tagged w/ Authoritarianism
-
This week a dinner lady at a village primary school was sacked for telling a child's parents that she was sorry their daughter had been attacked in the playground at school. Carol Hill had found seven-year-old Chloe David tied up by her wrists and ankles, surrounded by four boys, having been whipped with a skipping rope across her legs. Hill had rescued the child and taken the boys to the headteacher.
That night she bumped into the parents, who were friends of hers, and offered her sympathy. It instantly became clear that the parents had not been told the story by the school. Their daughter had arrived home traumatised and refusing to talk about what happened, with a note saying only that she had been "hurt in a skipping-rope incident". As soon as the school discovered that Hill had told the parents the truth, she was first suspended for several months, and then sacked by the governors for "breaching pupil confidentiality".
This is a new world, in which schools may effectively lie to parents about traumatic events affecting their children, and yet where the only offence committed is by a person who unwittingly breaks that official secrecy. It is no longer the proper role of adults, even those in a tiny village, where everyone knows everyone else, to discuss the behaviour of children. It is for the state to define who may speak and who must be silent.This week a dinner lady at a village primary school was sacked for telling a... more
-
-
mik661
-
added this
-
6 months ago
- |
-
Due to the gross misrepresentation of anarchism in the media and film, and psuedo-intellectuals' need to believe these things (i.e anarchy is chaos!) I felt compelled to post this. Enjoy. Full FAQ at link.
______
A.1 What is anarchism?
Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." [P-J Proudhon, What is Property , p. 264] In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.
In the words of anarchist L. Susan Brown:
"While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation." [The Politics of Individualism, p. 106]
However, "anarchism" and "anarchy" are undoubtedly the most misrepresented ideas in political theory. Generally, the words are used to mean "chaos" or "without order," and so, by implication, anarchists desire social chaos and a return to the "laws of the jungle."
This process of misrepresentation is not without historical parallel. For example, in countries which have considered government by one person (monarchy) necessary, the words "republic" or "democracy" have been used precisely like "anarchy," to imply disorder and confusion. Those with a vested interest in preserving the status quo will obviously wish to imply that opposition to the current system cannot work in practice, and that a new form of society will only lead to chaos. Or, as Errico Malatesta expresses it:
"since it was thought that government was necessary and that without government there could only be disorder and confusion, it was natural and logical that anarchy, which means absence of government, should sound like absence of order." [Anarchy, p. 16]
Anarchists want to change this "common-sense" idea of "anarchy," so people will see that government and other hierarchical social relationships are both harmful and unnecessary:
"Change opinion, convince the public that government is not only unnecessary, but extremely harmful, and then the word anarchy, just because it means absence of government, will come to mean for everybody: natural order, unity of human needs and the interests of all, complete freedom within complete solidarity." [Op. Cit., pp. 16]
This FAQ is part of the process of changing the commonly-held ideas regarding anarchism and the meaning of anarchy. But that is not all. As well as combating the distortions produced by the "common-sense" idea of "anarchy", we also have to combat the distortions that anarchism and anarchists have been subjected to over the years by our political and social enemies. For, as Bartolomeo Vanzetti put it, anarchists are "the radical of the radical -- the black cats, the terrors of many, of all the bigots, exploiters, charlatans, fakers and oppressors. Consequently we are also the more slandered, misrepresented, misunderstood and persecuted of all." [Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274]
Vanzetti knew what he was talking about. He and his comrade Nicola Sacco were framed by the US state for a crime they did not commit and were, effectively, electrocuted for being foreign anarchists in 1927. So this FAQ will have to spend some time correcting the slanders and distortions that anarchists have been subjected to by the capitalist media, politicians, ideologues and bosses (not to mention the distortions by our erstwhile fellow radicals like liberals and Marxists)... full faq at linkDue to the gross misrepresentation of anarchism in the media and film, and... more
-
-
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? How about if our troops kill a million innocent Iraqis and none of it is reported (no pictures, no video). Did it happen? What about if five billion people around the world decide to stop using banks and the present day financial infrastructure has to rely on corporate social welfare to survive, but they eventually fade away anyway. Did they ever really exist? I mean, the money we all have is our money. Even if it's in a bank, it's our money. Take the bank away and it's still our money. Banks are a mere illusion that charge fees for a show.
Suppose they gave a war and no one showed up? Suppose a lot of filmmakers (tired of playing Hollywood games) went out and made their own films, self-distributed them and banded together to help each other in what eventually became an alternate movie industry of and by real filmmakers instead of executive fat cats who do nothing but collect dust, money, and hookers. Suppose said fat cats disappeared from the movie scene altogether. Were they ever really there to begin with? I mean the filmmakers still make their movies with or without them.
What if people stopped using insurance companies altogether and got the government to be there for them in case of medical emergencies and accidents, just like the police and firefighters, and then no one would have to dole out 30% to insurance company administrators? Would those administrators have ever really existed?
If you were one of the million plus Iraqis who was killed, and who saw your family, friends, neighborhood, and country annihilated before your eyes, I think that would qualify as your rapture. By the same token, if you're a conservative authoritarian who lives by the rule of law and order and follows whatever the current law and order of the day has been determined to be by whoever is in charge, but then things suddenly turned on you and suddenly there was no law and order as you once knew it, there was no democracy or free market capitalism, and there was absolutely nothing you could do about it (What can you do? Drop a nuke on Wall Street?) - if all of that were the reality (which it is by the way) would that be your rapture?
The end is here.
[Keep posted on our projects and videos: Sign up at http://outinthestreet.ning.com.]If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? How... more
-
-
Despite Obama's Occidental, Columbia and Harvard pedigree, on economics he is totally devoted to and blinded by the Marxist propaganda he learned at those schools. Why? Because he studied at quintessential liberal academies where the lectures by his professors were less invitations to submit worthy opinions to the arena of ideas and more of an indoctrination factory.Despite Obama's Occidental, Columbia and Harvard pedigree, on economics he is... more
-
-
Today, however, South Africa may be the grim model of the future Western world, for events in America reveal trends chillingly similar to those that destroyed our country.Today, however, South Africa may be the grim model of the future Western world, for... more
-
-
We mourn the loss of Freedom, Democracy, and America's position in the world as it's leader. In place of all these, America has chosen SOCIALISM the "Destroyer of Nations". We mourn the loss of Freedom, Democracy, and America's position in the world as... more
-
-
By Wednesday morning it is quite possible that the United States turn dramatically towards socialism in the conduct of its economy, its politics, and its culture. If Barack Obama is elected President a collectivist, failed system will be expanded. I anticipate a very ugly struggle to regain the gift of the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us.By Wednesday morning it is quite possible that the United States turn dramatically... more
-
-
Americans will have not seen such arbitrary power used against them since the days of the Civil War when Lincoln put the Constitution in the bottom drawer of his desk and set about arresting anyone who opposed his policies to enforce the Union on southern States seeking secession. The moral issue was slavery. The Constitutional issue was states rights.Americans will have not seen such arbitrary power used against them since the days of... more
-
-
As the nation focuses on Sen. John McCain's choice of running mate, President Bush has quietly moved to expand the reach of presidential power by ensuring that America remains in a state of permanent war.
Buried in a recent proposal by the Administration is a sentence that has received scant attention -- and was buried itself in the very newspaper that exposed it Saturday. It is an affirmation that the United States remains at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban and "associated organizations."
Part of a proposal for Guantanamo Bay legal detainees, the provision before Congress seeks to “acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans.”
The New York Times page 8 placement of the article in its Saturday edition seems to downplay its importance. Such a re-affirmation of war carries broad legal implications that could imperil Americans' civil liberties and the rights of foreign nationals for decades to come. As the nation focuses on Sen. John McCain's choice of running mate, President... more
-
-
What do they have in common?
if you take away a either of these men’s followers they’d just be two crazy maniacs screaming on the street. That is how they are no different from each other and not different from all of us. There are no Christs or AntiChrists, only followers. We all must choose which message we follow.
One had a message of hate.
One had a message of love.
It’s up to each of us to find every opportunity to choose love, and not just at the voting booth.
Do you honestly believe you’d have an easier time convincing Bush or his enablers to see the error of their ways than than those who were misled into voting for them? Do you doubt that every single Amercian who voted for and vigorously supported this man and his agenda was misled on some fundamental level by a figure of trusted authority: a priest, a parent, a friend, an ideology?
If you do, me thinkest you drinkest too much Koolaid.
The easiest way to take away a leader’s power is to empower their followers to be critical and think for themselves.
Be the change you want to see.
No further explanation for the evils of the world is necessary, but apparently the machine thinks differently. That said, allow me to explain. Obama and Bush are two sides of the same coin. This does not mean there isn’t a difference, it means that we must as a species recognize the power that we all possess. We live in a world of choice, whether we realize it or not. Every action will be taken deliberately, whether we are conscious of it or not. All of us arrived at their destinations by your own actions. The job of any concerned citizen is to raise awareness, to enlighten, not to scold or punish. This requires self-determination, and a profound ability to see that ALL of us are capable of both good and evil. Obama is as worthy of praise as Bush is worthy of forgiveness. Poverty for one is poverty for all. If we accept can Bush is merely a misguided, flawed and manipulated being that is no different from the rest of us, then we can truly begin to treat the wounds that are threatening our very existence as a species. Good night and good morning
This diary is an endorsement of no candidate.
It is an endorsement of our innate ability to question authority and demand control over our own lives.
No matter which institution you consider to be an intolerable nuisance upon your lives: religion, the press, your parents, corporations, your boss, popular culture, your best friend. What we all share is a strong desire to guide our own destinies. Some of us have been oppressed by government, some of us by the free market. None of us is wrong for being suspect of either.
We are all individuals. We all laugh at different things. We all cry at different things. No one has an exclusive authority on anything. We all have a say as to what’s funny, what’s sad, what’s outrageous, and what’s impeachable.
We all have to learn that when others disagree with us, especially when they do so openly, that it is merely an invitation to question our own assumptions and either defend or reject them. If you defend a failed assumption for too long, you will soon find yourself quite isolated.
Always demand that the world bend to your own will. If all of us demand freedom in our own lives, none of us shall be spared it in the world.
The dominant social consensus of our times insists that excessive self-interest is inherent in our nature and it must be restrained. I agree completely with this position. My primary complaint is that this restraint is applied with gross inequality when one compares the punitive measures taken against those in power with those who are not.
We should all be free to criticize any authority. Your voice is as important as your bosses’.
That is our shared cause and we can achieve it.
You bet your ass WE CAN.What do they have in common?
if you take away a either of these men’s... more
-
-
beedee
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
I think the danger of corporate structures is that too many of them shut out criticism from the people who do the actual work, many are organized as a series of mini-dictatorships. As an interactive designer/programmer in the advertising industry, I’ve been mostly tertiary to this decision making process, but I have on occasion seen how the authoritarian nature of corporate hierarchies can be harmful on a number of levels.
First and foremost, I’m quite simply someone who hates to do something that I find to be illogical or pointless, or the worst reason of all “because I say so”. Over the years, though, I’ve conditioned myself to know what battles to fight in order to maintain a career and “go along to get along”, but my battles usually consisted of merely having to “make the logo bigger”, change this button from blue to red, etc–nothing I’ve ever “gone to the mat” over.
But now that I’ve been on my own freelancing for the past year, this self-conditioning process looks more and more like collective insanity to me.
For instance, a old college friend of mine is now a data-analyst for a major pharmaceutical company. On many occasions he has casually explained how his job is essentially to participate in a highly sophisticated system of targeted payola aimed at getting doctors to prescribe his company’s drug. Never once does it occur to him that his drug may be less effective than his competitors and that it is (in my opinion, at least) fairly amoral for such an aggressive system of coercion of professional medical opinions to be implemented at all. Unfortunately, it’s all about his “team”, not the positive or negative effects of his job upon society.
Of course, I’ve been acutely aware of my personal relationship to authority figures and a keen observer others' ever since reading Bob Altemeyer’s long-term psychological study of authoritarian tendencies, The Authoritarians (link to a free pdf copy of the book in the comments). In a super-small nutshell, we all must struggle against our desire to grant certain authorities unquestionable fealty. Authority can be defined as just about anything, a parent, an idea, a religious leader, hell a can of soup. It’s been one of the most enlightening reads I’ve had in my ongoing struggle to understand our ongoing struggles, and everyone I’ve recommended to has tended to agree that the book changed the way they see their enemies and allegiances. Ironically, the book has become my authority on the value of questioning authority, especially of my own in-group and finding the most effective means of communicating with "outsiders".
So while I do agree with the fundamental critiques of the film “The Corporation”, I would not necessarily personify them as BEING insane, but rather they condition people to working against their own interest, often without ever realizing it. This is largely accomplished by the mere fact that most large corporations prevent honest and pointed criticism at the bottom from rising to the failing leadership at the top (something that most people would call democracy).
They seem to forget that unions exist merely to get the bosses to sit at a table listen. It's only their fevered egos that require us to amass such great numbers just to attain their presence, but usually not their respect. I don't know why this is, other than some people just didn't have the experiences necessary to understand the value of and invite criticism. When someone says you suck, just see it as an opportunity to either improve, or justify your actions when questioned. Don't just tell them to shut up.
Perhaps a good regulation would simply be for every employee to be required by law to read independent analysis of their corporation's behavior. I do believe that we can all only be expected rise to the level of our awareness. Unfortunately, many corporations take an active roll in propagandizing from within and to without.I think the danger of corporate structures is that too many of them shut out criticism... more
-
-
beedee
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
This is a personal question from me to the rest of the Current community. I'm hoping that you'll pay it forward.
Knowing what you know regarding the conduct of the men in charge of our government right now, is just a little part of you afraid to speak out publicly?
Do you hesitate from bringing it up when given an opportunity?
Is there at least a little part of you that is mortally afraid of what your government is capable of doing right now?
I am.
If you are, vote yes.
And share your fears. Because the only way these bastards win is through our silence.
Stay vocal. Stay vigilant.This is a personal question from me to the rest of the Current community. I'm... more
-
-
beedee
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
In a minimally rational world, this extraordinary passage, from the new book by Scott McClellan, would forever slay the single most ludicrous myth in our political culture: The "Liberal Media":
------------------------------------------------
"If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq.
The collapse of the administration's rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. . . . In this case, the "liberal media" didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served."
------------------------------------------------
Just consider how remarkable that is. George Bush's own Press Secretary criticizes the American media for being "too deferential" to the Government. He lays the blame for Bush's ability to propagandize the nation on the media's uncritical dissemination of the Republican administration's falsehoods. And most notably of all, McClellan actually uses cynical scare quotes when invoking the phrase which, in conventional political discourse, is deemed the most unassailable truth of all: The Liberal Media.In a minimally rational world, this extraordinary passage, from the new book by Scott... more
-
-
beedee
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
From the interview:
"I think this will make Watergate look like child's play when it is fully investigated, not so much this case because certainly it's not about me. It's about restoring justice and protecting our democracy and, because this case shows the lengths to which those who are obsessed with power will go in order to gain power or retain power, it has attracted the attention of the national press."
Someone needs to explain to me how the story of Don Siegelman isn't a canary in the coal mine as far as the very existence of our democracy is concerned. I hope everybody who reads this story familiarizes themselves with the work of Naomi Wolf regarding the closing down of a free society, to be sure I'll post some links and videos below. As someone who's tirelessly researched the steps political groups take when approaching authoritarian control, I'm sure this story has Ms. Wolf's attention.
From the interview:
"I think this will make Watergate look like child's... more
-
-
beedee
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
