Police nurture a unwise form of direct democracy

27 comments on “Police nurture a unwise form of direct democracy ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Carol 1

   7 January 2009 at 10:40 am

   “nuture”? – easy slip to make ie in your headline.

   [lprent: Yep, it doesn’t spell check that. Fixed (I think)]
2. redrave 2

   7 January 2009 at 11:36 am

   Typical supercilious putdown of youth by the voice of finance capital.
   Aimless youth spontaneously rioting with no program for a better society.
   Tut tut. Have another gin and tonic dear. .. Oops is that a molotov cocktail dear?

   Coming from the mouthpiece of the ruling class that has demonstrated its total bankruptcy in creating a better society, from Athens to Gaza, why should we pay it any heed?

   Well because its a typical trivialising of the real issues which these radical youth are fighting; the system, the rich and the authority of the state which the rich use to pacify social unrest.

   The Economist tries to reduce their actions to individual anarchy, the psychology of hothead youth, but made more effective by modern communications. And what’s more insult youthful intelligence to suggest its only bad policing that gets them angry.

   Well, not so. It’s the old bogey of anarchy rising up that they fear. The youth trashed their malls, supermarkets, and luxury hotels. The flash cars are a favorite target. Its only a step from their to their prized mansions and clubs. That’s already a better social program than that offered by the class the Economist speaks for -the dole, jail, being shot or bombed.

   Then there’s the attack on authority. The youth trashed police stations, the symbol of the authority used by the rich to suppress dissent. That’s a sound program for social advance. Though its hardly a program to replace the police with another form of authority to express the will of the people, its a step in the right direction. That’s why the youth occupied the schools and universities so they could organise, educate and plan the next moves. Planning? horrors darling.

   Then there’s the call for Caramanlis to resign. Well that’s quite a social program. Fancy youth realising that the government is corrupt and oppressive imposing social austerity to bail out the banks and big corporates onto the backs of the youth unemployed. Fancy hotheaded youth being able to recognise the role of the bosses’ government for what it is. Some of them were even ahead of the opposition attempt to sideline them into new elections for a supposedly left Labour Party type government. So they occupied the Trade Union headquarters and demanded a general strike.

   Now that would really impress the Economist. A text message general strike. Wow! They can already imagine their system, its profits, its oppression, its wars, disappearing like the trillions that have already gone ‘poof’.

   What was it that someone said about the future belongs to our children?
3. Bill 3

   7 January 2009 at 11:46 am

   So the economist follows the same old line that the unrest in Greece is a ‘riot’ with no accompanying demands or statements of desire…no underlying analysis/understanding on the part of the participants. That’s a crock. However.

   On acting individually (which is what you seem to propose) rather than acting as an individual is an interesting topic…one I’ve commented on previously in other standard posts. Organisation is a necessity….organisations that allow the individual to act and retain their autonomy work and work rather well.

   Many people, many voices. High degree of organisation but no centralisation. No ‘party lines’. An ever increasing constituency that happily accommodates all levels of resistance/protest….from the letter writer to the editor to the revolutionary. It’s been done here (post 11/09 invasion of Afghanistan) and will doubtless happen again.

   The problem is the old habit of people seeking to invest leadership in others. I was pleasantly surprised that this habit afflicted the middle class liberals far less than it did the tired old Trots and Leninists. However, while the liberals were comfortable to work and organise with no centralised command and control structure, they couldn’t identify the danger signs when elements of the left attempted to impose such a centralise structure.

   While those elements were successful in stamping their mark/ their authority, the result was the constituency that had been building and spreading dissipated when confronted by the reality of a party line….a many people, one voice scenario.

   It’s possible to organise in ways that confound the police. It was done. Next time around I’d like to think the people who were hoodwinked by the authoritarians will be a bit wiser and able to preserve the integrity of their organisational structures.

   We’ll see.
4. Quoth the Raven 4

   7 January 2009 at 12:31 pm

   Many of the rioter in Athens know exactly what they want. They are anarchists. You don’t fly a red and black flag without knowing what it’s all about – an end to capitalsim and all illegitimate authority, ie complete emancipation of humanity.
5. Greedy Pig 5

   7 January 2009 at 1:23 pm

   “What triggered the events is not that interesting – anything could have. What was startling is the speed that *people* could get out on the streets to show their displeasure and being in the same places – that is new..[blah blah… anti authoritarianism… again]

   Some people… the loose headed.

   [lprent: Talking about yourself in the third person? Bad habit that, makes people think that you’re an egotist]
6. Greedy Pig 6

   7 January 2009 at 3:08 pm

   Maybe every municipality should have an approved rioting place. After the rioting the rioters could rebuild it*.

   *if works not against the culture of the rioter.
7. Ag 7

   7 January 2009 at 4:35 pm

   I don’t know why the Economist should act all surprised. I guess more people are realizing that the Emperor has no clothes.
8. Rex Widerstrom 8

   7 January 2009 at 5:02 pm

   Using the net in a way invisible to the police assumes a reasonable degree of knowledge about encryption, using proxies and the like. I’m sure this information is disseminated amongst activists but whether it’s done quickly enough and whether it’s secure enough to exclude police infiltration, I wonder?

   The police regularly claim to have infiltrated “highly sophisticated online pedophile networks using high-tech methods to hide their activities”, implying they have the technology to penetrate even highly secure networks. Assuming that’s true (and I don’t, necessarily, given that data is very easy to plant on someone’s computer – just ask any 12 year old L337 |-|4><0r3r) then I doubt activists have the level of personal security you seem to imply – but you’d be a far better judge than I of such things, I guess.

   Having been the subject of more than 20 years of unwanted police attention I carefully considered the issue of anonymity net-wise, considering I figured that much of what I would write would be critical of the police and the whole “justice” system.

   In the end I concluded it’s better to be out in the open. At least that way if I’m dragged off in the night on yet another trumped-up charge (that’d make seven) someone might make the connection between my perfectly legal opinions and activities and their unpalatableness to certain power structures, and the continuing list of ever-more-bizarre “crimes” with which I’m charged.

   The problem with remaining underground is that, when you’re dragged off for interfering with livestock, it’s a bit late to creditably claim it’s really because you’re a pain in the establishment’s arse. Even though it’s true, the police can say “Well he would say that, wouldn’t he?” and the unknowing public will nod and move on, nothing to see here…
9. lprent 9

   7 January 2009 at 7:19 pm

   Rex: It’d be easy for the police to penetrate any particular persons systems, especially if armed with a search warrant. It is a lot harder when you multiply that by a larger number of people. Say at a low level, just  a hundred for NZ.

   However they’d be faced with the same type of issue that I have keeping some people off this site. Multiple ISP access accounts, internet cafes, dynamic IP’s and no requirement for logins (or multiple logins). Not to mention siblings, parents, freinds, and work accounts.

   You have no idea who people are some of the time – for instance d4j has used at least 6 dynamically allocated IP ranges. The only reason you know it is him is because of his style.

   Who needs encryption? The problem for any security systems in the days of the net and the amount of traffic running around is pretty damn high.
10. Greedy Pig 10

    7 January 2009 at 9:16 pm

    Can we have an opt out of rioting arrangement if we don’t want our property damaged?
11. Rex Widerstrom 11

    7 January 2009 at 10:24 pm

    lprent:

    I’d have thought so. But they seem to have no trouble rounding up these international child porn rings. I imagine they troll chat rooms till they find someone who’s not following the group’s security protocols (in terms of being indiscreet, I mean… we both know the weakest link in any network’s security is, to quote the old saw, the nut behind the keyboard).

    Once they’ve got an in I guess they start distributing material which can be traced (are trojans) and send the patsy something which logs all his connections.

    The alternative is that they’re telling fibs, which could quite easily also be the case.

    They seem to like solving cyber crime… presumably because it’s “sexy” at present and they can do it at their desk while eating donuts and surfing porn.

    captcha: ex-Editor 😯 Is it trying to tell me they’re on to me already?!
12. jbc 12

    8 January 2009 at 3:51 am

    lprent: a very interesting point you make. I find it easy to agree with the sentiment and motivation for these organised protests but [as much as I’d feel anger towards authority] I can’t help feel that the methods used in these protests (torching cars, destroying things) is not the best way to act. Collateral damage does not win sympathy. On top of that the police are probably energised by riots rather than put off by them. Putting out fire with gasoline?

    A co-worker of mine once remarked (more than a decade ago) that the Internet was the “world’s largest stupidity amplifier”. That remark comes to mind with this Economist article.

    Now, what your niece [correct if wrong] Rochelle did over the police spying was far, far more intelligent. That’s the type of action that earns respect. A series of intelligent, carefully designed acts that hit your target can be much more effective than torching random cars and letting anger run wild.

    Consider an unwarranted parking fine. You get angry. Do you:

    A. Follow the warden home and torch their house and car.

    B. Follow the warden, note their licence plate, copy it, ensure they get sent many tickets for parking and other traffic offenses. 😉

    ?
13. Ag 13

    8 January 2009 at 3:59 am

    Can we have an opt out of rioting arrangement if we don’t want our property damaged?

    No. One of the great pleasures of rioting is annoying people like you.
14. lprent 14

    8 January 2009 at 8:24 am

    jbc: That is why Rochelle did that way. However the police in that case had given her a gift.

    Almost all activists including the moderates (like me) are now using this to have a bloody good go at the police. It is a good way to work some of the frustration out of the system. It is also a good opportunity to get the police to review their actions and policies over recent years.

    For example (using Rochelle as the example). You have to remember that this is after the police have pulled Rochelle up on close to 10 charges, that they either dropped when it came to trial, lost or lost on appeal on all but two of those charges.

    One was deliberate and she pleaded guilty in youth court. She chained herself to the front of a store. Her mother and I helped ramp up the sentence because it was only fire exit.

    They’d have lost the other one as well. Rochelle was working in Tauranga and the court was in Auckland. The police managed to move the court dates about 2 or 3 times without informing her (she was representing herself). So she organized to be in Auckland with witnesses to be informed that date had changed. Eventually she lost because she was out of holiday time and couldn’t organize witnesses or an appeal.

    This is not uncommon, any activist will tell you that this is the norm – to protest mens that you get charged on all sorts of crap that usually doesn’t stand up in court.

    Abusing the legal system and their position in it like that doesn’t exactly endear the police to any activist, moderate or otherwise. But in all of those cases what the police did was ‘legal’ and there is bugger all that could be done about it.

    It was also bloody stupid in terms of wanting any activist to trust them or to cut them any slack. That is what they are reaping now and for the next year or so.
15. Russell Brown 15

    8 January 2009 at 9:13 am

    Many of the rioter in Athens know exactly what they want. They are anarchists. You don’t fly a red and black flag without knowing what it’s all about – an end to capitalsim and all illegitimate authority, ie complete emancipation of humanity.

    But who will run Facebook for you then?
16. Russell Brown 16

    8 January 2009 at 12:28 pm

    Whoops. I was about to complain about my comment being deleted. But now it’s back! How odd …

    [lprent: Just the usual caching problems would be my bet.]
17. jbc 17

    8 January 2009 at 2:12 pm

    But who will run Facebook for you then?

    Precisely.

    Note to Internet organised rioters: when you send that burning bus careening towards a sinister-looking building – make sure it does not contain the datacenter that hosts (or routes) your favourite blog. When tipping cars in the suburbs be careful not to disturb the roadside cabinet that patches the DSL to your home or the homes of your online friends.
18. Quoth the Raven 18

    8 January 2009 at 3:19 pm

    Russel – I don’t use facebook. It’s a stupid thing for teenagers and adults with nothing better to do. Maybe you use facebook. I would have thought something better from you, like a cogent argument about why people can’t organise themselves without hierachies, rather than a facetious little comment. Have you tried gettting a job in the MSM?
19. jbc 19

    8 January 2009 at 3:46 pm

    QTR: From the Economist article

    A similar tribute group on Facebook has attracted more than 130,000 members, generating thousands of messages and offering links to more than 1,900 related items: images of the protests, cartoons and leaflets.

    You linked to YouTube in your own post.

    Seemed clear to me that Russell was referring to how these “anti-capitalist anarchists” rely on services (Youtube, facebook, second life, the Internet, etc) provided by the capitalist organisations they wish to see the end of.

    Seems hypocritical to me – but then I don’t actually believe that rioters are smart enough to understand that.
20. Robinsod 20

    8 January 2009 at 4:12 pm

    jbc – there’s an old saying – “capitalism will sell you the rope you use to hang it.”
21. Rex Widerstrom 21

    8 January 2009 at 4:18 pm

    If activists are using Facebook then they might as well hand themselves in to the police and save them the trouble of coming round to arrest them.

    In fact, come to think of it, they don’t even have to bother doing that any more, since courts are now allowing service via facebook.

    That’s what I mean about the supposed anonymity of activists on the net. Yes, there’s all those factors lprent mentions which make it hard for police. But they’re determined to use the online world to capture real world “criminals” and the courts and the lawmakers seem ready to oblige by making it easier for them to do so.
22. jbc 22

    8 January 2009 at 4:38 pm

    Robinson – yep I’m aware of a similar saying, but I don’t think it really applies here.

    I just find it a stretch to believe that that the riot fans who inhabit Second Life (for example) really understand the implications of the “end of capitalism” and have it as their end goal.

    As QTR stated about Facebook: “It’s a stupid thing for teenagers and adults with nothing better to do.”
23. Quoth the Raven 23

    8 January 2009 at 5:03 pm

    jbc – How is that hypocritical? You don’t have to live in a hovel like a monk to be a socialist. You can be rich and be a socialist in my mind without being a hypocrite. There is nothing wrong with using the tools at hand to better organise. It would be hypocritical if they were the bosses of some business exploiting people. Anarchists try to build the shells of a future society within the old one, through organising themselves, through democratic reforms (even if they don’t wish there to be governments) through unions etc, For example the woblies are thought of as an anarcho-syndacalist union. One could use the same stupid argument against free market supporters, are they hypocrites for using public healthcare and education? Just as with socialists it may seem slightly contradictory, but they cannot avoid these contradictions anymore than a socialist in current society, but they can work using governments for reforms and organise themselves, as socialists do, to make society better in the way they see it. Providing information for free on the internet does seem like a good way for an anarchist to get his message across, but that doesn’t mean these social netoworking sites aren’t silly. In this video Chomsky talks about that sort of thing (near the end somewhere).
    He was 15 I’m sure he did use facebook. Second life now that would be an idiotic waste of time no matter what your beliefs.
24. Pascal's bookie 24

    8 January 2009 at 5:29 pm

    Second life now that would be an idiotic waste of time no matter what your beliefs.

    google this

    libertarians “second life”

    QED. 🙂
25. Quoth the Raven 25

    9 January 2009 at 8:53 pm

    LPrent – There is a good article here: Greece rises in rebellion. I especially recommend you read the second half as to the views of people involved.
26. Anita 26

    9 January 2009 at 10:36 pm

    To go off on a slight tangent, one of the effects of excessive Police action against activists is that they no longer feel that they can go to the Police (or other similar authorities) for help. When an activist is attacked or burgled, they won’t go to the Police, domestic violence and rape are even less likely that usual to be reported.

    So by behaving unfairly the Police not only drive that group towards more extreme action, but they also remove the protection our society provides to everyone.

    The Police’s history of unbalanced enforcement stripped Māori and PI of their faith in the protection of the State. They’ve tried to rebuild that faith (with some massive srcew-ups along the way), will they try with activist communities?
27. killinginthenameof 27

    12 January 2009 at 12:41 pm

    Haven’t got time to go over the whole thread but there’s something I’m starting to notice. Conservatives (or classical liberals to keep DPF happy) carry on about anarchists and how they are just angry at nothing in particular. There’s an interesting, almost mirror like response to this from the conservatives (Brett dale is almost a text book example of this). They are just angry at any one questioning their white male authority and implied superiority. You see it in Brett’s case over his anger against taggers, but it’s not really about the paint on the wall. It’s that someone who may be, not white, not male, not heterosexual, not old, not Christian, not conservative, not rich, daring to question his, and everyone else like him’s superiority. And I guess a bit of paint on a fence shows how flimsy it really is.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS