Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Pro-war activists on the UCB campus protest for military recruitment
As anti-war protesters gathered at 10:30 to prepare for a counter-recruitment rally, a single pro-war activist with "Protest warrior" sat off to the side looking nervous. About an hour later, a crowd of Berkeley Republicans gathered around the Republican Party table on the other side of Sproul Plaza and the group moved toward the anti-war protest trying to shout down the speakers.
The pro-war signs were rather interesting. Some mainly mentioned personal connections to serving soldiers. Others talked about allowing ROTC to have freedom of speech (a strange demand since the recruiters were not with ROTC and the university barred anti-war protesters from bringing signs into the building but had less of a problem when the pro-war people went inside) One sign told protesters to support recruitment since it prevents a draft. The common theme was one of support for the Iraq war combined with a desire for recruitment so serving soldiers could come home and Berkeley students wouldnt have to be drafted.
Among the crowd of mainly first and second year undergraduates were several filmakers making a film demonizing political activism on college campuses (one of the men who was doing sound was wearing a Stalin t-shirt probably as a joke but perhaps since Stalin hated dissidents too). Another person who took part in the protest was a shady local businessman named Sameer Parekh who made millions posing as a civil libertarian while promoting software that allows the current level of email spam (for anyone who thinks the open source computer counterculture is in some ways progressive you only have to look at Parekh to see how groups like the EFF mainly stand for freedom for those with money and power and care little for those on the other end of Bush's economic policies or US bombs)
The pro-war signs were rather interesting. Some mainly mentioned personal connections to serving soldiers. Others talked about allowing ROTC to have freedom of speech (a strange demand since the recruiters were not with ROTC and the university barred anti-war protesters from bringing signs into the building but had less of a problem when the pro-war people went inside) One sign told protesters to support recruitment since it prevents a draft. The common theme was one of support for the Iraq war combined with a desire for recruitment so serving soldiers could come home and Berkeley students wouldnt have to be drafted.
Among the crowd of mainly first and second year undergraduates were several filmakers making a film demonizing political activism on college campuses (one of the men who was doing sound was wearing a Stalin t-shirt probably as a joke but perhaps since Stalin hated dissidents too). Another person who took part in the protest was a shady local businessman named Sameer Parekh who made millions posing as a civil libertarian while promoting software that allows the current level of email spam (for anyone who thinks the open source computer counterculture is in some ways progressive you only have to look at Parekh to see how groups like the EFF mainly stand for freedom for those with money and power and care little for those on the other end of Bush's economic policies or US bombs)
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Imperialism, nationalism and racism
by WIlliam Bowles
"It is that out of the shadow of this evil, should emerge lasting good….
This is a moment to seize. The Kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us."
Tony Blair @ the Labour Party Conference, October 1st 2001
"We have got to be tough with Germany and I mean the German people, not just the Nazis. You either have to castrate [them] or you have got to treat them…so they can't go reproducing people who want to continue the way they have in the past"
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, August 19, 1944
"This war is not ended. It may only be at the end of its first phase…those countries will stand not just as nations liberated from oppression, but as a lesson to humankind everywhere and a profound antidote to the poison of religious extremism."
Speech given by the Prime Minister, Sedgefield, March 5, 2004
"[Germans] combine in the most deadly manner the qualities of the warrior and the slave. They do not value freedom themselves and the spectacle of it among others is hateful to them."
Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons 1943
"From September 11th on, I could see the threat plainly. Here were terrorists prepared to bring about Armageddon."
Tony Blair, March 5 2004
"Why the little yellow bastards!"
Time Magazine 1941, following the attack on Pearl Harbour
"September 11th was for me a revelation. What had seemed inchoate came together. But what galvanised me was that it was a declaration of war by religious fanatics who were prepared to wage that war without limit."
Tony Blair, Sedgefield, March 5, 2004
It should be pretty clear to most right thinking people that there is a direct link between the imperialist project and the rise of racism and as the excerpts above illustrate, it is neither an accident nor is it a new phenomenon. And whilst Blair's 'theatrical' approach may not be as explicit as those of FDR and Churchill, it nevertheless uses the same formula; the 'us against them' strategy, designed to create a gulf between people whether it uses nationality, race, politics or religion. Hence defining people as 'religious fanatics' and 'Islamic fundamentalists' performs the same function in defending 'our way of life' as did 'little yellow bastards' for justifying the war with Japan.
Blair of course, could not get away with calling Arabs 'ragheads'. These days the ruling elite has to be more circumspect in pushing the demogogic button, like using 'Thug' Blunkett to whip up the appropriate frenzy whilst at the same time making all the right noises about 'multi-culturalism'. For Blair, it's his stock phrases that rely on metaphor especially the medical – "innoculate, disease, isolate, poison, antidote" – that deliver the message.
In fact, it is impossible to link nationalism with imperialism without the use of racism as the way Arabs and Muslims are currently being treated in the US and the UK so amply demonstrates. Home secretary 'Thug' Blunkett's attacks on 'illegal aliens' and 'asylum seekers' fits into the same propaganda campaign that seeks to link the foreign with attacks on 'our' way of life.
And again, as the Time Magazine headline demonstrates, the role of the media in whipping up hysteria around the 'other' serves a specific purpose, for on the one hand it seeks to legitimise racism and on the other, it serves to mask the real interests of the ruling elite by heaping blame on a convenient enemy, who by virtue of colour, religion or national origin can be easily identified and singled out for 'treatment'.
The 'war on terror' fits this bill perfectly for like race or religion, it depends less on reality and totally on peoples' perceptions, perceptions that are inflamed by the media and the politicians into a witch-hunt that becomes ever more indiscriminate as it sweeps up all who don't 'fit' in. Above all else, it relies on ignorance that in turn feeds a fear of the unknown.
"Asked their opinion of Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, 16 percent of Americans said they had never heard of him. Nearly as many, 13 percent, said they had never heard of General Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president and chief Muslim ally in the war against terrror.
"Given the intense media coverage of the Iraq war and the resulting tensions between the United States and Europe, another surprising finding is that 7 per cent of Americans surveyed have never heard of the European Union. That figure, however, is an improvement since early September 2001, when one-fifth of Americans surveyed, 20 percent said they had never heard of the allied bloc across the Atlantic."
International Herald Tribune: March 16, 2004.
And just as insidious is the role of the 'scientific' community in fanning the flames of racist ideology with dubious assertions about the nature of racism such as the report, released this week which attempts to show that there is some biological basis to racism
"Racism and xenophobia linked to biological fear of outsiders in Stone Age"
Goes the headline in the Independent (18/03/04). The two scientists purport to show that it's our "extreme sociality" that is the cause, for it unites small bands of "hunter-gatherers" whose survival depends on keeping "migration between groups…low". The 'scientists' assert that unless migration between groups is kept low, then "competition", "the driving force of group selection…fails".
Note that the core of the argument hinges on the idea of 'competition', something that Darwin showed applied to competing species, hence implicit in the poisonous ideas of these two, so-called scientists is the racist (and unscientific) notion that humans are composed of separate species – us and them. The 'outside' or the 'other' once more figures as the central motif only now, it's masked by a spurious scientific hypothesis that can only serve to reinforce the propaganda onslaught of the state and corporate media and those most susceptible, those most vulnerable, ignorant and insecure.
"From September 11th on, I could see the threat plainly. Here were terrorists prepared to bring about Armageddon."
Tony Blair, March 5 2004
Armageddon, as I understand the meaning of the word, is the end of the world, but whose world is Blair talking about? When taken in the context of the neo-conservative agenda, Blair's use of the word Armageddon makes perfect sense, for like Bush, it's clear that both are driven by a Christian fundamentalist ideology. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, both fervent supporters of Bush, see the coming 'clash of civilisations' as a vindication of their views. Robertson and Falwell (who declared that Mohammed "was the first great terrorist") are also both virulent supporters of Arial Sharon.
And here the Zionist ideology that justifies the genocidal policies of Israel toward the Palestinians fits the idea of Armageddon and the Second Coming as predicted in the Book of Revelations. Scary stuff, and when seen in the context of a US population, of whom 1/3rd believe in Creationism, then the idea of the inevitability of war in the Middle East as part of God's will, serves the purpose of the imperialist project to perfection. If there was ever an unholy alliance then it's the fusion of the Project for the New American Century and Sharon and the Zionist project for a Greater Israel, along with fundamentalist Christianity with its nostalgia for a 'pure' (white, male) past, that has been corrupted by homosexuality, drugs, the loss of 'family values', the familiar litany
But to make sense of these poisonous ideas they have to be seen in the context of the capitalist order
"since power is essentially only a means to an end a community based solely on power must decay in the calm of order and stability; its complete security reveals that it is built on sand. Only by acquiring more power can it guarantee the status quo; only by constantly extending its authority and only through process of power accumulation can it remain stable."
H. Arendt, Imperialism
It is within this context that the role of racism, nationalism and xenophobia makes sense, for it acts to justify the logic of expansion and oppression, whether at home or abroad.
"The evil enemy without became the prime force through which to exorcise or tame the devils lurking within. This relation between the internal and external conditions of political power has played a significant if largely hidden role in the dynamics that have fuelled the conflict with Iraq."
David Harvey, The New Imperialism
Hence the 'war on terror' performs two functions: Military adventures abroad requires military discipline at home, not only to suppress and control dissent but also, in order to prepare the citizens for war, a climate of fear is required that needs racism as the fuel.
It's explains why in the face of the obvious – that waging war on the planet is bound to breed terrorists (failing any other solution) – the imperium will not address the contradiction even when challenged. Instead, Jack Straw on BBC Radio evaded the issue by saying that 'terrorism [of the Osama kind] preceded 9/11 by a decade'. An amazing rewrite of history, events and their causes.
But all is not well with the project. The 'willing' are now less willing, Spain joins Poland, Brazil and El Salvador in wanting out of the disaster that is Iraq.
"Weakness and retreat will not be tolerated" says Bush and Colin Powell says "Now was not the time to run and hide," but threats and accusations of cowardice just serve to further isolate the US from world opinion and expose their bankrupt policies.
http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0210.html
by WIlliam Bowles
"It is that out of the shadow of this evil, should emerge lasting good….
This is a moment to seize. The Kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us."
Tony Blair @ the Labour Party Conference, October 1st 2001
"We have got to be tough with Germany and I mean the German people, not just the Nazis. You either have to castrate [them] or you have got to treat them…so they can't go reproducing people who want to continue the way they have in the past"
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, August 19, 1944
"This war is not ended. It may only be at the end of its first phase…those countries will stand not just as nations liberated from oppression, but as a lesson to humankind everywhere and a profound antidote to the poison of religious extremism."
Speech given by the Prime Minister, Sedgefield, March 5, 2004
"[Germans] combine in the most deadly manner the qualities of the warrior and the slave. They do not value freedom themselves and the spectacle of it among others is hateful to them."
Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons 1943
"From September 11th on, I could see the threat plainly. Here were terrorists prepared to bring about Armageddon."
Tony Blair, March 5 2004
"Why the little yellow bastards!"
Time Magazine 1941, following the attack on Pearl Harbour
"September 11th was for me a revelation. What had seemed inchoate came together. But what galvanised me was that it was a declaration of war by religious fanatics who were prepared to wage that war without limit."
Tony Blair, Sedgefield, March 5, 2004
It should be pretty clear to most right thinking people that there is a direct link between the imperialist project and the rise of racism and as the excerpts above illustrate, it is neither an accident nor is it a new phenomenon. And whilst Blair's 'theatrical' approach may not be as explicit as those of FDR and Churchill, it nevertheless uses the same formula; the 'us against them' strategy, designed to create a gulf between people whether it uses nationality, race, politics or religion. Hence defining people as 'religious fanatics' and 'Islamic fundamentalists' performs the same function in defending 'our way of life' as did 'little yellow bastards' for justifying the war with Japan.
Blair of course, could not get away with calling Arabs 'ragheads'. These days the ruling elite has to be more circumspect in pushing the demogogic button, like using 'Thug' Blunkett to whip up the appropriate frenzy whilst at the same time making all the right noises about 'multi-culturalism'. For Blair, it's his stock phrases that rely on metaphor especially the medical – "innoculate, disease, isolate, poison, antidote" – that deliver the message.
In fact, it is impossible to link nationalism with imperialism without the use of racism as the way Arabs and Muslims are currently being treated in the US and the UK so amply demonstrates. Home secretary 'Thug' Blunkett's attacks on 'illegal aliens' and 'asylum seekers' fits into the same propaganda campaign that seeks to link the foreign with attacks on 'our' way of life.
And again, as the Time Magazine headline demonstrates, the role of the media in whipping up hysteria around the 'other' serves a specific purpose, for on the one hand it seeks to legitimise racism and on the other, it serves to mask the real interests of the ruling elite by heaping blame on a convenient enemy, who by virtue of colour, religion or national origin can be easily identified and singled out for 'treatment'.
The 'war on terror' fits this bill perfectly for like race or religion, it depends less on reality and totally on peoples' perceptions, perceptions that are inflamed by the media and the politicians into a witch-hunt that becomes ever more indiscriminate as it sweeps up all who don't 'fit' in. Above all else, it relies on ignorance that in turn feeds a fear of the unknown.
"Asked their opinion of Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, 16 percent of Americans said they had never heard of him. Nearly as many, 13 percent, said they had never heard of General Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president and chief Muslim ally in the war against terrror.
"Given the intense media coverage of the Iraq war and the resulting tensions between the United States and Europe, another surprising finding is that 7 per cent of Americans surveyed have never heard of the European Union. That figure, however, is an improvement since early September 2001, when one-fifth of Americans surveyed, 20 percent said they had never heard of the allied bloc across the Atlantic."
International Herald Tribune: March 16, 2004.
And just as insidious is the role of the 'scientific' community in fanning the flames of racist ideology with dubious assertions about the nature of racism such as the report, released this week which attempts to show that there is some biological basis to racism
"Racism and xenophobia linked to biological fear of outsiders in Stone Age"
Goes the headline in the Independent (18/03/04). The two scientists purport to show that it's our "extreme sociality" that is the cause, for it unites small bands of "hunter-gatherers" whose survival depends on keeping "migration between groups…low". The 'scientists' assert that unless migration between groups is kept low, then "competition", "the driving force of group selection…fails".
Note that the core of the argument hinges on the idea of 'competition', something that Darwin showed applied to competing species, hence implicit in the poisonous ideas of these two, so-called scientists is the racist (and unscientific) notion that humans are composed of separate species – us and them. The 'outside' or the 'other' once more figures as the central motif only now, it's masked by a spurious scientific hypothesis that can only serve to reinforce the propaganda onslaught of the state and corporate media and those most susceptible, those most vulnerable, ignorant and insecure.
"From September 11th on, I could see the threat plainly. Here were terrorists prepared to bring about Armageddon."
Tony Blair, March 5 2004
Armageddon, as I understand the meaning of the word, is the end of the world, but whose world is Blair talking about? When taken in the context of the neo-conservative agenda, Blair's use of the word Armageddon makes perfect sense, for like Bush, it's clear that both are driven by a Christian fundamentalist ideology. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, both fervent supporters of Bush, see the coming 'clash of civilisations' as a vindication of their views. Robertson and Falwell (who declared that Mohammed "was the first great terrorist") are also both virulent supporters of Arial Sharon.
And here the Zionist ideology that justifies the genocidal policies of Israel toward the Palestinians fits the idea of Armageddon and the Second Coming as predicted in the Book of Revelations. Scary stuff, and when seen in the context of a US population, of whom 1/3rd believe in Creationism, then the idea of the inevitability of war in the Middle East as part of God's will, serves the purpose of the imperialist project to perfection. If there was ever an unholy alliance then it's the fusion of the Project for the New American Century and Sharon and the Zionist project for a Greater Israel, along with fundamentalist Christianity with its nostalgia for a 'pure' (white, male) past, that has been corrupted by homosexuality, drugs, the loss of 'family values', the familiar litany
But to make sense of these poisonous ideas they have to be seen in the context of the capitalist order
"since power is essentially only a means to an end a community based solely on power must decay in the calm of order and stability; its complete security reveals that it is built on sand. Only by acquiring more power can it guarantee the status quo; only by constantly extending its authority and only through process of power accumulation can it remain stable."
H. Arendt, Imperialism
It is within this context that the role of racism, nationalism and xenophobia makes sense, for it acts to justify the logic of expansion and oppression, whether at home or abroad.
"The evil enemy without became the prime force through which to exorcise or tame the devils lurking within. This relation between the internal and external conditions of political power has played a significant if largely hidden role in the dynamics that have fuelled the conflict with Iraq."
David Harvey, The New Imperialism
Hence the 'war on terror' performs two functions: Military adventures abroad requires military discipline at home, not only to suppress and control dissent but also, in order to prepare the citizens for war, a climate of fear is required that needs racism as the fuel.
It's explains why in the face of the obvious – that waging war on the planet is bound to breed terrorists (failing any other solution) – the imperium will not address the contradiction even when challenged. Instead, Jack Straw on BBC Radio evaded the issue by saying that 'terrorism [of the Osama kind] preceded 9/11 by a decade'. An amazing rewrite of history, events and their causes.
But all is not well with the project. The 'willing' are now less willing, Spain joins Poland, Brazil and El Salvador in wanting out of the disaster that is Iraq.
"Weakness and retreat will not be tolerated" says Bush and Colin Powell says "Now was not the time to run and hide," but threats and accusations of cowardice just serve to further isolate the US from world opinion and expose their bankrupt policies.
http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0210.html
Every single one of these filthy rich kids, who certainly fit the moniker, Hitler's Worthy Heirs, ought to be in uniform in Iraq inhaling American depleted uranium and experiencing the horror of war first hand as they claim to support it.
I guarantee you that when (not if, but when) a draft arrives, every single one of these kids will stop singing the pro-war tune. We saw this during the Vietnam War many times.
I also guarantee you that when (not if, but when) the American economy sinks to the bottom of the sea, these kids will have to work for a living for the first time in their parasitical lives and it will be a very rude awakening. They will not be able to buy anything they want, go skiing and on trips to Europe when they please, buy fancy movie cameras as one of these parasites has, and live in decent housing.
It is not for nothing that US Berkeley is known as the rich folks' finishing school, sitting right on the edge of the mostly African-American and Latino workingclass community of the East Bay (Berkeley-Oakland-Richmond, etc.) which cannot afford and is certainly not wanted at this snooty institution, in spite of the fact that we, the workingclass, pay for it with our blood, sweat and tears.
I guarantee you that when (not if, but when) a draft arrives, every single one of these kids will stop singing the pro-war tune. We saw this during the Vietnam War many times.
I also guarantee you that when (not if, but when) the American economy sinks to the bottom of the sea, these kids will have to work for a living for the first time in their parasitical lives and it will be a very rude awakening. They will not be able to buy anything they want, go skiing and on trips to Europe when they please, buy fancy movie cameras as one of these parasites has, and live in decent housing.
It is not for nothing that US Berkeley is known as the rich folks' finishing school, sitting right on the edge of the mostly African-American and Latino workingclass community of the East Bay (Berkeley-Oakland-Richmond, etc.) which cannot afford and is certainly not wanted at this snooty institution, in spite of the fact that we, the workingclass, pay for it with our blood, sweat and tears.
We rich support Democrats.
Myself, Warren Buffet and Paul Allen gave 50 million to pro-Kerry 527s in the last election.
The three richest billionaires in the USA, Gates, Allen and Buffet all contributed to Kerry. Just $2,000 directly, but it shows who the three richest white men backed.
In the 527 arena, where the BIG MONEY is, check it out.
Of the top 25 supporters via 527s, 23 out of 25 went to Democrat 527s. The Republicans were tied for the one guy in the middle and one guy at the bottom.
Of the million dollar and up contributions to 627s, 92% went to Democrat 527s.
The average contribution to the Democrat campaign was larger than to the GOP.
Go to forbes.com to get the list of billionaires and opensecrets.org/527s? to get the 527 stats.
Also tray.com to get the FEC records.
Don't take my work for it, check it out for yourself.
Myself, Warren Buffet and Paul Allen gave 50 million to pro-Kerry 527s in the last election.
The three richest billionaires in the USA, Gates, Allen and Buffet all contributed to Kerry. Just $2,000 directly, but it shows who the three richest white men backed.
In the 527 arena, where the BIG MONEY is, check it out.
Of the top 25 supporters via 527s, 23 out of 25 went to Democrat 527s. The Republicans were tied for the one guy in the middle and one guy at the bottom.
Of the million dollar and up contributions to 627s, 92% went to Democrat 527s.
The average contribution to the Democrat campaign was larger than to the GOP.
Go to forbes.com to get the list of billionaires and opensecrets.org/527s? to get the 527 stats.
Also tray.com to get the FEC records.
Don't take my work for it, check it out for yourself.
who says we support the democrats? it aint an either/or question. they are pretty serve the same interests.
Both major parties--Democrat and Republican--are of, by, and for the rich. Both are fundamentally capitalist formations.
In supporting the Democrats, Gates, Buffet, and Soros are/were supporting a party that in the past fifteen years has gutted welfare, led the battle to pass NAFTA, bombed the crap out of the Balkans, and supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Many ultra-rich people support the Democrats over the Republicans (particularly at the federal executive level) because the Dems are a classic conservative party that balances budgets while maintaining a rhetorical profile that's not as provocative as the Republicans, and thus less apt to trigger unrest.
In supporting the Democrats, Gates, Buffet, and Soros are/were supporting a party that in the past fifteen years has gutted welfare, led the battle to pass NAFTA, bombed the crap out of the Balkans, and supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Many ultra-rich people support the Democrats over the Republicans (particularly at the federal executive level) because the Dems are a classic conservative party that balances budgets while maintaining a rhetorical profile that's not as provocative as the Republicans, and thus less apt to trigger unrest.
"see how groups like the EFF mainly stand for freedom for those with money and power and care little for those on the other end of Bush's economic policies or US bombs"
THAT is a prefect example how NOT to think about activism unrelated to your own set of concerns. You cripple your ability to make tactical judgements when you treat others who are neutral (collectively) with regard to the stuggle which concerns yours because their interests lie in another "dimension". This is not a situation where you should use the rule "those not for me are against me".
To see how silly what you said is, replace EFF with any other activist interest group whose concerns are likewise orthogonal to your own. Gay rights activists are supposed to be for Bush policies and war? Animal rights activists are supposed to be for Bush policies and war? Environmentalists are supposed to be for Bush policies and war?
People involved with EFF may be from either the left or right economic side of anarchism and issues like peace or war aren't on their agenda. You don't look at a group like that and call them "enemy" because while individuals within that group might be among your enemies that's only because of OTHER groups to which they belong << you'll get to classify them as such when you classify THAT group >> All you end up doing by declaring any groups not focused on YOUR pet issue "the enemy" is ensure that you will always be surrounded by enemies, too hopelessly outnumbered to accomplish anything. Good excuse for your failure I guess.
THAT is a prefect example how NOT to think about activism unrelated to your own set of concerns. You cripple your ability to make tactical judgements when you treat others who are neutral (collectively) with regard to the stuggle which concerns yours because their interests lie in another "dimension". This is not a situation where you should use the rule "those not for me are against me".
To see how silly what you said is, replace EFF with any other activist interest group whose concerns are likewise orthogonal to your own. Gay rights activists are supposed to be for Bush policies and war? Animal rights activists are supposed to be for Bush policies and war? Environmentalists are supposed to be for Bush policies and war?
People involved with EFF may be from either the left or right economic side of anarchism and issues like peace or war aren't on their agenda. You don't look at a group like that and call them "enemy" because while individuals within that group might be among your enemies that's only because of OTHER groups to which they belong << you'll get to classify them as such when you classify THAT group >> All you end up doing by declaring any groups not focused on YOUR pet issue "the enemy" is ensure that you will always be surrounded by enemies, too hopelessly outnumbered to accomplish anything. Good excuse for your failure I guess.
" THAT is a prefect example how NOT to think about activism unrelated to your own set of concerns."
The EFF does good work in that they act a lot like the ACLU, except they really do mainly take cases that revolve around things that would never really help poorer people. The freedom to download songs, to sell encrypted software, to not worry about copywrite... are things that real causes and shouldnt be dismissed completely, but the broader radical open source counterculture should be.
Free software in a Socialist society would be a great thing and many alternative websites today couldnt run without free software. But, free software designed mainly for the ultra techy and business communities esentailly just pushs work from developers who need money to developers who have enough money thay can spend a lot of time doing work for free. Linux, Free BSD, PHP, Java are things that programmers like because it makes life easier but for the most part it makes life easier in a mainly professional sense. It makes like easier in the same way the metric system makes life easier for Europeans or Unicode made life easier to write software that works in many different countries. Greasing the wheels of industry and making things more efficient may pull everyone up a bit but it also adds to inequality.
Linux may be easy to install on cheaper computers but most people in poorer communities near where I leave seem to choose Microsoft over Linux because real training with Linux is moe expensive and if peopel are getting computers to tarin themselves for low level jobs Linux isnt very useful. Microsoft is mainly seen as an "evil" company among developers because of how it treats other companies and the low qualitiy of the product they can force on people, but in terms of their overall societal impact they are not very different from any other software company.
There isnt a huge difference bwteen a Microsoft executive and a radical looking owner of a small tech firm. Sameer for example made money party based off the backing of people like the EFF and until a few years ago he played to the image of a hippie looking stoner but now he is a writer for a the Cal Patriot and probably helps fund a group that across issues is trying to destroy Berkeley. Its not that he was doing "good" activism when he wrote anonymous remailers and sold a secure webserver to RedHat for several million. He wasnt doing anything remotely progressive when he was a cypherpunk; the whole movement's main result was to train a bunch of new people for the NSA, train employees to get high level jobs on Wall Street and make it easier for CEOs to hide money in offshore banks so they wouldnt have to help fund social programs for the poor. Many activists do use tools like PGP and the like and in some cases it is pretty useful but most activists using encryption that they think cant be cracked by the NSA are usually doing stuff that the NSA could care less about or the groups have been infiltrated already and secure communications wouldnt really help. The push towards security culture among US radicals has an extremely detrimental effect in terms of how it builds up tech hierarchys and closes doors to new activists (in the way secrecy always does) and this hindering the growth of movements.
The EFF does good work in that they act a lot like the ACLU, except they really do mainly take cases that revolve around things that would never really help poorer people. The freedom to download songs, to sell encrypted software, to not worry about copywrite... are things that real causes and shouldnt be dismissed completely, but the broader radical open source counterculture should be.
Free software in a Socialist society would be a great thing and many alternative websites today couldnt run without free software. But, free software designed mainly for the ultra techy and business communities esentailly just pushs work from developers who need money to developers who have enough money thay can spend a lot of time doing work for free. Linux, Free BSD, PHP, Java are things that programmers like because it makes life easier but for the most part it makes life easier in a mainly professional sense. It makes like easier in the same way the metric system makes life easier for Europeans or Unicode made life easier to write software that works in many different countries. Greasing the wheels of industry and making things more efficient may pull everyone up a bit but it also adds to inequality.
Linux may be easy to install on cheaper computers but most people in poorer communities near where I leave seem to choose Microsoft over Linux because real training with Linux is moe expensive and if peopel are getting computers to tarin themselves for low level jobs Linux isnt very useful. Microsoft is mainly seen as an "evil" company among developers because of how it treats other companies and the low qualitiy of the product they can force on people, but in terms of their overall societal impact they are not very different from any other software company.
There isnt a huge difference bwteen a Microsoft executive and a radical looking owner of a small tech firm. Sameer for example made money party based off the backing of people like the EFF and until a few years ago he played to the image of a hippie looking stoner but now he is a writer for a the Cal Patriot and probably helps fund a group that across issues is trying to destroy Berkeley. Its not that he was doing "good" activism when he wrote anonymous remailers and sold a secure webserver to RedHat for several million. He wasnt doing anything remotely progressive when he was a cypherpunk; the whole movement's main result was to train a bunch of new people for the NSA, train employees to get high level jobs on Wall Street and make it easier for CEOs to hide money in offshore banks so they wouldnt have to help fund social programs for the poor. Many activists do use tools like PGP and the like and in some cases it is pretty useful but most activists using encryption that they think cant be cracked by the NSA are usually doing stuff that the NSA could care less about or the groups have been infiltrated already and secure communications wouldnt really help. The push towards security culture among US radicals has an extremely detrimental effect in terms of how it builds up tech hierarchys and closes doors to new activists (in the way secrecy always does) and this hindering the growth of movements.
Zack Exley was seen as somewhat of a radical a few years ago with his gwbush.com site and I even saw him at the Ruckus tech training camp for activists in California.
BUT, hes now a political consultant for Iraq war supporter and neoLiberal Tony Blair:
see
Blair hires controversial US election cyberactivist
http://management.silicon.com/government/0,39024677,39129585,00.htm
You can argue that I just differ with Exley on one issue. But its a pretty big one. And as with Sameers support for the Republican Party its a big enough difference any other issues hardly seem to matter in comparison.
BUT, hes now a political consultant for Iraq war supporter and neoLiberal Tony Blair:
see
Blair hires controversial US election cyberactivist
http://management.silicon.com/government/0,39024677,39129585,00.htm
You can argue that I just differ with Exley on one issue. But its a pretty big one. And as with Sameers support for the Republican Party its a big enough difference any other issues hardly seem to matter in comparison.
Tech activism is great in that it takes a bunch of smart young people who are prone to radical views and makes them think they are doing something radical when really they are mainly helping to train themselves for corporate positions when they get older. A focus on operating systems mainly used by other tech activists prevents anything they learn from impacting anything else besides oter tech activists and it also helps get them into critical positions of power in real radical organizations. The great part about all this is that they always become conservative as they get older since (until outsourcing spreads more) they have a safety net in the upper middle class that they are bound to use sooner or later when push comes to shove. In the end corporations get pretrained workers who can be somewhat underpaid compared to programmers from other backgrounds (since its a niche position with few alternatives) and most major radical organizations can be coopted or undermined by the inherent inequalities of tech power (especially tech power by people who are almost always moving towards Libertarian views as they get older). I guess some tech activists may be hard to reach but they are pretty open to the myth of the American Dream since activist tech networks provide a real income if you just try (unlike most of the rest of the economy). The reason they are so open also has to do with them never bothering to realize that tech training doesnt provide real social mobility since in most cases the training that helped create the skills required being raised in a pretty well-off background. We only better hope that they never realize that doing free work (via open source programming on code that always find other uses) for corporate America is actually doing volunteer work for people who are just too cheap to pay for R&D anymore.
I'll repeat it, since he's right on...
"All you end up doing by declaring any groups not focused on YOUR pet issue "the enemy" is ensure that you will always be surrounded by enemies, too hopelessly outnumbered to accomplish anything."
We're never going to anything if we look at other people/groups as lost causes instead of potential allies. Maybe individuals associated with open source software really are assholes, but that's no reason to dismiss an entire community. (Not to mention alienate any of them who read this thread and downplay the fact that the work they have done has helped you out as an activist).
You don't have to look any farther than Indymedia to see the potential of activists and free software folks working together. I think it's a better use of time to think about common causes rather than find flaws an other group's consiousness.
"All you end up doing by declaring any groups not focused on YOUR pet issue "the enemy" is ensure that you will always be surrounded by enemies, too hopelessly outnumbered to accomplish anything."
We're never going to anything if we look at other people/groups as lost causes instead of potential allies. Maybe individuals associated with open source software really are assholes, but that's no reason to dismiss an entire community. (Not to mention alienate any of them who read this thread and downplay the fact that the work they have done has helped you out as an activist).
You don't have to look any farther than Indymedia to see the potential of activists and free software folks working together. I think it's a better use of time to think about common causes rather than find flaws an other group's consiousness.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network