I'm mad as hell

Out with the anarchists!

Just discussing the anti-anarchist postings from #OccupyLSX supporters with Laurel Lee.  Many people talking about how anarchists should not be trusted and could even be agent provocateurs. 

Then in the same breath they pass on information from Fitwatch and GBC both of which have anarchist organisers heavily involved they expect anarchists to monitor police action on protests because they have not developed systems of mutual aid themselves yet.

Which is it? Solidarity or ostracism?

ashdinosaur asked: I fucking love you.

Thanks, I love you too?

Some thoughts on #OccupyLSX #occupyLondon

I was initially really excited about the Occupations in the USA spreading, there was great potential and I am still really hopeful that the higher level aims are further developed and my fears are unfounded.

The problem is with #OccupyWS and with #OccupyLSX is that they both appear to lack a coherent message and any tactical thought outside of their respective occupations. There are hundreds of individual voices, all have their own set of principles and ideas on how the post occupation landscape should look. So what we currently have is a whole bunch of people disagreeing on most points.

Some people believe that capitalism can be reformed, some people are pro-state but anti tory. Some people are anti-state and anti-capitalist. To my surprise some are even anti-semites… Some are pro-tax, some are anti-money. There are anarchists and what even seems like borderline fascists and then we have the conspiracy nutters (which seem to be rife).

Noone seems to be able to agree on what the message actually is…

One thing is certain is that I don’t feel part of the “99%” and nor do 99% of the 99% of working class people it would seem. 

For me I feel that the 99% and Occupy movements are trying to work too much within the confines of comfortable acceptable protest, they feel they need to satisfy the media and in turn “the public”.

Phil Dickens blog Truth Liberty and Reason recently posted a rather apt quote from Martyn Everett’s introduction to the 1988 Phoenix Press edition of Anarcho-syndicalism by Rudolph Rocker;

Historically the oppressed and the disaffected have rallied to the standard of socialism because of its oppositional position within capitalism - an oppositional position which provides the appearance of a radicalism it did not possess. During periods of revolutionary potential, however, people see opportunities to go beyond attempts to ameliorate capitalism, and to instead abolish it altogether. It is important to realise, however, that this is not usually an apocalyptic conversion into revolutionary activity, but is an emerging process involving continual, but unsuccessful attempts to reconstruct a movement of socialist opposition, find new forms of organisation and activity as well as new forms of protest and expression. New movements appear, representing the interests of groups which have not previously confronted capital, and so lack the burden of tradition and the “password” phraseology of socialism, but which nonetheless possess greater potential for revolution. New ideas and new forms of organisation flourish.

The naivety of some of the individuals involved in these protests is worrying, the belief that capitalism can be changed to suit the needs of all is to ignore the nature of capitalism.

People often refer to the system as “broken” but in fact its working perfectly. It was never designed to cater fully for anyone other than the tiny percentile. Capitalism withholds the means of production from the workers. THAT’S HOW IT WORKS. Anything short of this is not capitalism…

Sure the goal posts of capitalism can be changed slightly and more crumbs can fall from the table, but ultimately the crumbs that might reach us still never reach other exploited lands and our struggle needs to encompass the struggle of people everywhere and not just in our communities. 

Divide and rule.

My personal struggle has simply ideological aims, scrap capitalism, scrap the state and work to remove societal power systems that would see any person holding power over another (I won’t go further into this here). Work towards a society based on mutual aid and respect of one another. Take the power and resources from the state and bring it to the individual and to the community.

I believe we can bring about real empowering change if we accept first that the struggles we face are diverse and the battlefield we fight on changes constantly, the state and corporations can and will adapt quickly to meet and quash resistance movements. 

For this reason we need to use a multitude of tactics to take power from the top, we need to encompass every level of activism and accept that individuals like to engage on different levels. Some are willing to risk full on assault on our enemies some are pacifist.

We should respect the diversity of our struggles and see this as something which binds us and not divides us. A movement of non-violent and violent direct action, sabotage, protest, community activism, confrontation of power and counter-culture. We need not worry about the reactions of the media we will build our own. We need not worry about where our food comes from we will take back the means to produce our own crops.

If we can all agree on one thing, it should be that we don’t know that much about each others lives and we shouldn’t presume to know each others struggles. Our diversity allows us adapt quickly where as the state has relatively rigid confines to how they react to us.

People say “NO VIOLENCE”, “we don’t want to give the media a reason to be against us”. Forgetting that the media are corporations which falsely portray public opinion. They are corporations who are sidelined on government exclusive stories if they don’t reify state propaganda. Their “impartiality” is tertiary to sales and power. If you don’t wish to engage in property damage or self defence from police then simply don’t. But do not try to prevent others from taking action because you step then into the jackboots of the state. 

Anarchists.

Yes the state will use provocateurs, yes they will spy on us and force social networks to hand over information.  However, the continual use of the word “anarchist” as a derogatory term without any understanding of its meaning. In short is used to blanket describe those who break the law on protests and in term accuse them of being agent provocateurs.

I believe that we would be much better equipped for large scale occupations in the capital and other major cities with prior local organisation and for groups rather than individuals to reach consensus on their standpoint before large scale actions this saves vital time in a volatile changing battlefield.

Let’s not forget other battles which go on outside of the more popular actions like #OccupyLSX get involved locally. Strike, protest, attack!

This isn’t going to happen overnight, It is all there for the taking, we just need to all take one step forward at a time.

(A)

USA! USA! USA!

Ironic the country that calls itself the land of the free has more prisoners per capita that any other nation in the world….

The human shield of capitalism…

You are forced to pay taxes, when you don’t pay taxes you are the made the target by the state and media as the scum of society for not adding to the pot which funds international conflicts and lines the pockets of the corrupt REAL criminals and scumbags of society. 

Never does anyone ask, why the fuck are we paying taxes again?

Fear and Self Loathing in Las Vegan

I have been a vegan (bar the rare fuck ups) for coming up to 7 years now. I was involved in the animal liberation movement for many of these 7 years and still am in a reduced capacity.

I have seen people burn out and throw in the towel, I have met lots of awesome people who I will be friends for life with. I have also recently come to a few conclusions about animal liberation activism and veganism which I previously would have argued strongly against.

Here are some statements which I would like to rebut after years of almost mindlessly repeating them to convince myself and shamelessly others that its true.

“Veganism is cruelty free…”

No it isn’t, veganism CAN be cruelty free if you grow your own vegetables and can afford ethically produced clothing and materials. But the reality is that soya production and crop production in general does still kill animals (although obviously far less than animal agriculture does), also many Nestle products are vegan not to mention various other unethical consumer items which are produced in slavery conditions.

“Veganism is good for the environment…”

Once again, veganism CAN be better for the environment, synthetic man made materials often contain various chemicals which fuck up our ecosystems. There are various vegan food items which are still extremely problematic, palm oil and soya production being major concerns.

“Eating meat is unsustainable”

Animal agriculture and factory farming is massively unsustainable, but historically indigenous people hunted and killed animals for thousands of years previous to the industrial revolution and modern agriculture farming techniques, it is only our expectationally increasing population and ravenous over consumption of animals and animal products that is unsustainable. 

“We have never learned anything from vivisection”

Yes we have, and probably still do learn things about animals and humans all the time. That is not to say that we would not be much more well equipped using computer models. The argument against vivisection should be one of conscience and the argument that our treatment of animals is universally disgusting, not trying to fight on their terms by relying on repeating anti-vivisection science facts that can be debunked and manipulated by “authorities” of the scientific communities. To fight from the humanist angle only re-enforces the “how does this effect me and my family” view and does nothing to shift paradigms in the way we view animals.

Most vivisection including drug efficacy tests are flawed, and of course any success of the tests will only be apparent after long term human consumption. The successes (for human health) of drug testing I would seriously doubt are ever attributed to vivisection. Vivisection exists solely because of the profit invested in the industry itself. 

…

Vegan self-righteousness

I have been here, I used to say that “I love to wake up in the morning knowing that I had not killed or caused any animals to suffer the previous day” there is a definite air of superiority about thinking in this way, it serves only to detach us from those who we are trying to convince to treat animals well. I have many non-vegan friends, they know my views and I have tried convincing them through being positive rather than pointing out their dietary habits as disgusting, I do this because I realise that veganism is just a lifestyle choice, it is not a form of activism.

Meat eating SCUM

Through years of activism and hundreds of hours doing vegan outreach its easy to become disillusioned with the struggle for animal liberation, frustration and anger leads to an increasingly hardline approach to activism. Referring to non-vegans as scum as if this will somehow benefit animals. But actually it does the opposite, it strengthens the resolve of people who we are trying to reach out to and serves to solidify their view of consuming animals based on their views on vegans.

Its similar to the Bill Hicks joke about non smokers, “I’d quit smoking if I didn’t think I would become one of you.”

Vegan Reich

The recent acceptance of racist “animal rights” activists in the UK is abhorrent. Many activists I once respected now protecting fascists and racists based on their endeavours for non-human liberation. I have personally seen people wishing minority groups dead during horrific natural disasters based on the way a small section of their society treats animals, or some minority cultural animal torture.

These people need to be confronted and their views exposed, they are not welcome in a movement with so many racially diverse activists. Not to mention the risk of left wing and anarchist activists becoming targets for the far right.  

Vegan purity

It is worth remembering there is no such thing as pure veganism for most vegans, many everyday objects use animals products everything from computers to kitchen appliances. All we can do is try our best to avoid these items and live in the most ethical way our individual situation will allow.

Veganism as activism

Being simply vegan does not make you an activist, activism should be defined by the action you take, not the abstinence of action. You don’t see people calling themselves “African solidarity activists” because they don’t buy blood diamonds. Veganism is a consumer lifestyle choice that can be ethical if you wish, but does not affect the ever increasing consumption of animal products. 

Look out your window!

One of the most important personal progressions I made as a radical activist was to immerse myself in other social struggles, mainly anti-fascism, anarchism and anti-capitalism. We have so much to learn from other movements and we might even be able to expand some conciousness ourselves.

Ultimately unless we start being realistic and honest with ourselves and others we will never be able to progress as a movement. Fuck the bullshit, animals deserve our protection and respect, not based on how much value their lives have to us but based on how much they value their own lives and well-being.

Chris

Twelve Myths About Direct Action

Direct action—that is, any kind of action that bypasses established political channels to accomplish objectives directly—has a long and rich heritage in North America, extending back to the Boston Tea Party and beyond. Despite this, there are many misunderstandings about it, in part due to the ways it has been misrepresented in the corporate media.

1. Direct action is terrorism.

Terrorism is calculated to intimidate and thus paralyze people. Direct action, on the other hand, is intended to inspire and thus motivate people by demonstrating the power individuals have to accomplish goals themselves. While terrorism is the domain of a specialized class that seeks to acquire power for itself alone, direct action demonstrates possibilities that others can make use of, empowering people to take control of their own lives. At most, a given direct action may obstruct the activities of a corporation or institution that activists perceive to be committing an injustice, but this is simply a form of civil disobedience, not terrorism.

2. Direct action is violent.

To say that it is violent to destroy the machinery of a slaughterhouse or to break windows belonging to a party that promotes war is to prioritize property over human and animal life. This objection subtly validates violence against living creatures by focusing all attention on property rights and away from more fundamental issues.

3. Direct action is not political expression, but criminal activity.

Unfortunately, whether or not an action is illegal is a poor measure of whether or not it is just. The Jim Crow laws were, after all, laws. To object to an action on the grounds that it is illegal is to sidestep the more important question of whether or not it is ethical. To argue that we must always obey laws, even when we consider them to be unethical or to enforce unethical conditions, is to suggest that the arbitrary pronouncements of the legal establishment possess a higher moral authority than our own consciences, and to demand complicity in the face of injustice. When laws protect injustice, illegal activity is no vice, and law-abiding docility is no virtue.

4. Direct action is unnecessary where people have freedom of speech.

In a society dominated by an increasingly narrowly focused corporate media, it can be almost impossible to initiate a public dialogue on a subject unless something occurs that brings attention to it. Under such conditions, direct action can be a means of nurturing free speech, not squelching it. Likewise, when people who would otherwise oppose an injustice have accepted that it is inevitable, it is not enough simply to talk about it: one must demonstrate that it is possible to do something about it.

5. Direct action is alienating.

On the contrary, many people who find traditional party politics alienating are inspired and motivated by direct action. Different people find different approaches fulfilling; a movement that is to be broad-based must include a wide range of options. Sometimes people who share the goals of those who practice direct action while objecting to their means spend all their energy decrying an action that has been carried out. In doing so, they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory: they would do better to seize the opportunity to focus all attention on the issues raised by the action.

6. People who practice direct action should work through the established political channels instead.

Many people who practice direct action also work within the system. A commitment to making use of every institutional means of solving problems does not necessarily preclude an equal commitment to picking up where such means leave off.

7. Direct action is exclusive.

Some forms of direct action are not open to all, but this does not necessarily mean they are without worth. Everyone has different preferences and capabilities, and should be free to act according to them. The important question is how the differing approaches of individuals and groups that share the same long-term goals can be integrated in such a way that they complement each other.

8. Direct action is cowardly.

This accusation is almost always made by those who have the privilege of speaking and acting in public without fearing repercussions: that is to say, those who have power in this society, and those who obediently accept their power. Should the heroes of the French Resistance have demonstrated their courage and accountability by acting against the Nazi occupying army in the full light of day, thus dooming themselves to defeat? For that matter, in a nation increasingly terrorized by police and federal surveillance of just about everyone, is it any wonder that those who express dissent might want to protect their privacy while doing so?

9. Direct action is practiced only by college students/privileged rich kids/desperate poor people/etc.

This allegation is almost always made without reference to concrete facts, as a smear. In fact, direct action is and long has been practiced in a variety of forms by people of all walks of life. The only possible exception to this would be members of the wealthiest and most powerful classes, who have no need to practice any kind of illegal or controversial action because, as if by coincidence, the established political channels are perfectly suited to their needs.

10. Direct action is the work of agents provocateurs.

This is another speculation generally made from a distance, without concrete evidence. To allege that direct action is always the work of police agent provocateurs is disempowering: it rules out the possibility that activists could do such things themselves, overestimating the powers of police intelligence and reinforcing the illusion that the State is omnipotent. Likewise, it preemptively dismisses the value and reality of a diversity of tactics. When people feel entitled to make unfounded claims that every tactic of which they disapprove is a police provocation, this obstructs the very possibility of constructive dialogue about appropriate tactics.

11. Direct action is dangerous and can have negative repercussions for others.

Direct action can be dangerous in a repressive political climate, and it is important that those who practice it make every effort not to endanger others. This is not necessarily an objection to it, however—on the contrary, when it becomes dangerous to act outside established political channels, it becomes all the more important to do so. Authorities may use direct actions as excuses to terrorize innocents, as Hitler did when the Reichstag was set afire, but those in power are the ones who must answer for the injustices they commit in so doing, not those who oppose them. Likewise, though people who practice direct action may indeed run risks, in the face of an insufferable injustice it can be more dangerous and irresponsible to leave it uncontested.

12. Direct action never accomplishes anything.

Every effective political movement throughout history, from the struggle for the eight hour workday to the fight for women’s suffrage, has made use of some form of direct action. Direct action can complement other forms of political activity in a variety of ways. If nothing else, it highlights the necessity for institutional reforms, giving those who push for them more bargaining chips; but it can go beyond this supporting role to suggest the possibility of an entirely different organization of human life, in which power is distributed equally and all people have an equal and direct say in all matters that affect them.

(Source: crimethinc.com)