Authoritarians and tech CEOs now share the same goal: to keep us locked in an eternal doomscroll instead of organizing against them, Janus Rose writes.
On this server we are often victim of this stuff, i hope we can all improve
I think a lot of places that prohibit talking about violence are supporting the horrors. Like, it’d be swell if we could vote ourselves out of this mess but that seems like a long shot, and a lot of damage would be done before that even started to take effect.
I get most of us don’t actually want to risk our lives. We don’t want to be the one guy who throws a molotov and gets shot by the police.
But shit is really bad, and at the end of all things might makes right. Principles and philosophy don’t matter if you’re dead.
I think everyone’s thought about like “what if i went back in time and shot Hitler before things got really bad?” Well, that’s now. You’ve arrived at the time travel destination.
I don’t really want to live in a world where republicans are shot dead, where the prosecutors putting people in jail for protesting are murdered in their sleep, or where the owners of a factory that pollutes the air we breathe are beaten so badly they’ll never walk again. But I also don’t want to live in the world those forces will create if left unchecked.
Besides, the right has been using stochastic terrorism for years.
Just remember that violence is so often counterproductive to the point where governments intentionally bait or false flag it as a core part of their strategy to take down activist groups. This article focuses on ways people can organize to help each other, rather than assassinations:
Here in New York City, in the week since the inauguration, I’ve seen large groups mobilize to defend migrants from anticipated ICE raids and provide warm food and winter clothes for the unhoused after the city closed shelters and abandoned people in sub-freezing temperatures. Similar efforts are underway in Chicago, where ICE reportedly arrested more than 100 people, and in other cities where ICE has planned or attempted raids, with volunteers assigned to keep watch over key locations where migrants are most vulnerable.
A few weeks earlier, residents created ad-hoc mutual aid distros in Los Angeles to provide food and essentials for those displaced by the wildfires. The coordinated efforts gave Angelenos a lifeline during the crisis, cutting through the false claims spreading on social media about looting and out-of-state fire trucks being stopped for “emissions testing.”
I’ve been reading a (confusingly named) book, The Anarchist Cookbook, which I think has some strong arguments about this stuff, here is an excerpt:
Solnit’s essay on the Oakland assault on Whole Foods is pertinent here: “This account is by a protestor who also noted in downtown Oakland that day a couple of men with military-style haircuts and brand new clothes put bandanas over their faces and began to smash stuff.” She thinks that infiltrators might have instigated the property destruction, and Copwatch’s posted video seems to document police infiltrators at Occupy Oakland.
One way to make the work of provocateurs much more difficult is to be clearly committed to tactics that the state can’t co-opt: nonviolent tactics. If an infiltrator wants to nonviolently blockade or march or take out the garbage, well, that’s useful to us. If an infiltrator sabotages us by recruiting others to commit mayhem, that’s a comment on what such tactics are good for.
Solnit quotes Oakland Occupier Sunaura Taylor: “A few people making decisions that affect everyone else is not what revolution looks like; it’s what capitalism looks like.”
Peter Marshall’s book on the history of anarchism, Demanding the Impossible, points out that “The word violence comes from the Latin violare and etymologically means violation. Strictly speaking, to act violently means to treat others without respect … A violent revolution is therefore unlikely to bring about any fundamental change in human relations. Given the anarchists’ respect for the sovereignty of the individual, in the long run it is nonviolence and not violence which is implied by anarchist values.”
Why is it counter productive? I guess because uninvolved people clutch their pearls and then support the police/capitalists?
The huge support for Luigi makes me think there may be a change in the air. But also that was precisely targeted, not just randomly murdering. If he had set off a bomb and killed 30 people in midtown New York, even if one was a hated CEO, I don’t think people would support him.
Here is another excerpt which is more relevant to more extreme acts of political violence, which is referencing this essay:
text
Events in recent years have amply demonstrated the correctness of its main points: 1) That means determine ends—the use of horrifying means guarantees horrifying ends; 2) That urban guerrillaism almost always leads to repression and little else—which makes it very difficult to engage in constructive political work such as organizing and education; 3) That “successful” urban guerrillaism leads to authoritarian outcomes; 4) That these results are determined by the nature of guerrillaism.
Guerrillaism relies upon the capitalist media for much of its impact, presenting political acts as spectacles divorced from the day-to-day lives of ordinary people (reducing them to passive spectators), while providing the corporate media with a perfect opportunity to frighten the public into the “protective” arms of the state. To put it another way, guerrillas presume to act for the people—attempting to substitute individual acts for mass actions—thus perpetuating the division between leaders and followers (in this case, vanguardists and spectators).
While the authors of You Can’t Blow Up a Social Relationship reject terrorism, it should be emphasized that they are not arguing for political passivity. They are not arguing against the many forms of direct action which form an essential part of any mass movement for fundamental social change. (Examples of such direct action include wildcat strikes, factory occupations, and civil disobedience.) Neither do they discount the quieter but equally essential efforts of those doing educational work. Finally, it should be noted that the authors are not pacifists; they believe that situations may arise in which armed self-defense becomes necessary.
So there’s a lot of reasons, only one of which is “uninvolved people clutch their pearls” ie. fear is generated and authoritarians get fed political capital to make things worse. There’s also direct relevance to the point being made in the OP article: its actual impact focuses on media spectacle, in which most participants are reduced to unconnected spectators. This leads to the narrative
writing itself into a corner:
By the time the drama has become tragedy and the guerrillas lie dead about the stage, the audience of masses finds itself surrounded by barbed wire, and, while it might now feel impelled to take the stage itself, it finds a line of tanks blocking it and weakly files out to remain passive again. Those individuals who continue to object and call on the audience to storm the stage are dragged out, struggling, to the concentration camps. Guerrillaism is in the tradition of vanguardist strategies for revolution. While in general it merely leads to repression, should the strategy succeed it can only produce an authoritarian leftist regime. This is because the people have not moved into the building of a democratic movement themselves.
After all, that CEO was replaced immediately, they’re still doing the same things, just now a lot of people are having fun posting memes about it, which is cathartic and enjoyable without being difficult or risky or meaningfully improving the situation. It doesn’t put them in a position where they have habits and social relationships that would enable them to actually do anything to help each other or exercise direct political involvement. From the OP article:
But when it comes to addressing the problems we face, no amount of posting or passive info consumption is going to substitute the hard, unsexy work of organizing.
That was an interesting read. Thank you. I’ll have to do some thinking on it, and read more carefully when I’m not befogged by a head cold.
I still want, like, emotionally, the horrible people to face justice (or at least vengeance), but i can see how that can have myriad unwanted consequences.
Getting people to actually organize is hard. One of the consequences of what Luigi (allegedly) did was people at work started to actually talk about politics, where before it had been a little more gauche (pun intended). Will anything come of it? Probably not.
At that job, I feel like I was planting seeds of radicalization just by talking to people about US history. Several of them hadn’t grown up here, and had a very glossy marketing understanding. Just telling them about how like Jim Crow is a thing from living memory, not centuries ago, was eye opening.
We still have, right now, completely un-used tools at our disposal, such as unionizing en masse and deploying a general strike, which is insanely powerful (capable of bringing a nation to its knees if done widely enough), while being far less dangerous and more appealing to the general populace than any other means.
To be clear, I support other options like a general strike and unionizing (though I think forming a union is only a bandaid on top of the evils of capitalism, it’s better than nothing).
I don’t think “just vote for the democrats in 4 years” is a viable strategy on its own.
But even so, these have to be backed by might. If you do a strike and they send police to do violence to you, you have to be ready to fight back.
It’s also important to remember that there is no magic bullet. Nothing is a viable strategy on it’s own.
It’s my own personal conspiracy theory that our natural hesitance to throw resources at unknown variables is being amplified by the ruling class and fed back to us in the form of the all-or-nothing perfectionism I’ve seen a lot this past election cycle.
We need to be building with the blocks we have, and Theil et al are using the fear of failure to encourage us to fight each other about whether we should use square blocks or rectangle blocks.
I see the workplace benefits of a global union (specifically the IWW) as a bonus, with the real meat being that it teaches people how to organize, and how much power they truly can wield collectively, as many people still feel quite powerless despite the potential they hold, they need only be taught how to use it.
When the Spanish Civil War kicked off, it was the Syndicalist unions (CNT-FAI) that were able to organize their communities effectively to resist Franco and transform Catalonia when the existing government crumbled. That type of organization doesn’t necessarily have to be from a union, but I feel the ability to engage in a general strike would be far more encouraged if people were in a union and became used to flexing that muscle (and build up a strike fund to be able to sustain it) and would drastically help in effectively resisting.
Well said. From my outsider perspective a general strike is ideal for the situation in the US rn. The benefits of a general strike are
you can force politicians to pass things they wpuldn’t have the initiative to pass themselves (like universal healthcare), as long as you have a manifesto that’s surgically precise (eg. with pre-prepared drafts of laws) and you refuse to cease until that manifesto has been passed as law verbatim.
it’s still fully constitutional. On paper, the politicians came up with these ideas and passed them out of their own volition.
the unity & platform created by a general strike would create very good conditions for a 3rd party to have an actual chance of winning seats.
All you need is some philanthropist who will create a massive strike fund.
Relying on a philanthropist is risky, and possibly unviable if the scale is large enough. Most strike funds are created and maintained using union dues, which would scale up to any size. The unfortunate part is that it generally takes time to fill them, and we’re a bit short on that.
I didn’t mean to imply I support violence as a first strategy.
I actually wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. Partially because the violence against us is coming anyway. It is clearly planned. They are telegraphing what they intend to do, which is criminalize half the country so they can put us to death under the guise of “why couldn’t they just follow the law.”
That being said, just because the violence is coming doesn’t mean inviting it right away is the best solution. The best solutions are the kind you suggest but also using Mutual Aid to develop Parallel Systems.
Parallel systems are simply systems outside of the capitalist mode of production and integration. Providing water, food, medical care, housing, support, and so on. The efforts of the Black Panthers were an exercise in developing parallel systems. The Black Panthers also knew violence was coming which is why a contingent of them were armed. Having such systems in place makes it easier for individuals to survive a long-term General Strike.
The testimony and cross examination of undercover officers by Afeni Shakur stands the test of time when she showed that the people pushing violence in the Panthers were undercover police officers:
Shakur got White to admit under oath that he and two other agents had organized most of the unlawful activities. “She asked him if he’d ever seen her carry a gun or kill anyone or bomb anything and he answered no, no, no. Then she asked if he’d seen her doing Panther organizing in a school and a hospital and on the streets and he answered, yes, yes, yes.”
We must be prepared to resist the violence that is coming, but to do so without organizing and planning is a fools errand.
i don’t know a lot about the history of the black panther movement (not surprising nothing about it was taught to me in school). Infiltration by the government/antagonists is a real concern. As is being murdered like fred hampton. I don’t really know how to guard against that. The “They pull a knife you pull a gun. They put one of us in the hospital, you put them in the morque” attitude has bravado, but isn’t really safe or sustainable. But on the same time, just being casually murdered isn’t either.
Apologies, I accidentally replied to your comment when I’d meant to respond to the commenter you had also responded to. Though I’m somewhat glad I did, as your response here was also excellent :)
I think a lot of places that prohibit talking about violence are supporting the horrors. Like, it’d be swell if we could vote ourselves out of this mess but that seems like a long shot, and a lot of damage would be done before that even started to take effect.
I get most of us don’t actually want to risk our lives. We don’t want to be the one guy who throws a molotov and gets shot by the police.
But shit is really bad, and at the end of all things might makes right. Principles and philosophy don’t matter if you’re dead.
I think everyone’s thought about like “what if i went back in time and shot Hitler before things got really bad?” Well, that’s now. You’ve arrived at the time travel destination.
I don’t really want to live in a world where republicans are shot dead, where the prosecutors putting people in jail for protesting are murdered in their sleep, or where the owners of a factory that pollutes the air we breathe are beaten so badly they’ll never walk again. But I also don’t want to live in the world those forces will create if left unchecked.
Besides, the right has been using stochastic terrorism for years.
Just remember that violence is so often counterproductive to the point where governments intentionally bait or false flag it as a core part of their strategy to take down activist groups. This article focuses on ways people can organize to help each other, rather than assassinations:
I’ve been reading a (confusingly named) book, The Anarchist Cookbook, which I think has some strong arguments about this stuff, here is an excerpt:
Why is it counter productive? I guess because uninvolved people clutch their pearls and then support the police/capitalists?
The huge support for Luigi makes me think there may be a change in the air. But also that was precisely targeted, not just randomly murdering. If he had set off a bomb and killed 30 people in midtown New York, even if one was a hated CEO, I don’t think people would support him.
Here is another excerpt which is more relevant to more extreme acts of political violence, which is referencing this essay:
text
So there’s a lot of reasons, only one of which is “uninvolved people clutch their pearls” ie. fear is generated and authoritarians get fed political capital to make things worse. There’s also direct relevance to the point being made in the OP article: its actual impact focuses on media spectacle, in which most participants are reduced to unconnected spectators. This leads to the narrative
writing itself into a corner:
After all, that CEO was replaced immediately, they’re still doing the same things, just now a lot of people are having fun posting memes about it, which is cathartic and enjoyable without being difficult or risky or meaningfully improving the situation. It doesn’t put them in a position where they have habits and social relationships that would enable them to actually do anything to help each other or exercise direct political involvement. From the OP article:
That was an interesting read. Thank you. I’ll have to do some thinking on it, and read more carefully when I’m not befogged by a head cold.
I still want, like, emotionally, the horrible people to face justice (or at least vengeance), but i can see how that can have myriad unwanted consequences.
Getting people to actually organize is hard. One of the consequences of what Luigi (allegedly) did was people at work started to actually talk about politics, where before it had been a little more gauche (pun intended). Will anything come of it? Probably not.
At that job, I feel like I was planting seeds of radicalization just by talking to people about US history. Several of them hadn’t grown up here, and had a very glossy marketing understanding. Just telling them about how like Jim Crow is a thing from living memory, not centuries ago, was eye opening.
Not necessarily. There have been some successful non-violent revolutions in history, and there’s a strong case to be made that not exhausting those options could be a huge mistake.
We still have, right now, completely un-used tools at our disposal, such as unionizing en masse and deploying a general strike, which is insanely powerful (capable of bringing a nation to its knees if done widely enough), while being far less dangerous and more appealing to the general populace than any other means.
To be clear, I support other options like a general strike and unionizing (though I think forming a union is only a bandaid on top of the evils of capitalism, it’s better than nothing).
I don’t think “just vote for the democrats in 4 years” is a viable strategy on its own.
But even so, these have to be backed by might. If you do a strike and they send police to do violence to you, you have to be ready to fight back.
It’s also important to remember that there is no magic bullet. Nothing is a viable strategy on it’s own.
It’s my own personal conspiracy theory that our natural hesitance to throw resources at unknown variables is being amplified by the ruling class and fed back to us in the form of the all-or-nothing perfectionism I’ve seen a lot this past election cycle.
We need to be building with the blocks we have, and Theil et al are using the fear of failure to encourage us to fight each other about whether we should use square blocks or rectangle blocks.
I see the workplace benefits of a global union (specifically the IWW) as a bonus, with the real meat being that it teaches people how to organize, and how much power they truly can wield collectively, as many people still feel quite powerless despite the potential they hold, they need only be taught how to use it.
When the Spanish Civil War kicked off, it was the Syndicalist unions (CNT-FAI) that were able to organize their communities effectively to resist Franco and transform Catalonia when the existing government crumbled. That type of organization doesn’t necessarily have to be from a union, but I feel the ability to engage in a general strike would be far more encouraged if people were in a union and became used to flexing that muscle (and build up a strike fund to be able to sustain it) and would drastically help in effectively resisting.
This is a good point. I hadn’t thought much about how some of the skills and such from unionizing might transfer to other things. Thanks
Well said. From my outsider perspective a general strike is ideal for the situation in the US rn. The benefits of a general strike are
you can force politicians to pass things they wpuldn’t have the initiative to pass themselves (like universal healthcare), as long as you have a manifesto that’s surgically precise (eg. with pre-prepared drafts of laws) and you refuse to cease until that manifesto has been passed as law verbatim.
it’s still fully constitutional. On paper, the politicians came up with these ideas and passed them out of their own volition.
the unity & platform created by a general strike would create very good conditions for a 3rd party to have an actual chance of winning seats.
All you need is some philanthropist who will create a massive strike fund.Relying on a philanthropist is risky, and possibly unviable if the scale is large enough. Most strike funds are created and maintained using union dues, which would scale up to any size. The unfortunate part is that it generally takes time to fill them, and we’re a bit short on that.
True, relying on a single donor would make the strike too vulnerable to their influence, much like political parties
The Troubles 2.0 are indeed here.
EDIT: Sorry, replied to the wrong person.
I didn’t mean to imply I support violence as a first strategy.
I actually wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. Partially because the violence against us is coming anyway. It is clearly planned. They are telegraphing what they intend to do, which is criminalize half the country so they can put us to death under the guise of “why couldn’t they just follow the law.”
That being said, just because the violence is coming doesn’t mean inviting it right away is the best solution. The best solutions are the kind you suggest but also using Mutual Aid to develop Parallel Systems.
Parallel systems are simply systems outside of the capitalist mode of production and integration. Providing water, food, medical care, housing, support, and so on. The efforts of the Black Panthers were an exercise in developing parallel systems. The Black Panthers also knew violence was coming which is why a contingent of them were armed. Having such systems in place makes it easier for individuals to survive a long-term General Strike.
The testimony and cross examination of undercover officers by Afeni Shakur stands the test of time when she showed that the people pushing violence in the Panthers were undercover police officers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afeni_Shakur#The_Panther_21
We must be prepared to resist the violence that is coming, but to do so without organizing and planning is a fools errand.
i don’t know a lot about the history of the black panther movement (not surprising nothing about it was taught to me in school). Infiltration by the government/antagonists is a real concern. As is being murdered like fred hampton. I don’t really know how to guard against that. The “They pull a knife you pull a gun. They put one of us in the hospital, you put them in the morque” attitude has bravado, but isn’t really safe or sustainable. But on the same time, just being casually murdered isn’t either.
Apologies, I accidentally replied to your comment when I’d meant to respond to the commenter you had also responded to. Though I’m somewhat glad I did, as your response here was also excellent :)
No problem, you still raised important points either way.