In 2011, global mass protests emerged, such as Occupy Wall Street movement. This paper considers how we can locate American anti-capitalist movements within the global justice movement. Since the protest against the 1999 WTO Ministerial Conference, the movements against neoliberal globalization have extended with a great variety, involving anarchists/autonomists. The latter's characteristics are symbolized by "Direct Action" or "horizontalism". Contemporary anarchist discourses (David Graeber, Marina Sitrin, and Massimo de Angelis) and Postmodern Marxism (Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri) have diffused, and we can see their influence on the Occupy movements in the United States. But the global justice movement subsumes the other oppositional wings; NGOs, some Marxist trends, popular education movements in Latin America, etc. Above all, according to Graber, "Marxism has tended to be a theoretical or analytical discourse about revolutionary strategy" and "[a] narchism has tended to be an ethical discourse about revolutionary practice". How then can we understand the relation between the anarchist's "ethics" and the contemporary Marxist's "theory"? How can we relate anarchist-autonomist views with logics of Marxists who have participated in the global justice movement, such as David Harvey and Samir Amin? Starting from this problem, we can derive five points to consider. 1. How to understand the "outside" of capital - Anarchists and Postmodern Marxists emphasize the creation of "outside" of capital. They suggest somewhat spontaneous emergence of the "common", the "outside", as a result of historical transition from industrial to biopolitical economy (Hardt and Negri), or as a process of "value struggles" (De Angelis). But Marxists propose the analysis of conditions of that emergence. Besides theorizing about capital accumulation/circulation process, theories of "co-evolutionary process" (Harvey) and "under-determination" (Amin) are attempts to study the non-economic conditions of "outside" creation. 2. Imperialism - Hardt and Negri regard the concept of "imperialism" as outdated, and De Angelis underestimates it. On the contrary, Harvey and Amin defend its contemporary importance. This opposition is based on the different interpretation of capitalist time-space. Marxists in question focus on the geographical agglomerations of capitalist activities, while Postmodern Marxists and anarchists emphasize the flattening "space" of capital. 3. State - Direct Action's discourses include the equation of state with capital. Hardt and Negri also identify the "Empire" with capitalistic domination, although considering the "nation-state" as obsolesced. Amin and Harvey oppose these opinions, because they consider the state as an institutional place/space where the capital accumulation process relates to, and collides against, the "co-evolutionary process" or "under-determination". So the "territorial logic of power" in states can hinder the demands of capitalist power. 4. Structural dilemma in social movement's organization - Occupy Wall Street tried to become a hallmark of participatory and democratic decision-making. This "horizontalism" could get Marxists consent. However, Harvey is cautious about a "fetishism of organizational form". Because we need "general rules" to resolve problems at wider scale, progressive anti-capitalist movements must accept hierarchical structures. 5. Position of intellectuals - Contemporary social movements include self-education processes. This poses the question about the position of intellectuals. Anarchists and autonomists condemn the leadership of intellectuals as a justification of hierarchical

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)