (7)(8). This criticism of direct democracy is not novel. James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 63 that what distinguishes the American government from its Ancient Greek and Roman counterparts is “the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity” (9). Madison’s words ring less true today when many states allow for ballot initiatives, but debate about whether even such limited forms of direct democracy are wise persists (10). OWS’ General Assembly, however, differs from both ancient governments and present forms of direct democracy in one key regard: It is not a blend of representative and direct democracy. There is no disconnect between the people and their representatives that requires bridging, out of which arises many of the complications of direct democratic process. Whether the OWS General Assembly will survive its present challenges and resist pressure toward verticality is unclear, but it has the flexibility of pure direct democracy on its side. Like the Internet before it, the General Assembly may discover the need to make the leap from single, horizontal network to a “network of networks.” How is a question to be answered collectively, so perhaps using some of that budget to adopt technology allowing the inexpensive-to-free distribution and reproduction of the people’s ideas is a wise place to start.