Anonymous

From childish beginnings the collective known as Anonymous seems to be maturing into a politicised group. The following message was recently posted on Anonymous's news page. In calling for action they seek to bring a new era forged from debate, equality and plurality. This message is not new but what is interesting is the technological prowess that Anonymous possesses. If anyone can challenge the status quo in causing damage to those with power then it is probably them. If you don't know who they are please check out their Wikipedia page for a brief history.

Open Letter To The World

We stand at a unique time in our history, the rise of the internet and computer technology have contributed to an unparalleled rate of prosperity for the First World.

We have created for ourselves and empire unlike any other, a global network of constant trade and communication, a new age of technological advancement. We have come a long way from our humble roots in the Industrial Revolution and the days of Manifest Destiny. We are now pioneers on new digital frontiers expanding our domain from the quantum world to the far reaches of space.

And yet, the empire faces a crisis, a global recession, growing poverty, rampant violence, corruption in politics, and threats to personal freedom. As it was before in other times of crisis, the old stories have begun to repeat themselves. The half truths, this time repeated nightly on cable news and echoed through a series of tubes onto the internet: the empire is strong, change is unwise, business as usual is the answer. In times of uncertainty there are those who seek to add to the confusion, to prey on our insecurities and fears. Those who would seek to keep us divided for their own gain. The pervasive strategy takes many very convincing forms: Liberals and Conservatives, Christians and Muslims, Black and White, Saved and sinner.

But something unexpected is happening. We have begun telling each other our own stories. Sharing our lives, our hopes, our dreams, our demons. Every second, day in day out, into all hours of the night the gritty details of life on this earth are streaming around the world. As we see the lives of others played out in our living rooms we are beginning to understand the consequences of our actions and the error of the old ways. We are questioning the old assumptions that we are made to consume not to create, that the world was made for our taking, that wars are inevitable, that poverty is unavoidable. As we learn more about our global community a fundamental truth has been rediscovered: We are not so different as we may seem. Every human has strengths, weaknesses, and deep emotions. We crave love, love laughter, fear being alone and dream for a better life.

You must create a better life.

You cannot sit on the couch watching television or playing video games, waiting for a revolution. You are the revolution. Every time you decide not to exercise your rights, every time you refuse to hear another view point, every time you ignore the world around you, every time you spend a dollar at a business that doesn't pay a fair wage you are contributing to the oppression of the human body and the repression of the human mind. You have a choice, a choice to take the easy path, the familiar path, to walk willingly into your own submission. Or a choice get up, to go outside and talk to your neighbor, to come together in new forums to create lasting, meaningful change for the human race.

This is our challenge:

A peaceful revolution, a revolution of ideas, a revolution of creation. The twenty-first century enlightenment. A global movement to create a new age of tolerance and understanding, empathy and respect. An age of unfettered technological development. An age of sharing ideas and cooperation. An age of artistic and personal expression. We can choose to use new technology for radical positive change or let it be used against us. We can choose to keep the internet free, keep channels of communication open and dig new tunnels into those places where information is still guarded. Or we can let it all close in around us. As we move in to new digital worlds, we must acknowledge the need for honest information and free expression. We must fight to keep the internet open as a marketplace of ideas where all are seated as equals. We must defend our freedoms from those who would seek to control us. We must fight for those who do not yet have a voice. Keep telling your story. All must be heard.

Marxism 2010: A Virgin’s Tale

Am I a Marxist? This is a question I have asked a number of times when trying to place myself within the political spectrum. I have just spent the weekend attending the SWP’s Marxism festival trying to answer this question. The answer I arrived at is resolutely no, well not the Marxism defined under the narrow constraints of the SWP anyway.

Unlike Dan and Tom I was a virgin to the event. I have a general distaste for far leftist meetings due to many past experiences which involved a large amount of hippy idealism and limited dogmatic thought. I was certain that I would hear phrases like “can’t we just all get along” and “when will everyone learn that we don’t need governments anymore”.

The first meeting I attended did nothing to allay these preconceptions. I was late due to a delayed train but helpfully Dan and Tom had sat at the front of the room in the middle of a row which meant I disrupted the speaker by pushing past people and apologising loudly. This entertained Dan and Tom greatly and for them was the highlight of the talk. The speaker mumbled at the floor and then a precession of people crowed about how clever they were.

This was a trend which ran through the whole event. Each meeting consisted of 30 minutes of a lecture and then 45 minutes of people speaking from the audience. This resulted in far too many occasions of people standing up and ranting with the sole aim of impressing everyone about how committed and intelligent they were. If your point was the inevitability of a workers revolution led by a vanguard, you would be well supported by the speaker, if not you were either ignored or told the above was true. Sometimes you would get the bizarre situation when the lecture topic or debate seemed to disagree or be unconcerned with the idea of a Leninist workers style revolution but would end with the speaker stating that it was the natural result of what had been discussed. This confused me as I wondered why you would devote a considerable amount of time to a discussion and then ignore it.

It became clear to me that much of the organisers and attendees were living in the past. The majority of topics on display were based on historical overviews and analyses of theories over a hundred years old rather than on anything progressive or new. Only one of the lectures I attended employed any technology above a microphone. Whilst I would be the first to admit that an analysis of history helps understand the future, this subject has been debated in this way for the past 100 years.

At one point I overheard a conversation between a man and woman that completely summed up all those present. At first the middle aged man complained that he had just missed a meeting with a friend due to being delayed. When asked why he didn’t call his friend to notify him he stated “I don’t believe in mobile phones”. I resisted the urge to show him my own phone as evidence that they existed. His female friend then produced a letter from BT which she said had a code on it that could be used in a phone box to get 90p’s worth of call time. This letter was a response to a complaint the woman had made after losing that value in a phone box once. He then tried to give her 90p which she refused. After hearing this exchange I worried for a while that I had somehow been transported back to the 1950s.

However, not everyone was caught in the past. We soon realised that picking meetings needed skill. If you weren’t careful you would end up with an SWP activist giving you the usual spiel. Occasionally though you would find either a multi-speaker debate or an outside expert. One such expert was Dr John Parrington (a Molecular Pharmacologist) whose lecture on evolution and genetics inspired a really interesting debate over the ethics of gene screening. His contention that a Marxist model of society was the best method of dealing with these ethical issues was compelling. Similarly a fair overview of psychoanalysis and its arguably necessary relationship with Marxist theory given by Sabby Sagall gave rise to one of the most intelligent debates I have ever witnessed in person. I was astonished with the breadth of knowledge, ideas and articulate discussion that followed (although I suspect half of those who spoke of being academics).

I would characterise the whole event as a well organised wasted opportunity to engage with new ideas and a wider audience. When those new areas of thought were explored an unparalleled opportunity for leftist debate arose.