Post by Walker on Jun 9, 2012 14:34:52 GMT
While Bakunin's "invisible dictatorship" may of suggested a behind the scenes control of open groups, today's invisible network suggests more than this.
The network of anarchists and related anti-authoritarians can take on a variety of forms. Individuals and small groups can bring forwards a series of attacks from multiple directions using numerous tactics. There is the more well known kind that enters the greater narratives of society, such as the shooting of the nuclear executive in the knee, the attempted bombing of a bridge or the American anarchist arsenal of molotov cocktails. Some propose that these situations involve a level of entrapment, but the tactic is still sound. Individuals and small groups attempting large scale sabotage, assaults and assassinations.
Smaller tactics, which attack vehicles, sabotage public transportation, arson police stations can also sometimes break through into the sensational conversations of local media and beyond. Even smaller, the breaking of windows, gluing locks, breaking parking meters, breaking surveillance cameras gain even less media coverage. Then there is graffiti, postering, pranks and such that often escape media focus unless concentrated efforts are done.
The purpose of these efforts isn't to gain media coverage, nor to avoid it. Many times, people see this as the goal, to gain attention, this perhaps shouldn't be our goal. It also isn't our goal to avoid media attention, which to some is an attempt to avoid being brought into examination by the media and made part of the greater narratives of society, sometimes called the Spectacle. The greater media might have a powerful role in creating the narratives of society's conversation and we might sometimes be pulled into it, but many, if not most times, we have no control of what they want to focus attention on.
The media will examine events in far off lands, examine the lives of celebrities, hype up the small differences between politicians or businesses, manufacture individual acts belonging to a greater conspiracy, pick out a group of deviants and expose how they rail against the social norms society is supposed to share and so on. This is what they do and is part of their role in how society is controlled.
When such things happen, much of the left plays into a divide and conquer strategy, sometimes willingly, other times unwittingly. Accusations are thrown about of agent provocateurs, informants, extremist agitators, terrorists, anti-social vandals...generally terms meant to demonize actors while reinforce conventional tactics and strategies the left embraces. The desire is to distance themselves from the demonized and maintain the validity of their efforts in the eyes of society at large and perhaps avoid repression efforts, should such efforts be taken up by the state.
Repression is typically done by law enforcement or military interventions, often guided by media and intelligence agencies and championed by political leadership. Repression will occur against real and perceived enemies of the social order. The left, typically less powerful in nation-states like the United States, is often seen as an enemy to how state power is wielded in a political manner.
It isn't that the left would change the composition of the social order in any manner that might cause the dissolution of the social order, but it could challenge the political, government and economic leadership in a way that threatens its present formation, should it position itself into power. The threat is a change of leadership broader than that offered by the political battles between liberals and conservatives, so there is more interest in preventing this from occurring from social order leadership.
There is also the external threats the left offers, should they grasp power. They are seen as a threat because they could weaken the ability of the state to maintain stability, weaken a country's economy so other countries might be able to gain an edge and have less prosperity than before. This isn't the same as a threat of social revolution.
(to be continued)
The network of anarchists and related anti-authoritarians can take on a variety of forms. Individuals and small groups can bring forwards a series of attacks from multiple directions using numerous tactics. There is the more well known kind that enters the greater narratives of society, such as the shooting of the nuclear executive in the knee, the attempted bombing of a bridge or the American anarchist arsenal of molotov cocktails. Some propose that these situations involve a level of entrapment, but the tactic is still sound. Individuals and small groups attempting large scale sabotage, assaults and assassinations.
Smaller tactics, which attack vehicles, sabotage public transportation, arson police stations can also sometimes break through into the sensational conversations of local media and beyond. Even smaller, the breaking of windows, gluing locks, breaking parking meters, breaking surveillance cameras gain even less media coverage. Then there is graffiti, postering, pranks and such that often escape media focus unless concentrated efforts are done.
The purpose of these efforts isn't to gain media coverage, nor to avoid it. Many times, people see this as the goal, to gain attention, this perhaps shouldn't be our goal. It also isn't our goal to avoid media attention, which to some is an attempt to avoid being brought into examination by the media and made part of the greater narratives of society, sometimes called the Spectacle. The greater media might have a powerful role in creating the narratives of society's conversation and we might sometimes be pulled into it, but many, if not most times, we have no control of what they want to focus attention on.
The media will examine events in far off lands, examine the lives of celebrities, hype up the small differences between politicians or businesses, manufacture individual acts belonging to a greater conspiracy, pick out a group of deviants and expose how they rail against the social norms society is supposed to share and so on. This is what they do and is part of their role in how society is controlled.
When such things happen, much of the left plays into a divide and conquer strategy, sometimes willingly, other times unwittingly. Accusations are thrown about of agent provocateurs, informants, extremist agitators, terrorists, anti-social vandals...generally terms meant to demonize actors while reinforce conventional tactics and strategies the left embraces. The desire is to distance themselves from the demonized and maintain the validity of their efforts in the eyes of society at large and perhaps avoid repression efforts, should such efforts be taken up by the state.
Repression is typically done by law enforcement or military interventions, often guided by media and intelligence agencies and championed by political leadership. Repression will occur against real and perceived enemies of the social order. The left, typically less powerful in nation-states like the United States, is often seen as an enemy to how state power is wielded in a political manner.
It isn't that the left would change the composition of the social order in any manner that might cause the dissolution of the social order, but it could challenge the political, government and economic leadership in a way that threatens its present formation, should it position itself into power. The threat is a change of leadership broader than that offered by the political battles between liberals and conservatives, so there is more interest in preventing this from occurring from social order leadership.
There is also the external threats the left offers, should they grasp power. They are seen as a threat because they could weaken the ability of the state to maintain stability, weaken a country's economy so other countries might be able to gain an edge and have less prosperity than before. This isn't the same as a threat of social revolution.
(to be continued)