One way to fight fascism is to get some historical perspective. Fascism is distinct from capitalism and socialism. It’s as silly for the left to say capitalists and fascists are the same, just as it ridiculous for the right to say that socialists and fascists are the same. Take a look at the people in the Nazi’s concentration camps – Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Communists, Anarchists and Trade Unionists – not capitalists. The answer is organizing among the working class, paying special attention to the working poor, reaching out to the lower middle class who were some of the biggest early supporters of the fascists. I urge people to read stuff by people who were eyewitnesses to the rise of fascism like Daniel Guerin (an anarchist) and Leon Trotsky.
I’ve often read advocates of Western-style democracy, both conservative and liberal, saying that our or style of government is successful in the U.S., Europe, and Japan because of having a large middle class which operates as moderating force which doesn’t like extremes. There may be kernel of truth to this but in times of economic crisis provides an opportunity to the left and the right. It exposes the weaknesses and problems inherent in the current system. If the left doesn’t take the right as a serious threat and or doesn’t make a serious effort to organize people this allows for the far right to become a mass movemont. If the far right begins to gain traction it can sweep into power and begin restructuring society from the top down. We need to organize because we are the only ones who will save us. The left in Italy thought the King would save them and the left in Germany thought the President would save them. Obama won’t save the left and neither will the Constitution. It’s meager protections evaporate in times of crisis, be they economic or war. Nor will the police or the military come to our aid. We need to organize politicaly and economicaly. We need to come up with alternatives and see the roots of many of problems come from the state and our system of capitalism. We need to nip the fascist problem in the bud because once they get into power the options are pretty limited – you can go along, leave the country, or can go underground and fight an armed resistance like the communist and anarchist partisans did. When we organize we need to use dual power- have immediate demands to rally around and build alternative institutions to support our long term goals. I see great potential for the labor movement where the issue of class is easiest for all to see. Where it is all about profit-hungry owners, power-hungry managers and workers just trying to make it week by week. Groups like the Wobblies and Teamsters for a Democractic Union push for more militancy and control by the rank-and-file.
I have less hope for any political party being an anarchist. Though it would be interesting if the left could organize an independent working class party. Something that could agitate for immediate demands while building new long term social institutions to replace the old ones. The problem with the left in this country is constant infighting, factionalism, political opportunism, abandonment of the working class and delusions of taking over the Democratic Party (called by a Republican historian capitalism’s second most enthusiastic supporter [Ed's Note: And Winston Churchill]). We need to come together on key issues and use a variety of tactics to advance the cause of a more humane and just society. United front policy can be successful during times of war or political victory for fascists but we should never abandoned working class organizations. We also need serious critique of racism as has had a long and divisive history in our country. To say it’s secondary issue to class is insulting and keep black and white workers from uniting. Just because we have a black president doesn’t mean racism is dead. Our prisons, the military, and the poor are largely made up of minorities. The working class is my view is made of workers (blue and white collar) our social dynamite, and the poor (unemployed, government dependents, homeless) the social wreckage. We need to work together and reach out to the lower middle class. For example, my grandfather, a family farmer who also works construction to keep up with the bills, my friend Andy, who owns and runs a hobby shop, or Rick, a locksmith who’s a freelancer. To compare these people to agribusiness or CEOs is moronic. They’re ambitious, maybe have different outlooks but they share a lot of the same problems we do. They should be seen as potential allies for change just like veterans. People should look into the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and see how different they are compared to the conservative VFW or American Legion.
The final problem is the obsession with pacifism. It has hurt our movement. The state has learned how to work around us. In the past civil disobedience was meant to subvert the system. They couldn’t jail all of us, plus it was costly because they had feed us and pay for extra guards. There’s lot’s of prisons and jails now. In some cases like the RNC protest in NYC they just snatched us up and dumped us into temporary cages built on the docks. I’m not advocating armed struggle. They just find somebody else to take the place of the bastard you shot. I’m advocating self-defense and maybe organizing militias made up of working people. If fascist coup happens the police and army won’t run to our rescue and if we do succeed in building alternative institutions or even taking over some of the means of production there will be retaliation by the state and/or the owners. I belie we need to be serious about change, to test our tactics, to not be afraid to debate and work together, to dream of a different way of doing things and take a long hard look at the systems that cause the problems we see rather than blindly attack the problems. Some people may chose to say fuck it all and live as comfortably as possible, others may cozy up to our current system and fool themselves into beliving the making “real” changes but continue to look for a way to build a new society in the shell of the old.
Posts
Perhaps you should write an introduction about infiltration of radical movements by police or ways to spot a mole or reasons to avoid lost souls.
| November 23, 2009 @ 2:16 am
There has been an history of this on left, but sometimes this fear can be blown out of proportion turn into paranoia or an excuse not to be politically active. But security culture is a topic worth discussing. The short answer was don’t use violent rhetoric. If you do plan to do something illegal you need to decide to accept the danger of getting caught and if you plan to do an action with other people make sure you have a long history with them.
| November 23, 2009 @ 10:46 am
“The final problem is the obsession with pacifism.”
| November 23, 2009 @ 6:36 am
People should check out Ward Churchill’S Pacifism as Pathology and look at You Can’t Blow Up a Social Relationship. The latter is available online and is an anarchist argument against armed struggle and urban guerillas in democratic states like Australia.
| November 23, 2009 @ 10:30 am
“The final problem is the obsession with pacifism.”
The American Left made the mistake of disarming itself, and scaring those who wouldn’t be disarmed into the “arms” of the right.
| November 23, 2009 @ 6:37 am
In my opinion there are some arguments for gun control like a waiting period to reduce the risk of crimes of passion and the mentally ill from getting guns. But I have no sympathy for the argument to get rid of guns or limit people’s access to guns only for hunting. The only people left with guns are the state and organized crime. A lot of people sympathetic to the left own guns. I own a gun. I’m just dumb founded by liberals who go nuts over hand guns and rifles but who loose no sleep over nukes and military hardware. Fun Fact the US is the world’s largest arms dealer.
| November 23, 2009 @ 10:39 am
What i’m wondering is, who gives the barking orders to go after fascism? There was always this tendency coming from Maximum Rock & Roll & associated bands & later with Profane Existence to push “the fascists” up front as this mighty enemy of the Punks or the leftists or whoever. Make sure to wear your “anti-fascist” patch & your “man throwing away swastika” patch. There hasn’t been any overt or well-organized fascism of any consequence since Franco. Is it because fascism is overtly anti-Communist, so the similarly non consequencial, non organized & non-powerful Communists are trained historically to attack it? So you have two largely irrelevant political obscurities fighting each other? I feel like people with this political framework are using the playbook from a different time & a different place. It’s not unlike Skinheads, whose numbers are so small that they might as well not exist, love fighting each other & engaging in pre-planned political warfare against each other. Especially in the USA, which is what i’m actually talking about, where Skinhead is a super-minority subculture, it’s like cosplay with recreational violence. You guys are going after the oath-keepers & the 9-12 people & the tea-baggers saying they’re fascists, but they really seem like radicalized patriots & paleo-conservatives. I’m interested in what you think “Fascist America” will look like & who will be in charge of it.
| November 23, 2009 @ 10:09 am
Fascism was different everywhere it has emerged. I wouldn’t expect anyone to know exactly how it will happen but if you look at the US a lot of the core aspects are happening now. They will find their leader figure don’t you worry. That’s the easy part.
The tea baggers are patriots? I think Nationalists is a more proper term. They are all red blooded god fearing americans and they hate liberals and everyone else who isn’t one of them(who are all called liberals to save time). They can dig their own goddamn heads in the sand. The rest of us want to move on with history
I also wouldn’t really call socialism a political obscurity. It may have no political power in the US but that is a world wide anomaly.
| November 23, 2009 @ 10:45 am
History isn’t inevitable though Adam, so what history will be “moving on” towards hasn’t been decided yet. Your political desires aren’t the inevitable outcome of progress, they are your political desires. Patriots in the USA tend to be nationalists as well. I see nothing wrong with disliking the liberal agenda, i think this blog has spoken towards that effect many times. Hatred is irrational, so i don’t support that in general, although it is understandable. Going after red-blooded, god-fearing Americans is obviously playing into the hands of the green-blooded atheist internationalists, so i’m against it.
| November 23, 2009 @ 11:34 am
I agree with you the there is no end to history as some Marxists or the neo-conservatives (or neo-liberals for our non-US readers). History in the long term tends to favor those fighting for greater freedom. I’m not attacking “god-fearing, red-blooded Americans” I’m merely stating that a number of their beliefs are irrational and give support to reactionary policies. I’ve actually talked to some of these folks and quite disturbed at their simplistic thinking i.e. just follow the Constitution! The constitution isn’t the bible it’s no a sacred thing or free of error (slavery for instance). They are mad as hell but take immigration. There very concerned about immigration, but they fixate on Mexico. Build a wall they say. But if try talk them about the cause of immagration like having a Third World country next to the richest nation of earth they put there fingers in there ears. If you tell them that US has supported a Mexican kleptocracy that abuses their own people and gets kick backs from letting Americans exploit their natural wealth like oil they roll their eyes. If you dare mention that Mexico has been invaded and bombed several times by the US and we took half their land in a bloody war they want to fist fight with you. How are the green-blooded internationalists? Bankers, CEOs or David Icke’s reptilians?
| November 23, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
“neo-conservatives (or neo-liberals for our non-US readers).”
They’re not the same thing. Neo-conservativism is a movement which, in the US, is primarily based on the followers of Leo Strauss, and has a profound suspicion of modernity and modernism, at least as it applies to the common man. It is focused on a belief in the necessity of noble lies (typically traditional religions) for keeping common people, who can’t handle “philosophical truth”, sober and sane. They tend not to care about economics, except as it suits their ideological alliances; they’re as ready to support socialism as capitalism as long as their allies are following the same social plan. Neo-conservatives emphasize nationalism, patriotism, and are only a hair’s breadth away from Fascists. In fact, in Europe, there’s little to distinguish a neo-Conservative from a Fascist, especially as European neo-Conservatives have become boosters of radical traditionalist thinkers (such as Julius Evola, which is very ironic given neo-Conservatism’s Jewish roots).
Neo-liberalism is the postwar opposition to neo-conservatism; an attempt to rebuild society along liberal lines and away from the conservative reaction. Neo-liberalism is much more focused on Economics; it’s primary camps are those of Keynes, Eucken, and Hayek. While capitalist, none of the above are truly lassiez-faire; even Hayek decried lassiez-faire as foolishness, and there’s little in his magnum opus, “The Constitution of Liberty”, that would be incompatible with, say, a scandinavian welfare state. (I really wish more people would actually read Hayek, rather than bang his works against tables ala Maggie Thatcher). Neo-liberalism is internationalist, unlike neo-conservatism, and worries more about the economic and legal order of the state than the state’s moral health (which, to a liberal, comes naturally when the other two are in order- in this respect, neoliberals and neoconservatives see these matters in reverse).
Neo-liberal and neo-conservative have, more or less, simply become media epithets that people use for ideological opponents that they don’t like (just like socialist and communist), when, in fact, they have proper definitions as labels for specific intellectual movements and ideologies that they represent.
| November 24, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
An apology to Joe. I shouldn’t say they’re the same but they have overlapping interests like free trade, but there are differences with neo-libs trying to use international organizations like the IMF and the UN to promote capitalism and the neo-cons willing to go unilateral and set-up Western-style democratic governments in the Third World which are friendly to capitalism.
| November 24, 2009 @ 10:01 pm
I apologize, I was not trying to imply history has a set course. Just that a group of conservatives who want to stick their heads in the sand and keep things like the 1950’s are trying to hold anyone who disagrees with them back. I also was talking about how groups like that or fox news group everything they dislike under the term “liberal”. Not that i support the liberal agenda, but calling liberalism and communism and radical islamic groups all the same term is wrong and detracts from rational discourse.
| November 24, 2009 @ 11:45 am
“…it’s like cosplay with recreational violence.” I’m totally stealing that line.
| November 23, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
I have tried to be explicit. The left should resist the urge to call there enemies nazis and fascists as the right should resist the urge to call there enemies communists and anarchists. Mostly because there usually wrong. These groups have similarities to other older populist right groups like the Buchanan Brigade or the guys who back Perot in 92. And I tend to believe they share the same fate being co-opted by the Republicans til 8 or 12 years go by and they freak out again. The best remedy to counter fascism is an organized and active left that’s willing to duke it out with reactionaries if that’s what it comes down to. While it’s frowned upon in this country to be overtly racist no one talks about the authoritarian mind sets in this country. What it like exactly look like? No one can say for sure but if I had to bet I’d say it will wrap itself in the flag and use the rhetoric of freedom while dismantling the few recognized protections of political and racial minorities. What we have right now is the New World Order that Bush Sr talked about. Not a world of the UN and black helicopters, but of post-cold war capitalism run amok with the US leading the way.
| November 23, 2009 @ 11:03 am
So, you’re writing this from an anarcho-communist point of view? Hoo boy.
| November 23, 2009 @ 11:38 am
I’ve made no secret that I’m an anarchist. I’d say I’m an anarchist without adjectives or a class war anarchist. People I find interesting are anarchists like Rudolf Rocker or Carlo Tresca, socialists like Harry Bridges, Farrell Dobs and Marty Glaberman, and people involved in native and anti-imperialist struggles.
| November 23, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
The fact of the matter that socialism and communism, much like Judaism and homosexuality, have become ad hominem attacks exploited by Glenn Beck and his radio ilk. There’s nothing evil about any of these things but the professional bigots have used peoples misconceptions to fuel their totalitarian efforts at framing political dialogue. They’ve gone so far to create a false dilemma narrative where the audience must either side with them or the progressive secularist humanists destroying the nation. Their objectives are to terminate thought, arrest the momentum of their opposition and originate a counter-surge. If you’re going to identify yourself as socialist in the public arena then this is the flak you’re going to fly through.
I agree completely with Chris M when he says we need to be clear in definition and concise in usage of political terms. As a teen I was drawn to researching Italian Fascism because the local kids would combine Nazi, Fascist and communist as insults for people they didn’t like, probably teachers and cops. It was obvious they didn’t know the difference between these caricature bad-guys because a Nazi-Communist, which I might’ve been called a few times, would probably have had a hard time in his own country during WW2. The stay-behind cells of partisan guerillas who eventually became Gladio, the same kind of para-militaries and militias that Chris M is comparing the Tea Parties and 9/12 to, were created to fight a potential Bolshevik external invasion or internal upheaval. They eventually became terrorists and enacted a strategy of tension, that is anonymous attacks to cause civilians to reach out to the state, and even went so far as to infiltrate leftist groups such as the Red Brigade and commit atrocities, such as the kidnap and murder of Aldo Moro, as false flag covert operations.
Do I think Glenn Beck is a fascist? No. I think he’s the kind of moron who uses thought terminating rhetoric and logical fallacy to titillate a conservative audience educated with false consciousness and I don’t believe that socialists have much to gain, either for their publicity or for their own intellectual understanding of science, by taking the low road and confusing ambiguous definitions in a way that loses sight of facts.
| November 23, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
Thank you Squid Lord. Fascist and Nazi were the most dangerous when they gained state power and began eliminating all oppposition. Once they were in power you had to grab a gun like the anarchist and communist partisans, hope for a military coup like what nearly happened in Germany or what for an invading foreign army. The best safeguard against fascism is to nip it in the bud before it starts. I didn’t say shoot the teabaggers, jail them or deport them from the country. My idea is to organize, expose their links to big business, target their biggest supporters the poor (unemployed looking for scapegoats) and the lower middle class (small businessmen, craftsmen, family farmers who feel squeezed) and give them an alternative vision. Will these people become the Fascist Party maybe not, but the have a real reactionary potential for the country. There is a crisis and people looking for easy answers and simple solutions often support authoritarian policies. Also there are many view of freedom. There’s the negative view say freedom from state censorship. But that does nothing to combat corporate censorship and the limiting of debate. I work for a living and I have a positive view of freedom and my challenge to the civil libertarians is what good is freedom of the press when I don’t own a press?
| November 23, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
As a fan of this page living outside the US, I think you touch on several very important points in this series, and yes I must agree with your basic premise that a neo-facist movement is actually starting to germinate out of the general right wing slide you’ve been in for, shit, at least a generation. The word facist can be used as a slur for any authority figure who pisses you off, but it is useful to define the term tecnically, and apply it consistently, as you do. And its not just your subjective perspective either; even you ‘best friends’ (read: largest trading partner) and closest ally, Canada, well most of us are scared shitless half the time that you’re going to invade us. We don’t know what the hell is going on in the states, but it seems like mass hysteria. Even the even the far right in this country would be considered liberal socialists by american standards, because the whole discourse of the country has been dragged so far right. CNN seems to us like some kind of state propaganda, and then you hear this is the liberal network. Thank fuck that Glen Beck is not even part of my world.
One apect of american culture that I absolutely fail to understand, which you shed a lot of light on, are the ‘libertarian’ elements in US culture, who consistently rail against tyrany with ever word they speak, and consistently support it with every deed. Why do people not see that while the right rail against the state, the only part of govement they ever make smaller (dismantle) are the social services which are its only proper function. Meanwhile they have built one of the largest military/police/survelance/propaganda machines in history. These are the people crying ‘Small goverment, fewer taxes!”. And he grassroots that support them are the paranoid crowd woried about the US being taken over by the World Goverment/NWO/Illuminati/Secret Muslims. Guess what? There are permant american military bases in every county you’ve ever operated in. Japan still has no army but YOURS, and the US shoves the UN around like a little bitch. If there ever is a world govement, it wont be the blue helmets, it will be under the american flag, for most of the world anyway.
On a completely diffeent track, the comment about the “cosplay with recreational violence” was pretty apt. After eight years as an anarchist, protesting everthing there was to protest, I was pretty sad to come to this conclusion too. The last straw was when I realized I that the few obvious agent provoceteurs caught at protests were redundant, the black block was doing their job for them. Your point about the problem of pacifism is not wrong, but the element I see at every protest, no matter the issue, who go to smash windows and get it on with the cops offer no alternative to me. That kind of violence may be existentially satisfying, but its easily recoupable, poses no real threat, and really comes down to being a safety valve for a frustration that can’t be resolved. I happen to agree that attacking the kind of tactical crowd control units used today with rocks, sling shots, and paint balloons (?) apparently for the purpose of getting arrested is not even Quixotic, its just dumb. In general, the activist left is so disorganized that its about as easily permeated by cops as it could be.
In general, I think your right to suggest better organization, militant self defense, IWW style, (apropriate, considering the depression that’s begining next the century) but considering the weak state of unions and the disorganized left, easier said than done. Unlike the right, the left needs more than a charismatic leader, we need a whole new paradigm. Strong organizations need a purpose, an objective, and a means of acomplishing that, not a vauge ‘hope for change’ which they recoil from at first sight.
Thanks for the great reporting from the belly of the beast.
| November 24, 2009 @ 10:50 am
I should have done a quick edit. I know you guys are grammar nazis.
| November 24, 2009 @ 10:54 am
Grammar NAZIS? You think this is a Nazi blog? They’re grammar Commies! Get it right!
| November 24, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
Fine, they are grammar Stalinists, or possibly grammar Maoists.
| November 24, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
“Japan still has no army but YOURS, and the US shoves the UN around like a little bitch.”
Not quite. Japan neutralized their constitution after 1945, so they technically can’t have a military. However, they have a “defense force” with one of the largest budgets in the world- nearly $50 billion per year. They’ve been wanting us to pull out of our bases in Okinawa for years, but to date, we haven’t, and I doubt we will until they formally de-neutralize their constitution, which they’ve been talking about since Koizumi was in office.
| November 24, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
Thanks for the input Joe. The Japanese constitution prevents the SDF and the coast guard from operating outside of their home territory but if my memory serves me right the sent a handful of troops to Afghanistan and their coast guard participated in joint operations off the Afghan coast with the US Navy.
| November 24, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
They can send non-combat support troops to foreign interventions, but the typical rule is that they have to be sponsored by the UN. Koizumi took a lot of flack when he wanted to send support troops to Iraq.
| November 24, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
Thanks again to Joe for the clarification. The US has tried to partner with Germany and Japan since the 70s when there economies began recovering. US military bases have been said to be used for defense, but tend to serve a jumping off points and logistical hubs for future wars. Take for example the Middle East and the METO organization originally to defend against the USSR its other purpose was to maintain an American foothold in the region. In 1959 when Iraq withdrew due to a popular revolution US troops shifted to Iran. IN 1979 with Islamic revolution US troops shifted to Turkey and gave aid to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. After the 1990 Iraq war US troops shifted to Saudi Arabia. Then after 9-11 and the 2003 Iraq war with anti-US sentiment growing troops shifted back to Iraq. 50 years and we’ve come full circle, there’s little threat from Russia but our interest in oil and our access to it increasing.
| November 24, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
Yes, I may have spoken a bit loosely. I apriciate being educated about the specific facts of the matter. My concern though, was that the ‘patriotic paranoid’ element is creating a lot of the things they alledgedly fear, like a powerful intrusive state with aspirations of world domination, in the name of defense from this very thing.
Since we’re sticking to specifics, around the time Poland revealed that the US had unauthorized black sites within their borders, a Canadian MP disclosed in parliment that a CIA front company was chartering flights to northern Ontario, Quebec, and Nunavut, which is nowhere basicly. This strongly suggests to thinking people that they have black sites here too, and didn’t bother to inform the Canadian goverment. The US state also invaded and overthrew the goverments of two countries and instaled managers more to their liking, over the loud protests by most of the world and their own population. So the world goverment issue is not irrelevant. But I thought all those militia types were hanging onto their guns in case the goverment became tyranical? What are they waiting for? Barcodes on the neck?
| November 24, 2009 @ 10:51 pm
I’m sorry, did I say the US state only overthrew the goverments of two countries? That is a factual error. I meant, y’know, recently. I would have to do some serious research to find out how many regimes have been changed, and how many still have an American military ‘footprint’. Better hit the library.
| November 24, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
The list of countries bombed, invaded and aid given to their repressive leaders is pretty long, even if you just limit it to just the Americas is pretty extensive. For fucks sake my ancestor General Richard Montgomery invaded Canada and tried to take over Quebec during the American Revolution! And we tried again after 1812. Tell a random American off the street we invade our closest ally, Canada, twice and watch their head explode. And Canucks you got off light compared to Mexico and the rest of Latin America.
| November 24, 2009 @ 11:47 pm
I don’t believe that the Candian government has “not informed.” Most likely the Canadian people and the legislature were kept in the dark to prevent opposition.
| November 24, 2009 @ 11:48 pm
I can believe they were informed at some level, and there are plenty of specific cases of ‘extra-legal’ deportations (what an awsome piece of newspeak) where they were, like the Arar affair, and dozens like it. But in this specific case, I also beleive that the CIA sometimes just goes and does whatever they want. I doubt they inform the US goverment or keep any records on these black sites except on the basis of necesity. And when I say black sites, really, we’re not talking about secret bases and elaborate torture chambers. We’re talking about a small plane to a cabin in the canadian shield, with no one for a thousand miles. Its not the gulag archipeligo, just a little sideline, but still. It was in every newspaper in Canada for one day, then everyone went back to sleep.
| November 25, 2009 @ 8:56 am
What do you mean by ‘black site?’ Do you mean a secret installation? Do you mean an illegal detention center? Do you mean militia black ops training camp? Do you mean that we can’t possible know, but if it’s that hidden from public scrutiny all kinds of ugliness must be happening there? I know the government is evil, I know. I, however, need more than wild speculation about FEMA camps because if you’re going to assume the truth of something like FEMA camps just because they probably exist it damages your credibility in my eyes. How am I supposed to listen to and agree with your talking points if I know you’re the kind of person who just agrees with non-facts that support the narrative going on in your head?
| November 28, 2009 @ 11:54 am
I believe Christ P was talking about the CIA’s “extraordinary rendtion” or secret prison program, not FEMA camps. And there’s plenty of evidence to support this including from members of friendly foreign states like Canada and a limited acknowledgement by the Bush regime in Sep 2006. As far as I know the most hellish accounts are about prisons in Eastern Europe, North Africa and Asia but Western Europe and Canada have served as temporary sites to hold prisoners. Temporary sites I’ve read about include Canada, UK, Italy, Germany, Czech Republic, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Turkey, Cyprus, Bosnia, Macedonia, Greece, Morroco, and Algeria. There are prisons the US government has been using in Poland and Romania as well as Egypt – all of which have received high praise by Dubya as leaders in New Europe and the Middle East. Other places in this network include several spot in Iraq and Afghanistan including Baghram AFB. There has been reports of a place called the “Salt Pit” outside Kabul, spooks using spots in Pakistan and even the “Voice of America” station in Thailand. What a great message to send to the world. Further reports have included Al Jafr in Jordan and Abu Ghraib in Iraq. A fromer French Foreign Legion base in Djibouti as well as the US Navy base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and a number of ships in the US Fleet have been operating as mobile detention centers. There are also rumors about prisoners being held in former communist countries like Slovakia, Latvia, Bulgaria, Armenia, Georgia and Kazakhstan.
| November 28, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
Ah, Chris M. I’ve heard about the raping with glass bottles, boiling people alive and so on. In hindsight, I should’ve probably looked up the definition of black site, as it’s a popular euphemism, before commenting. However, I still feel it’s easy to be lax in argument and thus come off to others as slightly paranoid and there’s been no proven, or even suggested, sites in Canada. Wikipedia has a nice map of arrival countries, terminal countries, countries where the rendition actions have taken place and suspected black site locations. Chris P, please accept my apology.
| November 28, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
Just clarifying Squid Lord. I find your comments interesting just thought you were a bit confused. The practice of “extraordinary rendition” or being kidnapped and sent to a secret prison is a real world phenomenon with factual evidence. As oppossed to FEMA camps which appear to be a paranoid fantasy.
| November 28, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
OK, I see your concern. ‘Black site/black ops’ are a newspeak term used by the military a well as conspiracy theorists, but also human rights groups. It means they are doing illegal things where they won’t be found out, probably not acting directly on offical goverment orders for maximum deniability if they do get caught. No, there is no hard evidence, but the evidence was presented to parliment by an MP (=congress/congressman) then no one bothered to investigate the mater. I didn’t pick this off the internet, and there are plenty of similar cases. Mahar Arar is sueing the Canadian feds because they forwarded information to the US about him, secret evidence, which led him to be abducted from an airport while changing planes, taken to Syria, tortured, before he was returned to Canada and cleared of any wrong doing, so I don’t think its a great leap to think if the CIA is hiding flights to the artic tundra, maybe something is going on. But I’ll try to cite my sources from now on, since I find your comments inteligent, and want to be taken seriously.
So do you think the lizard aliens might be connected to this in some way?
| December 9, 2009 @ 1:28 am
Goblin made a comment earlier about me attack red-blooded God-fearing Americans which serves the interests of atheist green-blooded internationalists. I didn’t understand who he meant. Are they bankers or reptilian aliens?
| December 9, 2009 @ 3:21 am
Having green blood would be bad ass.
| December 9, 2009 @ 4:14 am
Thats why I support the Illuminati. They’re the only humans smart enough to secure us from the Reptilians. Earth for Earthlings!
| December 9, 2009 @ 9:45 am
I thought i would shoot back quickly, that while the libertarian thing might not make sense to you (you’re Canadian yes?), i think it is not unlike how most anarchists i meet are closet communists or even out & out communists unless they are specifically “non-leftist” anarchists.
| November 24, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
I hate to burst your bubble but most of the modern anarchist movement grew out the workers movement in Europe in the 19th century same as the socialist movement. Anarchists were Marx’s first critics and the first to sound the alarm bell about the growing tyranny in Soviet Russia. We are not closet socialists or authoritarians.
| November 24, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
It’s going to take a lot in addition to you saying so to burst this particular bubble Chris. What i’m saying is an observed fact, not a note in a history book or what someone else told me. Anarchists tend to be closet totalitarians & it’s really easy to make them play their hand. I have a whole bag of tricks to help with out with this. I’m talking about today anyhow. Or at least the last 30 years. Your icon is a red star with a circle A in it. A RED STAR. HELLO!
| November 24, 2009 @ 11:42 pm
And were did you thing the communists, socialists or marxists get those symbols from? The workers movements of the 1850’s Europe. You can easily find articles from the 1880’s about the Red Flag of Anarchy. After anarchists were expelled from the Workingmens International they adopted the black flag. The black flag was flown by anarchists during the revolutions in Mexico and Russia. In the 1930’s the red and black flag became popular with some anarchists in Spain to show there opposition to both the state and to capitalism. Show me someone who has been oppressed by anarchists.
| November 24, 2009 @ 11:58 pm
You do know Nick’s a Trotskyist right? Karl Marx, Lenin, Trotsky. Commie? You don’t give him so much grief.
| November 25, 2009 @ 12:28 am
Thanks for reading Chris. We’ll in most of the world libertarian would be considered another name for anarchist. But in the US a group of right-wingers in 70s formed the Libertarian Party. There strong on individual rights, want a smaller government (especially social programs) and in general support police (to protect property rights) and the army (to protect national interests). The very supportive of the “free market” which is rarely free or fair and suspicious abot government intervention in domestic matters often prefering a business approach. The generally in my experience been hostile to unions and working people and thing social problems will magically fix themselves or aren’t worth the government intrusion. I tend to follow Bakunin’s line that liberty without socialism is exploitation and socialism without liberty is tyranny.
| November 24, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
That’s been my impression, yet i’m stilll baffled as to how people who profess most of the same beleifs as I do end up on the other side of every issue. There is a reason why almost every anarchist I’ve ever met, and I include myself, has an almost irrational hatred for Ayn Rand. I think the break between anarchism and libertarianism begins with her. I think the word reactionary must have been coined just for her, but technically I agree with her in basic ways, except for the conclusion that capitalism is the best system to foster healthy individuals. I think that has pretty conclusively been proven wrong, although I haven’t seen any system that’s proven itself far better either. We seem to keep tripping over human nature. I do see many diverse and untried ways of life being exterminated or co-opted, and that wories me a lot.
I’d like to see a beginners guide to Anarchism, since it seems to take several main forms, and I’ve hardly met two anarchists who could agree on more than a common enemy, a place, a time, and a date. The concept of ‘direct action’, whatever that may be, seems to be enough for some people. I’m reminded of the description from Illuminatus: “they seemed to fall into four categories, the wobblies, who sounded like marxists except they wanted to get rid of all forms of goverment, the individualists, who sounded like republicans except they wanted to get rid of all forms of goverment, the pacifists, who sounded like Ghandi or Martin Luther King, except they wanted to get rid of all forms of goverment, and the lunatic fringe.” Anarcho- gets attatched to a lot of other isms. It would be a service to clear the issue up a bit.
| November 24, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
Ayn Rand tried to create something new and has many critiques of the state, but she formed a cult of personality and didn’t address the flaws of capitalism. Capitalism has been in bed with the state from early on. I believe there are two main camps amongst the capitalists the good cop (liberals) who want to curb the excess of capitalism – child labor, workplace injuries and death, extreme poverty, etc and the bad cop (conservatives) who want to turn back the clock 100-150 years and beef up the cops and the armed forces to guard against dissent at home and abroad.
| November 25, 2009 @ 12:05 am
I often wonder how much the anti-globalization anarchists realize NAFTA and the like are a huge blow to state sovereignty, when corporations can flat out overule laws that interfere with their profit. Historically the state has been the tool of the ruling class, but have we reached the point when the ruling class doesn’t need the state to control the masses, instead using the corporate form to rule directly, to deliver all services for profit, maintain hegemony, operate prisons, police, military. We are pretty close already. Not that the state is neutral by any means, but it does (half-assedly) mediate class tensions and provide some (false) cohesive identity. With the state gone, we will have open, unrestricted class war. Anarchists want this, but so do the billionaires apparenty. What would happen if the state, liberalism, and the middle class were no longer central factors? I don’t know, but it wouldn’t be pretty.
| November 25, 2009 @ 9:44 am
I’ve been thinking of writing something on Anarchism but I dread the hate mail. Dealing with anarchists can sometimes be like herding cats. Especially in the US where there’s alot of calls towards extreme individualism. I feel that I really can’t be happy and free doing my own thing while my friends and neighbors are being exploited and the state is jailing the poor & working people at home while killing them overseas. There have been attempts in recent years to form anarchist organizations like the Love & Rage Federation in the 90s. They attempted to unite American, Canadian and Mexican anarchists but ended up infighting about racism and about a group of 10-20 former Troskyists. As far as economics go I like a lot of Michael Albert’s ideas. He’s the brains behind Z Magazine and thoughts have become known as participatory economics or parecon. Parecon blends ideas from anarchism, marxism and syndicalism.
| November 25, 2009 @ 12:16 am
Ha! ‘organizing anarchists is like herding cats’. I’ve described it exactly that way before, not sure if I’d heard it before. Both sad and funny, especially when you see it in the street. I’m pretty undogmatic at this point, and recently I stopped considering myself an anarchist, though my beleifs are the same, because in my experience with them didn’t jibe with what I knew of the philosophy. The closet authoritarian comment isn’t really true, but there is also an anti-authoritarian personality type too. Yes, I would like to get rid of the state entirely, and wish people were responsible enough to live without cops. But no anarchist has a good answer as to how we’ll make that social evolutionary leap. Maybe Kropotkin, but I don’t know him well enough. And even in an anarchist reading circle I belonged to, everyone thought the police were a simple tool of class opression, but there was no one who wouldn’t call the cops if someone they knew were sexually assulted. I’m very critical of anarchism, but hopefully from within that position, because despite it’s major flaws and inconsistencies, I’d like to make it work.
| November 25, 2009 @ 9:26 am
That’s the challenge to anarchists is explaining what will happen when the state disappears. I feel that we must build alternative social instutions – new workplaces, new utilities, new hospitals, etc. If we just wage a mindless war and topple the state without building alternatives people will want to return to the old ways, create a new state or live in dysfunctional warlord society like Afghanistan or Somalia.
| November 25, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
As far as the anti-NAFTA business goes I think this argument that we need to strengthen US soveriegnty is a false argument. The question is who benefits from NAFTA? I’d say it’s an alliance between the capitalist or upper class of the three countries with the main beneficiary being American capitalists. The losers are the lower class (workers and the poor) and portions of the middle class (especially small business, family farmers and independent operators). So saying we must go back to some golden age of nation-state supremacy I think would be in error. I think we should experiment with alternative social institutions while forming real international ties among workers American, Canadian and Mexican workers saying no more to the race to the bottom. I wonder why they the upper class finds it so easy to cooperate and the lower class is forced to compete and put aside their long-term interests.
| November 25, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
I agree with both your points, I don’t think national sovernty, Keneysian economics, liberal reformism are any solutions. But as you yourself point out elsewhere, where they used to be pacifiers for the lower classes to mitigate potential radicalization, they have become obstacles to the ruling class in many ways. But yes, they may have been bulwarks against the most ruthless forms of exploitation, but they sure as shit won’t save us now, and I wouldn’t risk my neck to protect these ideas.
Your comment on how easily the ruling class cooperate reminded me of this fox news guy railing against ‘Corporate Communism’ that made me laugh. He couldn’t accept that this financial crisis was caused by capitalism in essence, and had to find another name for it. But weirdly, I think he was partly on to something. The Corporate form does seem to me like a kind of communism among the super rich, where they can collectively pool their resources where they have common interests, while making sure all resources stay within their class. The ‘competition’ in capitalism is a friendly rivalry between the rich, and class war against the disposesssed. Didn’t Mussolini call his form of fascism Corporatism?
| November 26, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
Sorry to drag this discussion out, but I find it really interesting, which is why I have to keep splitting hairs. Otherwise I’d have to keep saying “Yup, I agree,…” and where’s the fun in that?
| November 26, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
I wasn’t really concerned about US soverienty, more for us poor bastards towing the line up here in the 51st state. Still, it is a class awareness problem, not a national one.
| November 26, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
The following questions are NOT rhetorical. They’re aimed at both Nick P and Chris M, as well as anyone with a good grasp at the vaguely unanswerable questions at hand. When I refer to liberalism here I’m not talking about the majority of democrats, constitution, or the classical concept of negative liberty or real liberty. I’m asking very specifically about the scholars who arose from the Renaissance along with their brothers at-slightly-arms-length, the bourgeoisie.
This is a question I’ve struggled with for about two months now and I hope to hear a fair answer from you guys as you’ve obviously been at this game a bit longer than myself.
1)Why was Marx against liberalism?
In Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith suggests that before the invention of the printing press the terms ’scholar’ and ‘beggar’ were synonymous. He seems to be against welfare in education in libertarian fashion.
What I think this means is that in a time where feudal states fell into bankruptcy, the first trade charters and corporations rocketed the bourgeoisie ahead of the game. The divines and scholars wanted a bit of the action and founded means to become a petty, that is lesser than the bourgeoisie, class and clung to coattails.
2) Does this mean that the divine class is one embattled with both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat?
Many Americans are finding their high school and even their college educations to be next to worthless in today’s economy. My friends grew up believing in American tradition and the Darwinism of a free market. Those young kids, who I love and cherish, live with confused identities and ideologies caused by collision with invisible class difference and I can’t do anything to help them.
3) Has liberalism reached a peak of maximum potential where it’s expended all it’s flexibility and can no longer compete with classes stronger than itself?
| November 29, 2009 @ 5:39 am
I’d be happy to respond to your questions, but the reponses are my own thoughts and my understanding of Marx may not be as in depth as Nick’s. I think old Karl would probably say to classic liberalism was a step in progress and break from the old feudal relationships. It had an influence in the American and French Revolutions and to a degree in the series of revolutions that swept Europe in 1848. But the industrial revolution would expand the power & accumulation of capital and give rise to modern capitalism which would in turn sow the seeds for its successor socialism.
| November 29, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
In medieval times the main source of education and written knowledge was the Catholic Church. The Vatican Library was the largest library on Earth at that time. Monks were also known as Inkers and would hand copy books for the Church. Gallileo was punished by the Church for contradicting Papal interpretations of the way the universe operated according to the bible. There were also wealthy patrons who possessed private libraries and would hire private tutors for their children like the Medici family employing Da Vinci. The Church was involved in a number of what we would consider social services like hospitals and schools. The modern state run school movement began as far as I know in Prussia in the 1850’s before that schools existed with either Church support or that of wealthy patrons i.e. Columbia in NYC was originally King’s College. What ever teachers individual beliefs are their teachings are dictated by the state or the church and tend to reflect those values.
| November 29, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
How would Marx feel about secular humanism?
| November 29, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
Don’t know. Old Karl was long dead when secular humanism came on the scene. I suspect he might find a number of elements interesting a reworking of ethics, a definable truth and an acceptance of scientific method. But Marx was highly critical of religion and philosophy and would say the point is not to come up with a new theory of how the world works, but rather to change the way the world works.
| November 29, 2009 @ 11:30 pm
The divine class? Is that the clergy? Priests tend to be middle class and often active in the community and have if not influence at least access to the ruling class. In my view most orthodox religions tend to serve the interests of the rulers and the upper class. Remember render unto Caesar what is Caser’s. And they down play class and encourage people to forsake earthly rewards and settle for pie in the sky. The lower class will be blessed in the afterlife, the middle class can be guilted into charity and the upper class continues regardless. Are there any libertarian ideas in religion sure. There’s mysticism that can be dangerous to the established order – Gnostics in Christianity, Kabbalah in Judaism and Sufi in Islam. There has been mixed political and religious movements in Christianity like Social Gospel in Protestants, Liberation Theology in Catholics and Tolstoyan Disobedience in Orthodox. The problem I find in most religions is that lack of concern about immediate or earthly concerns or even long term fundamental change because it’s all about the next world so it’s a moot point.
| November 29, 2009 @ 11:02 pm
Divine class was something I made up on the fly to describe the inspiration that the Anglican divines had on the liberalism and the likes of John Locke. Divinity School was an important scholastic curriculum that, if I’m not misreading Patriarcha (he called it the Geneva discipline after the capital of diplomacy), had an influence on challenging the right of a primate (say a monarch) to rule as handed down by God. The Anglicans also proposed the ability of peasants to punish their lords for wrong doing when it was assumed that those in power where immune to guilt. In the Communist Manifesto, the word liberal is only used once and as a synonym for the bourgeoisie. I feel, however, that the Invisible Hand ethos separated the bourgeoisie from the liberals. Also, there’s some talk from Nick P about liberals and their antagonism of the working class. Today the divine class might be described, again this is original research from me, as those chaps who think they can earn a living with an education in the humanities. I have a hard time understanding this because I grew up believing myself a guilty liberal and I’m trying to reconcile that sense of justice with an interest in communism. Also, my friends, usually a lot of atheists, liberals and other ne’er do wells, seem more shell shocked than I am. They volunteer their time giving charity, they see the poor abusing the system and laughing at the people who want to help, they have some vague loyalty to free markets and American tradition, they know they’re fucked but at the same time when I talk about socialism they look at me like I’m crazy. I don’t understand how they can still believe in a system of greed that obviously isn’t getting them anywhere. It’s almost as if there’s a caste system in America and most people can’t see it because they’re blinded by the promise of opportunity by rags-to-riches stories and a sense that if they can’t make it then it’s somehow their fault.
And Nick, thanks for taking the time to give a useful perspective.
| November 30, 2009 @ 1:09 am
Important edit: The thanks was meant for Chris M. woops, sorry.
| November 30, 2009 @ 1:18 am
Well my opinion is my own. Religion can be a distraction and divisive but there are sometimes elements for change and liberation. In Milwaukee the Catholic Church was supportive of civil rights in the 50s & 60s in a city that had a mixed record at best on race relations. In the 70’s and 80’s Catholics were active in opposing a number of dictatorships in Latin America leading to a score of dead priests and nuns but this was often in defiance of the state and the church hierarchy. Rabbis were often supportive of the Jewish labor movement in the US. People don’t seem to get that Islam is growing because it speaks to the poor and the mosque is one of the few places people can crticisize the state. In a number of Muslim countries there often limited to no democracy and opposition groups are regularly jailed or exiled. Not saying I agree with any of there solutions but this is happening.
| November 30, 2009 @ 8:29 am
The working class and the poor aren’t angels as some people want to make poverty a mark of saintliness. I just thing they are the best hope for change because history has shown the lower class has been an engine for change. And people forget that the most desperate among us, those living off charity or government assistance, are just trying to survive. You have more options when your single, but if you have a family and your poor you have to sometimes game the system to eek out enough just to get by. It’s a survival method.
| November 30, 2009 @ 8:38 am
Has liberalism meet its maximum potential? In the case of classic economic liberalism that has been dead since the 1930’s. As far as political liberalism i.e. Western-style representative democracy that has had a number of criticisms. In the US 535 people decide what happens to 300 million. The presidents change but their mission has been pretty consistent since 1945 to maintain and expand American dominance in the world. The supreme court which interprets the law is an embarassment too. 9 unelected people appointed for life (they must die or resign) interpret the meaning of the law and suprise they don’t often side with the lower class. There are numerous shortcoming of this system but these are the most atrocious in my view.
| November 29, 2009 @ 11:14 pm
Education used to help insure stability especially for the middle class. During world war two you could get by without an education because of the lack of manpower. After WW2 you need at least a high school diploma. In the 70’s with increased competition from Germany and Japan you needed a two year degree or an apprenticeship. In the 90’s we were told you need at least a bachelor degree (4 years). Now many people with an education are trying to go back and get a masters degree (1-2 additional years). But it doesn’t matter what your education if you are critical of your employer – a hospital, university, corporation, government, military – you can be ousted and lose your cushy position.
| November 29, 2009 @ 11:23 pm