It's worth noting that you reached back to 1919. Even though the Occupy movement was based in anarchist principles. From David Graeber's _The Democracy Project_

It's worth noting that you reached back to 1919. Even though the Occupy movement was based in anarchist principles. From David Graeber's _The Democracy Project_ (an inside view into Occupy): "It may well be the most nonviolent movement of its size in American history, and this despite the absence of peace codes, marshals, or official peace police. In the fall, there were at least five hundred occupations, with participants representing remarkably diverse philosophies, from evangelical Christians to revolutionary anarchists, and thousands of marches and actions—and yet the most "violent" acts attributed to protesters were four of five acts of window-breaking, basically less than one might expect in the wake of one not particularly rowdy Canadian hockey game. [...] there was virtually no discussion of the first OWS-associated window-breaking in New York itself, which occurred on March 17 [...] broken by an NYPD officer, using an activist's head." If you don't feel like reading the book, you can read this article, where Occupy anarchists were more criticized for "all this anarchist nonsense - the consensus, the sparkly fingers..." (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011112872835904508.html http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/20111128728...) (I mean, one must be honest about violence within anarchist history; there exist hawkish people who call themselves anarchists, as no one owns the term. But the image of anarchist bombers is propaganda, made by hyper-violent countries which bomb all the time.)