As powerful globalist corporate interests proceed to cement their worldview hegemony on Western countries, including the U.S., I've begun to give some thought to the political philosophy of Anarchism, and at a minimum, I'm coming to the conclusion that it is based on valid points. It seems like one of the issues it addresses is the propensity of hierarchical systems of becoming corrupt.
Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. While anti-statism is central, some argue that anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system
As a subtle and anti-dogmatic philosophy, anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy. There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications. Anarchism is often considered a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics.
From what I've learned so far, it seems like the Occupy Wall Street movement shared some of these Anarchist principles, and I'm starting to see that as a good thing.
I'm also beginning to understand why true Anarchists are usually some of the most committed social justice activists, and that explain why they would be of interest to the surveillance police state, especially when it comes to its penchant for disrupting social justice movement at the formative stage.
From its inception, the FBI has operated on the doctrine that the "preliminary stages of organization and preparation" must be frustrated, well before there is any clear and present danger of "revolutionary radicalism."
At its most extreme dimension, political dissidents have been eliminated outright or sent to prison for the rest of their lives. There are quite a number of individuals who have been handled in that fashion.
Many more, however, were "neutralized" by intimidation, harassment, discrediting, snitch jacketing, a whole assortment of authoritarian and illegal tactics.
COINTELPRO: The Untold American Story
The emphasis is mine
Many readers may be familiar with the fact that Occupy Wall Street was dealt with in similar fashion by the apparatchiks of the police state...
But no surprisingly, the harassment and intimidation continues to this day, as reported by Anna Simonton in AlterNet:
How the FBI Manipulates Grand Juries to Intimidate Political Dissidents and Radicals
Grand juries have seen a resurgence as the FBI cracks down on radical communities.
The federal courthouse at 500 Pearl Street is a familiar setting where Koch spent much of his time over the past several years providing legal support to New York activists. During Occupy Wall Street, Koch gained a reputation as the go-to person for help contacting lawyers, raising bail, and organizing supporters to be there when someone had a hearing or was released. This, his supporters say, is why he now has a view of the courthouse from his cell in the federal prison across the street.
Koch's partner, Amanda Clarke, will tell you that all prisoners are political prisoners. Koch, however, fits a more traditional definition of the term. He has not been charged with or convicted of any crime. Legally, his incarceration is not considered punishment, but rather “coercion.” He is being held in contempt of court for refusing to testify before a grand jury in what many believe is an effort by the FBI to intimidate other anarchists, and anyone else engaged in political dissent.
Grand juries have been a tool in the FBI's arsenal of intimidation and information-gathering tactics for decades. They were a hallmark of the Red Scare, COINTELPRO, and more recently the Green Scare, in which animal rights activists and environmentalists have been branded “eco-terrorists” by law enforcement.
The emphasis is mine
If you read the entire article, you will notice some familiar trends... Ultimately what the FBI wants is to get names of other activists, build dossiers, see who's connected to whom; you know, the typical oppressive police state tactics.
And you will see other things, like blatant abuses and manipulation of the Grand Jury system, as well as using solitary confinement as a method of torture--against innocent people who have not been charged with any crime.
The quandary these brave activists find themselves in is that when they are brought before a Grand Jury and are asked to disclose the names and other information about other activists, their choice are to either disclose the information, or be found in contempt for now doing so.
Insidiously, part of the abuse involves bypassing constitutional protections against self-incrimination by offering these "witnesses" (activists) total immunity from prosecution... Because immunity is offered, then the activist has no right to decline to answer the questions.
So in essence, "knowing" certain things, which could be as basic as somebody's name, phone number, email, address, associates, becomes a liability in the age of the corporate-controlled surveillance police state.
From what I've heard from activists, many worry about the dangers of surveillance and that is actually discouraging many people from getting involved in the movement to liberate us from the corporate state.
Here's a question for people familiar with Anarchism, "non-hierarchical free associations," and collectivist thought: What about if activists made it a point not to know anything on purpose, but still be able to engage in collective and coordinated (peaceful) action against the surveillance police state? That way if they are targeted by the FBI using these new abusive procedures and manipulation of the Grand Jury system, they can honestly answer to their questions: I don't know.
Imagine this... Fifty activists in a meeting to coordinate some sort of action, but none of them know each others real name, telephone number, address, family, associates, etc.
Some may ask, "How would that accomplish anything?" Well, what about if the actions to be taken were already fully understood and communicated right in the open?
Let me give you a couple of examples... Let's say that the movement agrees on a sustained campaign to do these things (to rattle the cages of the oligarchs): (1) Show up in as large numbers as possible at every single event where members of the Wall Street racketeering criminal cartel (i.e. top banking executives) and engage in highly disruptive and creative protests (all peaceful, no violence of any kind). Do this every time, week after week, month after month. (2) Show up in as large numbers as possible at every high-priced political fund-raising event and make some noise, let them know we know they're taking bribes, call them on it, very very loud, bold sings. Again, week after week, month after month, for the foreseeable future.
Let me give you an actual example:
McDonalds Employee Arrested After Confronting Executive: "I Can't Afford Shoes For My Children"
“Do you think this is fair, that I have to be making $8.25 when I've worked for McDonalds for ten years?” she asked. "I've been there 40 years," the president replied.
Nancy Salgado, 26 years old, is a cashier at McDonalds. She is a single mother with two children. Nancy earns $8.25 an hour working thirty to forty hours a week. She has worked for McDonalds since she was 16 and has never had a raise. Salgado confronted the president of McDonalds, Jeff Stratton, about her wages during his speech at the Union League Club of Chicago.
“Do you think this is fair, that I have to be making $8.25 when I've worked for McDonalds for ten years?” said Salgado.
"I've been there forty years," replied Stratton.
She and six other protesters were given tickets for trespassing. Salgado thinks that $15 an hour would be a fair wage for her work.
Imagine if people formed some kind of "open source" information/research collective and engaged in constant research about every single politician, their relationships, their funders, any apparent conflict of interest, and then mapped out all their upcoming high-priced fund-raising events with lobbyists and corporations, and then this collective would put the information in the public domain... Anarchists/Activists across the country could just look for an event closest to them.
There would be one more coordinating aspect, which I think it's important... Prior to the event, a specific location and time would be set for all local activists to meet prior to the action.
Now, here's the beauty of this, when it comes to informants, undercover police, agent provocateurs, and infiltrators... They would be wasting their time because when they show up to the meetings, only one thing will be discussed: the logistics of the protest/action.
In this scenario, and given the pressures and dangers the corporate-controlled surveillance police state represents (as exemplified by Jerry Koch's dilemma), it would make sense for activists to develop the habit of not knowing anything about anything or anybody, but yet be able to coordinate tactics.
This scenario lends itself for people to start using nom de guerres, and not their real name. Also, and again, no personal information should be disclosed, including address, phone number, email, etc.
Those familiar with the Occupy Wall Street movement, and with Anarchists' thought, what do you think about these ideas?
Flash mobs have recently become a powerful tactic for political protest, particularly under repressive conditions. In the midst of a harsh crackdown on protests in Belarus in 2011, for instance, dissidents calling themselves “Revolution through the Social Network” began organizing impromptu demonstrations where protesters would simply gather in public spaces and clap their hands in unison. The result was the bewildering sight of secret police brutally arresting people for the simple act of clapping their hands — a powerful challenge to the legitimacy of an increasingly irrational regime
- Beautiful Trouble | A Toolbox For Revolution
“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.”
— Franklin D. Roosevelt, April 29, 1938. Message to congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market For The People |
Ray Pensador |
Email List |
Twitter |
Facebook