Running a political Party is time consuming and I don’t get enough time to blog as I would like to. That said, I have new articles in the works. Below is a re-working of a Facebook post explaining Middle Eastern politics and the rise of Islamic State (IS).
For people who prefer video, I have linked to a collection of interesting videos on Youtube throughout the article. These have been compiled by my friend and Alien Space Candy bandmate, Adam Waters.
With the horrific terror attacks on Paris, it is important to understand the political background to the conflicts in the Middle East and to Islamic fundamentalism. Overly simplistic assertions from those who want to blame ‘Islam’ as some sort of monolithic entity are both fanciful and what IS militants hope for. Blaming US and western imperialism whilst closer to the mark, still provides a vastly over-simplified analysis. The goal of this post is to illuminate the modern history of the region to show the complexity of the current situation.
Most of the info is contained in the links. This post is by no means comprehensive and mostly relies on mainstream and conservative sources. I was aiming to put something together where the broad facts could not be challenged. If there is anything glaringly wrong, please contact me on social media @AKFRU on Twitter.
In the Gulf, the United States has ironically broken with its former dictum that we would oppose the domination of the Gulf region by a single power. We have become that power and now have to accept the consequences of that fact. –Ambassador Richard Murphy, Washington DC 1993.
World War 1 and its Aftermath
Many of the lasting conflicts in the Middle East have their roots in the carve up of the collapsing Ottoman Empire, during and after World War 1. The Sykes-Picot Agreement made between Britain and France divided the region into French and British spheres on influence despite Britain promising independence to the Arabs for helping bring down the Ottoman Empire (this is where the real-life tale of Lawrence of Arabia comes from).
The French took control of Syria, dividing their colonial territory along ethnic and sectarian lines to prevent the local populations from uniting to throw out the Europeans. The divide and rule strategy of both France and Britain embedded much of today’s conflicts into the social fabric of the region.
Blood and Oil: The Middle East in World War One
The End of Colonialism
The intellectual development of the world following World War 1 was heavily influenced by the Russian Revolution and the rise of (Soviet) Communism. In the Middle East this primarily took the form of anti-colonialism. The Soviet Union and the Communist Parties controlled by the Third International acted as an empire, rather than a force for liberation and offered no solution to overthrow the colonial powers.
This led to the development of Arab Nationalist movements that in both Syria and Iraq led to the creation of Baathism (the article written as an obituary to Baathism is wrong in that fact, but generally right in the rest of the information). Military backed uprisings against the colonial powers during and after World War 2 saw supporters of this ideology rise to prominence.
Separately, a coup against King Farouk 1 of Egypt by the Egyptian Free Military in 1952 saw the rise to power of General Nasser in 1954. Nasser claimed the Suez Canal as the Nationalised property of Egypt, casting out the British and French who both had stakes in the Canal. The regime was a single Party dictatorship that controlled the media and suppressed dissenting views.
In 1958 Syria and Egypt attempted to put into practice the idea of a pan-Arabic state, the United Arab Republic. The first attempt lasted for two years, with Syria withdrawing. A second attempt was made in 1962 between Egypt, Syria and Iraq which never quite united.
Both Syria and Iraq embraced Baathism as the basis of their regimes. A near bloodless coup in 1970 saw Hafez al-Assad (the Father of Bashar) come to power and start the process to modernise Syria.
Saudi Arabia and the US
The ideology of IS stems from the Wahhabist interpretation of Islam that is pushed globally by Saudi Arabia through funding religious schools around the Muslim world. Dr Yousaf Butt published this article explaining it’s history and how it inspires IS today.
The Saudi regime are in a precarious position, the similarities between the ideology of IS and the Wahhabism spread by Saudi Arabia make it fertile recruiting ground for the IS militants.
Adam Curtis: Bitter Lake (part 1)
Iran and the US
In 1951 Premier Mohammed Mosaddeq became the leader of the Iranian government. At the time Iran was a Constitutional monarchy ruled by the Shah. Mosaddeq attacked the power of British and other Western oil interests, working to nationalise the oil fields and undermined the power of Iranian elites. Due to Cold War power politics and the thirst for oil profits, Britain and the US worked to remove Mosaddeq and in 1952 he was dismissed by the Shah and in the subsequent riots a CIA backed coup was staged installing the Shah as an autocratic ruler.
The CIA’s role in the coup was not lost on the next generation of revolutionaries and as part of the 1979 revolution, the US embassy was occupied and its residents were taken hostage. From the revolutionaries perspective, seizing the embassy stopped the CIA from being able to organise a counter-revolution, from the US perspective it was a deep humiliation that colours the relationship even today. Iran is an implacable foe of ISIS for the simple reason that Iran is dominated by the Shia sect of Islam and ISIS is fundamentalist Sunni.
Israel and Palestine
This is one of the most intractable conflicts in the world today. It is impossible to understand the political situation in the Middle East without understanding the conflict. A good source for an overview is the Council for Foreign Relations Crisis Guide, The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was planned a full year before the invasion took place. George W Bush and Tony Blair conspired to create the conditions for war, with their claims of Iraq harbouring weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam Hussain led a Sunni dominated secular dictatorship over a majority Shia population. Elections following the invasion installed a Shia majority conservative government which has increased divisions within the country. The Sunni insurgency worked with Al Quaeda and its remnants have been one of the foundations of Islamic State.
The Arab Spring
The Arab Spring, a series of uprisings around North Africa and the Middle East represented a push for democracy against the old dictatorships that ruled throughout the second half of the 20th Century. Starting in Tunisia in December 2010, the uprisings spread across the region. Early successes, including the toppling of Mubarak in Egypt forced the US to pick sides. Propping up Dictators creates intractable foes should the opposition come into power, as they learned supporting the Shah in Iran.
At this point in time the only successful uprising was in Tunisia, because Islamic forces were prepared to work with secular forces to form a workable government. Egypt serves as a prime example of what went wrong in other areas. The Muslim Brotherhood won the first democratic election and began to enact their conservative, religious platform to the horror of many of the participants in the revolution. This was due to the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood were the most prominent anti-dictatorship forces in the country throughout the decades of dictatorship and were the most organised faction participating in the elections.
The subsequent coup has undermined the revolution. The Muslim Brotherhood were outlawed, many activists both within the Muslim Brotherhood and wider circles have been jailed. With elections coming soon, there is widespread apathy that anything will change for the better.
What is Islamic State and What Do They Want?
ISIS. ISIL, Daesh etc, I wish everyone would settle on a name for these guys. They started out as an alliance of foreign fighters and Iraqi ex-Military officials who joined forces to fight the US and it’s allies in the last Iraq war. IS have links to the government in Turkey, and thanks to near-identical ideologies, comparatively large sections of the population in Saudi Arabia.
The Carnegie Middle East Centre put together a very detailed explanation of IS, its methods and strategies (warning: It is very long). There is also this article based on interviews with captured ISIS fighters being held in Iraq.
A 2 part series looking at Australian politics and how to best push for progressive social change, with a particular focus on why Pirate Party Australia works the way it does. Part one looks at politics within the electoral realm, part two will look at politics within activism.
Politics is a Marathon not a Sprint
Part 1: Electoral Politics
All too often people involved in politics opt for short term point-scoring over long term benefit and consequently damage their reputations, sometimes irreparably. Political parties will adopt positions on issues that they expect to give them a ‘bump in the polls’, that longer term, is devoid of morality and will lose them the support of sections of their core constituency. This is not a trap that we need to fall in to and can avoid as long as we stick to our principles.
The political cycle is a constant barrage of announcements, press conferences, grubby deals, scandals and point scoring. In part, this is a result of media needing things to report, and over-analysing minutiae of parliamentary debates can fill endless columns. In part, it is how the mainstream parties operate, people who desire power for its own sake will join up with the goal of winning and maintaining power and will do whatever it takes to succeed. This in turn, spurs on the scandals and grubby deals. The constant focus on opinion polls, and short-term point scoring is a game that we do not need to play and should avoid as much as possible.
This is played out in the ALP on a painfully regular basis. Part of the reason Rudd was popular when he got elected PM in 2007 was his commitment to action on climate change. Once Abbott became Opposition leader, there was a conservative reaction to the initiative, and instead of pursuing the policy and explaining what the action meant, and why it was needed, there was deafening silence. So much so, that once Gillard ousted Rudd in the lead-up to the 2010 election, she promised not to introduce a carbon tax because it was seen as a negative.
Had the ALP made the case for action on climate change, rather than remaining silent on the issue for much of their first term in government, there wouldn’t have been the same amount of pressure to commit to opposing a carbon tax.
The alternative was played out with the Greens, where the ALP attempted to pass Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme with a reduction of carbon pollution of just 5% by 2020. Sections of the media had a field day when the Greens refused to support such a minor target on the basis that it was too weak. A target that small would have rightly angered Greens voters because they have a tendency to put principles, in particular environmental action, above short-term point-scoring. This saw the Greens lose a couple of percentage points in the polls over the short term, but they did not damage the support of their core constituents and have since regained any temporary loss of support.
For the major parties (in particular, the ALP/ Coalition duopoly), swing voters may make the difference in winning an election. They will not campaign for you, hand out how-to-votes on election day, donate funds and time or participate in policy development and debate. Basing policies on the opinions of swing voters, through focus groups whilst disregarding the principles of party members causes long term damage to the party. The ALP have been suffering a long decline in members largely because of this.
Since the 1980’s there has been a weakening of grass roots members ability to contribute to policy, a locking up of executive positions through the factions system in the ALP. The parliamentary wing of the party regularly ignores decisions of the membership in the never-ending Quest for a small bump in the polls. This has caused such a long decline in member numbers that some ALP campaigners worry about being able to cover polling booths with people handing out how-to-votes on election day. The decline was only turned around after the last election by giving members a say over the Labor leadership. It remains to be seen if the ALP will continue to give members substantive ways to contribute, or the membership up-tick after the last election was just a dead cat bounce.
This raises questions for members of any political party, what is the ultimate point of the organisation? Is it to form government at any costs or is it to advance a philosophy or a set of ideas? The Pirate Party is firmly in the latter camp. In large part, we formed to make the case for less restrictive copyright laws and to defeat Internet censorship and surveillance. To water these down is to defeat the entire purpose of our existence.
This becomes a little harder to navigate away from our core policies. Do you engage in populism or stay with principled policies (where there is a difference)? Many people will vote on a wide set of principles and whilst they may care about file-sharing and civil liberties, they will also care about action on climate change and education and won’t vote for a single issue party because they have other concerns beyond the core issues. This was why we expanded our policies beyond the initial focus on IP and civil liberties.
The tension between principle and populism came up very early on. A member wanted us to go to the right of the major parties on refugee policy to fish for support from racists. The rest of the party got rather cross with the suggestion and it didn’t get anywhere (I was ready to quit if it happened).
One of the many and varied things I like about Pirate Party Australia is our commitment to giving members as much democratic control as possible over all aspects of the Parties’ politics and activities. This is a good filter to limit the damage we can do to ourselves through some ill-conceived plan to raise our profile by piggy-backing on a poorly thought out supposed ‘vote winner’.
Having members vote on our preference order served us well. It stands in stark contrast with the Wikileaks Party who preferenced through negotiations with the small parties alliance, as established by Glen Drury and preferencing according to back-room deals rather than political outlook. The outrage that preferences went to the fascist Australia First party above the Greens caused an implosion that has damaged the prospects of the party ever getting anywhere. Many of their most committed campaigners quit in disgust.
We have a commitment to evidence based policy based on underlying principles and a culture of consultation when situations arise that need prompt responses. The most recent example being the adoption of a policy that promises to repeal sections of the anti-terrorism Bill that damage civil liberties and the rule of Law, passed by the ALP and Coalition in a classic knee-jerk response to an increased threat of terrorist activity.
A key part to our success in broadening our policy set has been consistently looking at evidence of what has happened when other countries have adopted policies we like, then using that to inform the specifics of our policy area. Policy based purely on principle has a higher likelihood of causing division because we aren’t of a single ideology, however our goals are broadly aligned and using evidence to pragmatically decide the best approach to an issue leaves little room for opposition if the goals are similar.
We need to remember what has driven our success so far and keep playing the long game because that is what will serve us well into the future. Any attempt at short term success that doesn’t fit in with our long term goals and values is likely to do more harm than good.
This is a difficult blog-post to write. I would like to discuss the recent Wikileaks release of the super-injunction placed on a case by the Victorian Supreme Court. Of course, due to the super-injunction I can’t talk about it without risking being hauled into Court.
I can say that the super-injunction is in place because of national security concerns and herein lies the bit I really want to talk about. The Government are wanting to hide heinous shit they get up to and have started using ‘National Security’ as a cry to hide whatever diabolical plans they have. The super-injunction is just the most effective example of this.
Let’s take an example that is well documented, the treatment of refugees. Under the guise of ‘Operational Matters’, the government attempted to disappear Tamil refugees fleeing Sri Lanka back to Sri Lanka.It was only because everyone knew the boat existed that they could not get away with it.
The Human Rights Commission uncovered the traumas being inflicted on children who have attempted to come to Australia seeking asylum. The Department of Immigration attempted to cover up the severe mental health problems being afflicted on children being held in detention. There were 128 attempts at self-harm by kids in detention in the last 15 months. It is clear that asylum-seeker detention centres are, in practice, concentration camps (unfortunately that is not an exaggeration, I wish that it was) and it is exactly the sort of thing that government secrecy is used to hide.
If proposals being floated under national security laws pass Parliament, this will get much worse. If Attorney General George “people have a right to be bigots” Brandis gets his way, publication of official secrets will be punished with up to ten years in jail. The way the legislation is worded, this could apply to journalists reporting leaks, not just the leakers. Attempts to reassure an increasingly nervous media by saying that the Attorney General would decide who is charged, has appeased no-one.
What is most galling is that Brandis himself argued for expanding free speech by watering down the Racial Discrimination Act, stating unequivocally that“our freedom and our democracy fundamentally depend upon the right to free speech”. We agree there.
This drive for secrecy is a direct assault on democracy. The public need to know what our government is up to in order to make accurate judgements about who to vote for. If what we are left with are the polished turds crafted by armies of spin-doctors there is no truth with which we can use to judge our support or otherwise in the government of the day. This is probably the idea.
The super-injunction that cannot be discussed is the most starkly obvious example of our freedom and democracy being impinged on by a secretive government. Should the changes to national security legislation pass this will only get worse.
Invoking National Security to hide the government’s dirty laundry is a dangerous precedent, one that shows just how dangerous the proposed expansion of national security laws are for our society. We must oppose the new Laws before democracy itself is threatened.
I have had a some discussions recently that has prompted this post. What are the underlying ideas behind the politics of Pirate Party Australia?
At the Sydney meeting on Saturday, AndrewD, member of the Policy Development Committee, raised a good question about our politics. What is our why?
To explain: The what of the Pirate Party is our policy set. What we are trying to change.
Why is harder to pin down. AndrewD pointed out that why is a more powerful motivator than what and we needed to spell it out to encourage more activists to get involved and to keep them around through any setbacks we may suffer in the future.
For example: The why of Communism is to create a society where everyone is equal, not just in opportunity, but materially and politically. It is a powerful why. So powerful that even today, despite the horrors and brutality of the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc and various other Communist dictatorships, there are thousands of people in Australia who identify as Communist. Despite evidence that their methods (their what) are a complete failure at creating a just and equitable society, they still believe in the why.
Pirate Parties internationally (not PPI) were formed with the goal of fighting for a free Internet, particularly around copyright issues. Initially there was an attempt to explain why people of a range of political persuasions would want to join the struggle against the copyright maximalists and there was a document floating around with explanations from perspectives of liberals, libertarians, socialists etc.
In Australia we have gone beyond the core policies of what was outlined in the Pirate movement’s early days. We are in the process of building a broad policy set that is based on evidence.
There is a broad and ill-defined morality underlying our policies. It isn’t clearly defined, yet I don’t recall any of our policies ever receiving less than 80% support from voting members, so a common morality as expressed by our policy set is widely supported.
What is it? I think trying to clearly spell out the underlying morality will strengthen our movement.
For me, Pirate Party Australia is about protecting and extending the principles of a free and just society; liberty, equality and democracy. We do this pragmatically, with thorough research and debate.
I think that both the morality and method are the main part of our why. It has never been spelled out explicitly because we haven’t really discussed it (hence the need for this post and the discussion that will hopefully flow from it).
Our approach to applying and extending democratic involvement is an example of this. Looking at efforts within the Pirate movement internationally shows the development of new ways to make decisions based on experimentation. Pirate Party Germany implemented liquid feedback as a technology to aid democratic decision making. This is being improved upon by other Pirate Parties, as there have been issues with how liquid feedback works in practice. Pirate Party Australia has its own democracy project called Polly. Each attempt is an experiment and only through testing the various methods can we figure out what works and how scalable this is as a decision making tool. In the meantime we practice old-fashioned one person, one vote democracy through our annual congresses (which will continue to be the final decision making process of any experiment until we find something better in our experiments).
As technology changes society, it also changes politics. Despite the major Parties moving away from a free, open and just society, the possibilities for more democracy, accountability and prosperity for all are opened up. The need for change grows by the day, and so too does the need for our politics.
If you want to comment on the blog-post go to our shiny new discussion page here.
I have been an activist in various social movements for the last 18 years. I have been in some bad situations over that time and have learned some practical ideas for dealing with oppression. I decided to write this in the hope that maybe some I what I have learned will do someone else some good in the future. I learned much of this the hard way and hope I can help others deal with bullshit more effectively, so we can get on and build a better world.
We don’t all think the same way. What works for me, may not work for you or anyone else. Take any ideas you think might help you and ignore the rest if you don’t like it. I am not normal, and I suspect there is no such thing. So take it all with a grain of salt.
Note on terminology- Due to the myriad of different ideologies, social systems and types of oppression going on in the world I talk about fighting ‘The Man’. It seems to me to be a good generic term for various authoritarian roles where control is exerted and resisted. It is a term easily replaced with whatever power structure you are confronting.
Dealing with Setbacks
Global politics is played out over a long time period. Days don’t matter. Weeks pass in the blink of an eye. There are good years and bad. Yet, from the first Tyrant, societies have tended towards more just and equitable forms of social organisation over the seven thousand years or so of recorded history. This is an active process and you have your part to play. It is through the struggle to make things better that good changes can occur. That doesn’t mean they will get better straight away.
No-one is a born activist and everyone will make mistakes. The point is to learn from them and try something new. Failure only occurs if you give up. Everything else is only a setback and a learning experience, as long as you think critically about what you do and learn from when things go wrong.
In the grand scheme of things, people will not remember whether protest X was a huge success or failure. They wont care that you lost a vote or looked stupid saying something you later regret. Chances are, they have done the same, repeatedly. Murphies Law exists for a reason. We are all subject to it, so don’t take your own fuck-ups personally.
Chances are you have a small amount of personal resources and are taking on powerful institutions. Every battle is a David versus Goliath struggle, so every small victory is worthy of celebration. What we have to our advantage is our sheer numbers. Millions of people across the globe struggle against all kinds of bullshit daily. There are so many people fighting so much shit, that by sheer weight of numbers we push things forward. We don’t need to win all of our battles, or even half. Every victory helps, but what really counts is participating.
I view activism as experimental. Every attempt, like an experiment advances knowledge. A failed protest or poster campaign can be a guide of what not to do. Writing blogs etc. of your experiences adds to the collective knowledge of what kind of actions are having good results and what isn’t working. Like science, over time you can build up knowledge of how to affect change. Unlike science, you are dealing with humans who can actively oppose you and change their own tactics to negate any activity you undertake. Therefore what works now, may not work in the future.
Don’t invest all of your hopes on any one action, organisation or tactic. Every political action provokes many different reactions as people in power adapt their techniques of oppression and tactics to what you try. Organisations can be corrupted and are only of value whilst they fit in with your personal hopes and desires. Sometimes the only sane thing to do is to walk away, take stock of what you have been doing, redefine yourself and start again.
The biggest threat to anyone engaging in activism is burnout. There is a lot going wrong in the world and the need to oppose all of the shit can lead activists to taking on too much. Some people have an ideological position of supporting all progressive struggles in the hope of spurring on a revolution. Whatever the cause, taking on too much doesn’t help anyone. If you want to be still sticking it to the Man in 20 years, you need to pace yourself.
It is completely OK to take some time off. The world will be here when you get back. Doing any progressive activism automatically makes you of more value to civilisation than the vast majority of the population, so there is no need to feel bad if you need some time to recharge your batteries.
You can also spread yourself too thinly. Trying to do everything can lead to nothing being done well. Human society and culture are made collectively, so you will have to trust others to do their bit too. Pick what matters most to you and focus a significant proportion of your activist time on that campaign, movement, organisation etc.. Rely on others to campaign on what they think is most important and offer solidarity by showing up when something you support gets organised.
By focusing on what you care most about, your motivation levels stay higher than if you try to do everything but never quite succeed in anything. You also can make a more significant contribution by being completely across the issues and actually seeing a campaign through. Succeeding in a campaign or cause builds confidence in other campaigns and causes. Positive examples of activist success gives everyone else positive examples to take ideas from and shows everyone that the Man is not all powerful.
They way you attempt to build a better future probably has a greater influence on the future than what you dream for the future. Human culture (/society/ history) is made collectively through the contribution of just about everyone. The way you interact with everyone else is of greater importance than what you try to do. The ends never justify the means because there are no ends, only means. If you want an open and participatory society help create open and democratic structures that encourage participation and then participate. It is not enough to demand change you must create it and live it.
The Need For Solidarity
It is only the human tendency for hubris that enables us to think that our specific causes are the most important and everyone else is ‘wrong’. It isn’t anyone’s fault, we each inhabit our own bodies and have our own unique experiences that make us who we are. As Quantum theory states, everything is relative to the participant. This makes each of us the centre of our own experience of the Universe. Understanding that we all have different interests and goals can enable a more honest dialogue and a better foundation to work upon different issues.
Humans have a wide range of interests and motivations. There are issues that I feel very strongly about and spend my time and energy working on. Other people have different priorities and work on other campaigns I may agree with, but don’t think is important enough to dedicate my time to. Whilst there are different approaches and priorities, much of the time social movements have similar issues with the same institutions (government and corporate). Attempts should be made to help each other out, and when possible work together on common actions. Building common ground between different movements can collectively give us all greater power to affect change and all get what we want.
It is important to go so far as defending basic rights for people you fundamentally disagree with. ‘Fairness’, ‘Justice’, ‘Equality’, ‘Freedom’ etc. must be applied to all or they are meaningless terms. It is possible to defend a principle without having to support the cause of someone with a view you disagree with. Tools used to persecute your enemies can easily be turned on your friends and you.
I wish this was more self evident. However, in the last few years there has been many examples of people working on common causes treating others on their side poorly. Cultural sexism in the Atheist movement, Socialist left and Crypto-Party/ hacker scene has exposed the limitations of formal equality for all genders. The vast majority of our interactions with others do not occur through legal structures, nor would we want them to, so it is culture itself needs to change.
Apologists for discriminatory behaviour say things like ‘we will deal with it after we achieve X’. This can be that they don’t care about the discrimination themselves and try to avoid having to deal with it or they hold particularly utopian ideas about oppression and think that if it is beaten in one sphere (that they think is most important) it will automatically fade from other spheres. Discriminating against people because of gender, race, sexual orientation etc. is harmful to progressive causes because you are excluding potential allies who may agree with your cause, but also know all about discrimination and rightly believe they shouldn’t have to put up with that shit.
An important aspect of this is to create safer spaces for people to exist in. Living in a better world requires active participation and this requires a conscious effort. People need to feel safe in activist spaces, so it is the responsibility of all of us to deal with issues where people feel threatened or intimidated. It is not a matter of believing a victim over the accused. If someone feels threatened, asking the source of that threat to leave the space is the best course of action. We aren’t in a position to judge the facts of any accusation, just whether someone feels threatened or not and that and that alone is what is being dealt with.
As for the accused, asking people who contribute to causes to leave due to personal issues can be humiliating (which is why you should not treat an accusation as a basis of guilt) and also damaging to a movement. Talking to the accuser and seeing if there is a way to facilitate them reconciling with the accused is the next step once they feel safe. (N.B. This is not always possible.) Longer term, don’t rush into a decision as to what to do, just talk it out with all involved, separately if need be. In the end, collectively you have to make a judgement call on what to do. Unfortunately there are no easy answers because human relations are complex. The safer spaces policy linked to is a very useful guide.
Pointers for Disagreements
Reasonable debate is not as common as you could hope for. This is because we humans are emotional creatures. Unless taught otherwise, our logic is more likely to be used to justify an emotional response, than actually objectively applying logic to a situation. Often politics happens on this level, but it does not have to.
There are many critical thinking courses, websites, books etc. where logic and reasoning are taught. It is very useful to learn these skills as they enable a better understanding through evidence and a clearer insight into both your own and others arguments. The better you can understand something the more confident you become in expressing it. Find something that suits your style and start learning.
Applying critical thinking in the broader political sphere is a long term project. Many people have faith based belief systems, be that religious or ideological. Even someone who thinks they are rational and base their politics on evidence will have ingrained prejudices which will influence their reasoning. You can spot when this is affecting you by the rise of anger when someone says something that is contradictory to your belief system. This is commonly known as cognitive dissonance. The same political situations can be viewed many, contradictory ways even if the facts are agreed upon. Usually the facts can’t even be agreed upon, creating another possible source of cognitive dissonance; reality itself.
Part of attempting reasoned debate requires participants to act in good faith and to attempt to work towards a common understanding. There is a tendency to treat disagreements as a conflict that one side wins and the other loses. This is where our egos can get in the way of better politics. Staking out a position and defending it come hell or high water just makes you look like a dickhead when evidence says contrary, even if you can bully people to get your way.
It is a matter of being scientific about the topic of discussion. Science is not a set of theories, but a method for uncovering accurate information about aspects of the Universe. This means you have to actually look at evidence and be prepared to admit you are wrong. It is much better to be right long term than to win any individual argument. To build a movement capable of enacting change requires ideas that can stand up to solid scrutiny and a culture that encourages open dialogue between various positions. No one ideology (whatever they try to tell you) has a monopoly on the truth.
In terms of organising actions, a lot of disagreements are needless. They stem from the misconception that everyone has to agree to do the same thing. A better approach is to facilitate a group adopting a variety of tactics that either happen around the same space/time or the group agrees to try one then the other and through experimentation the best tactic becomes apparent.
At times, tactics can interfere with each other and when opposing tactics are supported by people campaigning for the same cause, care must be taken not to undermine the other group. It can be a matter of planning actions at different times and/or in different places so the actions of one group don’t interfere with the other.
So You Are Being Repressed by the Man
The state and its corporate backers rely on a toolkit of oppressive techniques to make activists lives difficult. We didn’t become activists because they are a bunch of mis-understood but basically nice guys. The only measure of good to most companies is the bottom line, this makes them amoral as there is nothing they would not do for more profit. Those that have moral limits just get replaced by people who don’t. These people would sell their own mothers if there was a buck in it. Using repression to maintain power is par for the course of any member of a ruling class, group or Party throughout history.
Every act of repression is a result of the Man’s fear of your success. The more effort they spend in going after you, the more of a threat they see you as. Using state resources is not cheap and overt repression has a habit of breeding more resistance, so they only undertake action when they think it is serious. It usually means you are doing something right.
Police, prison guards, Prosecutors, Judges etc. don’t come cheap. You can take a rough measure of your importance to the Man by the amount they spend going after you. I was once arrested for possessing a small amount of marijuana. To deal with what was a small offence, they needed two Police to arrest me, one desk Sergeant to process me, four Court staff to hear my case (despite pleading Guilty) and another two staff members to process the fine. It would have cost well over $1,000 to issue a $400 fine. Imagine the huge costs incurred by all the institutions around the world in the attempt to persecute Julian Assange.
It does not matter what the Police, prosecutors or corporate media thinks of you. They are often in those roles because they believe the government/corporate media line. They will not understand your motivation (possibly deliberately) and will try to make you feel like an outsider, outcast or somehow morally reprehensible. They will try to humiliate you. For me, knowing this is enough to render their attempts powerless, others still take it personally. Remind yourself that they support a system or policies that you view as morally reprehensible, it makes their attitude to you easier to deal with.
PTSD and Fear
Being an activist can be traumatic at times. Street protests are routinely harassed by Police, tactics like ‘kettling’, baton charges and snatch squads are increasingly used to deter resistance to the Man. The mainstream media will happily show footage of Police rioting against peaceful protesters and blame the protesters for the violence. The same sort of intimidation is being deployed against activists who work online. The brutal sentences handed out to people participating in DDoS protests and security breaches are calculated to instil fear. Anyone who thinks activism is safe from behind a keyboard is removed from reality.
Overbearing policing and intimidation of activists is often a tactic to cover a complete lack of moral authority, so it is a sign you are doing the right thing. Activists are usually motivated by a need for justice. That we get treated unjustly, whilst unsurprising, is cold comfort in the middle of receiving a beat-down or being told you face years in prison for taking part in a virtual sit-in.
Post-Traumatic Stress is where you relive a traumatic event in your memory and it comes to affect your day to day life. It manifests itself as an emotional response to thinking about a traumatic event or situation. Psychologists believe the symptoms must be present for a month before it is classified as such. There are two main ways people respond to post-traumatic stress, they either become alert and hyper-vigilant, ready to defend from another trauma or they withdraw from any reminder of the trauma in an attempt to avoid the memory and the stress.
The single most important thing we can do collectively to avoid and minimise the damage of post-traumatic stress it to organise debriefing sessions. Talking about both what you experienced and how you feel about it with others who experienced the same events really helps your brain process what can be very difficult experiences. Do this right away and again after some time has passed (E.G. a week, depending on the situation). Keep talking about it with people you trust until you can control the stress you feel when thinking about it.
When debriefing, be honest. There is a very high chance everyone else will be feeling much like you and sharing the experience and the way it makes you feel helps everyone come to terms with the trauma. Debriefing is no place for bravado (except as comic relief). It is no place for political analysis. It is for dealing with the stress of taking on the Man. If people want to try and score political points, tell them to fuck off.
If only some members of your group were there, it is worth inviting others along to the debriefing meetings. It is very helpful to have someone who is feeling OK to understand what you have been through, this really helps your organisation manage any issues arising from the stress. People who have been around a long time will have probably been through their own traumas and are likely to be understanding and sympathetic, and offer useful advice.
Debriefing is not a cure, it is a preventative measure to stop PTSD developing in the first place. If the stress persists and starts to affect your every day life, seek professional help. If you developed PTSD breaking the law, a lot of psychologists, councillors etc. will not want to help you, they will however (usually) refer you to someone who will. Ask them if they are cool before unloading your deepest secrets and if they don’t want to know, ask them if they know anyone who you can be referred to.
*Some psychologists see disobedience as a psychological disorder (oppositional defiant disorder). It is theorised that to become a psychologist someone must jump through many years of academic hoops, which requires obedience. Psychologists, having a tendency to obedience can characterise disobedience as abnormal, from their own perspective of slavish obedience.5 If they try and diagnose you with oppositional defiant disorder, use the disorder and defy them. Being obedient in such an amoral system is the real sickness here. Regardless of the bits of paper people hold, you are the best judge of your own mental state so if you think a professional is talking shit, odds are you are right.
Councillors, neuro-linguistic programmers etc. are not as useful as professional psychologists, but are usually much cheaper. They don’t require the years of training to practise their professions, so can vary more in ability and usefulness. They are however, usually better than no help at all.
One really difficult problem with PTSD is how this can affect political activity. Discussing future actions can cause feelings of stress, particularly if the action is similar to the cause of the original trauma. Sufferers may avoid meetings or alternatively get angry and act unreasonably. Try and be understanding. (See the Need for Solidarity section)