I post this article with the following caveats:
First, the people Fritz identifies as anarchists obviously aren't. They sound much more like Leninists trying to camouflage themselves as anarchists.
"Every anarchist meeting" Fritz has attended has had a loophole in the procedures? That's odd as I've never encountered anything like this.
Fritz alternately complains that the meetings are too authoritarian and not authoritarian enough. Apparently he believes the assembled masses should suppress their own wishes in favor of his.
This is an interesting account, but for those unfamiliar with such affairs should be advised that they seldom go as described herein.
And as an anarchist I should say that the actions of the facilitators described by the author have nothing whatever to do anarchism. Anarchists, if there were any, would have told the facilitators that they had no right to facilitate; that they hadn't gone down to Wall Street to join a Fascist army; that the effort on the part of the facilitators to inhibit individual or [voluntary] group initiative was unacceptable; that the idea that revolution need be a nearly unanimous majority coming to a specific agreement on how to proceed has been tried before with disastrous results [think Bolshevism]; and that generally the effort to compel cooperation, however delicately, is counterrevolutionary. And finally that the facilitators shouldn't be advising the protesters, they should be listening to them.
http://www.countercurrents.org/tucker021011.htm
