[Note: This is the first of a mini-series of previews I'm going to do about bands at the upcoming Northeast Kingdom Music Festival in Albany, VT August 1 & 2)

For the first installment of this preview series you get a hybrid preview/show review.  What I’m not able to give to you is the kick fucking ass experience of seeing The Mathematicians for yourself.  These guys have played at the Langdon Street Cafe a few times now, but until last night I haven’t had the opportunity to see them.  Boy have I been missing out.  If you’re able to image a perfect hybrid of the Beatsie Boys meeting Devo Meeting Revenge of the Nerds (with a twist of real, early 80’s punk energy thrown in there) than you might be able to catch a glimpse of the kind of show these three guys put on.

They’ve played at LSC a couple of times before but each time I’ve missed it.  The next day or two, I’ve heard pretty much nothing but raving, boisterous cheers about The Mathematicians’ show.  So despite being zombie-like following a long week of house re-siding I made my way over to check these guy’s out.  Shit.  Really, I just can’t get the image out of my head of the big ending scene from Revenge of the Nerds where they all perform that ridiculous rap song in their super-nerdy glory, but nonetheless it rules the day and everyone goes home a champion of the universe:

But these guys are much better than that (obviously).  Honestly, the energy they created through their combination intense, keyboard-bass-drum punk music, Beastie Boys-style three white MC badasses, and innovative post-modern electronic stylings was enough to make any party happen.  I can’t wait to check ‘em late night on the main stage at NEKMF.

A recent article in the Baltimore Sun, “Spying Uncovered: Documents Show State Police Monitored Peace and Anti-Death Penalty Groups“ by Nick Madigan, details a document released by the ACLU of Maryland that shows undercover State Police officers infiltrated various anti-war and anti-death penalty activists for the past few years.  While in no way shocking to those of us who have sent much time in left-activist circles, the article highlights an important aspect of State and governmental authority and its inherent tension with that of individual freedoms.  For instance, this sentence from the article:

…But none of the 43 pages of summaries and computer logs - some with agents’ names and whole paragraphs blacked out - mention criminal or even potentially criminal acts, the legal standard for initiating such surveillance. (emphasis mine)

Should be troubling to everyone of us.  Of course, I emphasized those lines for a reason.  If the State, particularly under the auspices of it’s law enforcement agencies, is bend on selling us on the idea that they, above and beyond all else, are in place to protect us from the many dangers that may exist in the world, I wonder how it is that they can justify thousands of dollars worth of effort and manpower to “infiltrate” groups of people who are breaking no laws whatsoever, but rather, are guilty of the crime of advocating- passionately and sometimes aggressively- a vision for society that runs counter to the financial interests of those who have the power; namely, the State and it’s capitalistic sponsors.  In the article, the above sentence is followed by this:

State police officials said they did not curtail the protesters’ freedoms.

So, it is within the right of the State to spy and meddle within the affairs of ordinary citizens if those citizen’s viewpoints are contrary to the desires of the powers that be, just so long as in doing so the “freedoms” of the dissidents aren’t immediately and directly curtailed?  

This is (one of the many reasons) why, I would argue, the State is an undemocratic, inhumane function that at its root is contrary to the human impulse and inherently oppressive.  When power is concentrated towards some at the expense of others, those who have that power will inevitably use it to work against any people who do not agree or support their program.  Whether overt or subtle, the capitalist State will never have room in it’s vision for dissent from its systematic inequalities and failures, and because of that, it will seek to oppress and suppress any possible challenges to its rule.  Thus, a free society must be a stateless society.

Just a quick note for y’all, that I’ve *officially* hit the high and busy stretch of my summer and things might (actually, certainly) be a bit sparse around here for the next couple of weeks.  I’ve got big projects going on at the house (new siding! no more plastic!), new responsibilities at work, a music festival to pull off, a garden full of weeds, and plenty of reading and beer drinking to fill the quieter hours with.  Not to mention that I’m starting to feel bad about how long its been since I promised Part 3 of “An Integral Politic”, so I’ll have to get motivated and write that one.  In the meantime, don’t lose track of everything that’s happening out there in the real world:

- The London Times is reporting that Bush has given Israel the near go-ahead on a preemptive strike on Iran, which some friends might know that I’ve been saying for almost eight years now was a likely (though not certain) just before the election move.  I’m not a big fan of conspiracy theories, but at the same time, we know that these assholes have little to know respect for the Constitution, rule of law, or elections in general.  They came to power illegally, and they’ve proven without a doubt they’re willing to do whatever it takes to get what they want…. though perhaps unlikely, none of us should rule out the possibility of cancelled presidential elections due to some sort of national/global emergency (like an Iran-Israel war).  Again, a possibility, not certainty.

-Speaking of Israel, R.A. Forum has a nice little piece about Yiddish anarchism.  Be sure to check that out, if it sparks your interest.

-Speaking of anarchism, I’ve been meaning to give a mention to the early June founding of the pro-platformist anarchist organization, Class Action Alliance in the Northwest of the U.S..  There have been a few NEFAC-inspired organizational anarchist federations that have tried to get something going on the West coast over the past few years.  Good luck to CAA- lets hope they have a long, bright future ahead of them.

-And finally, speaking of the West Coast, Bush is set to lift the ban on off-shore oil drilling, a welcome development for absolutely no one except the oil tycoons.

However, it was El Salvador’s 2004 elections they “intervened” in.  While the news itself may not be too shocking to those of us paying attention to what Bush and his administration are willing and able to pull off, the fact that Ambassador Charles Glazer admitted to U.S. intervention in the 2004 Salvadoran Presidential Elections is a bit of a surprise.  The State Department, and the Bush Administration, didn’t seem very interested in letting “democracy run its course”, as they used very public statements about their preferred winner and the threat of back-door economic sanctions against the people of El Salvador if the left candidate were to win-out over the conservative Antonio Saca (who, of course, did go on to win).  Apparently Glazer’s admission came during a recent meeting with outraged community leaders:

In their meeting with the Ambassador, the group focused specifically on the history of U.S. political and military intervention in El Salvador. They cited statements made by US State Department officials denouncing the leftist Farabundo Marti Liberation Front (FMLN) party during the 2004 presidential campaign. The delegates also referenced legislation put forward in Congress by Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) that threatened to cut off remittances sent by Salvadorans in the U.S. to their families in El Salvador should the FMLN win. “The U.S. Embassy in El Salvador never countered this absurd threat or clarified the impossibility of such legislation being passed,” said Rosa Lozano, a delegate from Washington D.C. “Ultimately, such intervention helped turn a close race for the presidency into a decisive victory for the right-wing National Republican Alliance (ARENA) party.”

Read the rest of the article here.

So the people of a country- a poor country- want to hold elections and there’s the now classic Latin American dichotomy between the business-oriented, conservative and the populist/socialist candidates.  Then the U.S. State Department, through the Embassy, denounces the left candidate while a Republican Congressman introduces legislation that would stop Salvadorians in the States from sending money home to their families- essentially economic sanctions directly targeting the poorest and most vulnerable people of El Salvador.  Despite the fact the Bill had no chance of passing, the U.S. Embassy fails to adhere to its diplomatic mission of encouraging communication and positive relations in hopes that the news of the proposed legislation would scare people from voting for the “wrong” candidate.

The U.S. Embassy claims there will be no chance of a repeat in El Salvador’s 2009 elections, since they will be heavily monitored by U.S.-supported (quasi-) NGO’s like the IRI:

In 2007, the IRI (International Republican Institute)– headed by Republican presidential candidate John McCain – presented President Saca with its ‘Freedom Award’, showing its clear ideological preference in the polarized Salvadoran political process

God, I love this country.

Ugh.

Obama is very exciting as an orator, as an individual, as a politician (especially within the context of the past 30 or 40 years), as a leader, and as the embodiment of “change” and anti-status quo.

Voting for McCain, or any of the other candidates, is absurd.  Anyone who would lives in a self-destructive universe.

Not voting for Obama, particularly in the “swing states”, is a vote for war with Iran and essentially Armageddon (cause Iran is backed by China & Russia, who have ‘nukes; cause hitting Iran would almost certainly bring in Israel, who have ‘nukes; etc).

Not voting for Obama, in Vermont, doesn’t matter either which way and if you think it does your sense of self-import is over the top.  Obama will win VT in a landslide and it is almoststatistically zero that this post, anything else I say or do, or anything that anyone else says or does will effect that reality.

So what good (or bad) will an Obama Administration do for you, me, the suffering masses, the general population, the environment, humanity or the world in general?

Who knows?  Very likely much better than what McCain would do.  But more importantly, what we do know for absolute certainty, is this: the most progressive, revolutionary, effective, beneficial, substantive, lasting, and evolutionary changes that have ever happened, in human history, are the direct result of people taking action- themselves- to demand it; not through ballot boxes, not through vigils, not through quaint marches or petitions, but through insisting that something about the way things are is un-exceptable and antiquated.  Vote for Obama (or, if you live in Vermont, vote for whoever the fuck you  want)- order, sensibility, fairness, equality, peace…. these things will only happen (in all of history have only happened) when “the people” make everyday an act of creating and living the world that we know is possible and is better, and different, than the one we know today.

On the heals of the entirely outrageous, fear-mongering/security-state feeding reporting done by the local Times-Argus of Santa Clause’s gubernatorially-placed pie, I gave a mention to the laziness of coverage in the same paper regarding a new program in which the Central Vermont garbage collector’s will now be officially “trained” to keep an eye on things for the police (see post bellow).  Since quality journalism is clearly in the front of my thoughts right now (um, news to me, but maybe that means my own self-reflection has gone corporate!) I figure I’ll pass on the following statement from the RNC Welcoming Committee, on the heals of some more sensationalist, poorly-researched, “our lives are in grave danger from the most trivial of incidences” reporting that’s been happening of late in the St Paul, MN area:

RNC WELCOMING COMMITTEE SPEAKS ON ALLEGED “LEAK” OF GOP TRANSPORTATION
DOCUMENT

Late last week, news media outlets throughout the Twin Cities metro area
covered a story about an allegedly “leaked” document concerning RNC
delegate transportation, provided to the public by the RNC Welcoming
Committee. It is an early version of a proposal for transporting thousands
of delegates to and from Downtown St. Paul’s Xcel Center, where the
Convention is to be held, and includes maps, photos, and descriptions of
potential bus formations. News reports portrayed the dissemination of
information as a breach of convention security, intermingling sparse facts
and fear-mongering hyperbole.

Asked to comment, Welcoming Committee spokesperson Jesse Helmsted said,
“That document was and is a public document, produced in response to a
Data Services Act request and accessible to anyone who asks for it.
Anyone, even self-proclaimed journalists, could have brought this document
to the attention of Twin Cities residents, as delegate transportation will
certainly inconvenience all of us who live here. That so-called reporters
would rather engage in fear-mongering and sensationalism than, say, tell
the truth, only speaks to the dangers of trusting corporate media.”

The document in question, a scanned PDF of a print-out of a PowerPoint
presentation called “GOP Express,” is one of many documents produced by
the City of St. Paul in a lawsuit brought against them by groups planning
an anti-war march for the first day of the Republican National Convention.
The Welcoming Committee, an anarchist organizing body preparing for RNC
protests, has positioned itself as a clearinghouse for convention-related
information, and provides any and all relevant material through its
website, http://www.NoRNC.org.

On Friday, July 5th, St. Paul Police dared the Welcoming Committee to use
the document. “Go ahead, plan off that,” said Pete Panos, St. Paul Police
spokesman. “That would be great for us.”

Helmsted responded, “Far out, Pete! We’ve been seeking endorsements of our
Call to Crash the Convention, but the backing of the St. Paul Police
Department is more than we’d dared to hope for. Now that we’ve got it, all
bets are off.”

In today’s Barre-Montpelier Times-Argus there’s a story on the front page about new program between Casella Waste Management (the local trash collector’s) and the Vermont State Police.  The article details, without a single critical word, a new collaborative effort which will have the trash haulers, as they go about their regular duties, keeping a watchful eye on the neighborhoods they travel through.  Specifically, the article explains that Casella’s trash haulers have recently been trained in a “Neighborhood Watch”- like program to notice any suspicious activities, things out of the ordinary, and criminal behavior and to either call 9-1-1 in an immediate emergency or to radio in to their dispatchers with less immediate but nonetheless “concerning” or “unusual” instances.  It will then be at the dispatcher’s discretion as to when, and if, to notify State or local police authorities.  I have a few reactions/concerns about this that I’d like to share.

First, while I feel like the reactionary elements of the left have watered-down (through over-use) the severity of the charge of “fascism”, this particular instance does seem to warrant a charge of quasi-fascist behavior, or at least a notable movement towards it.  By its classical definition, fascism is a merging together of private, corporate functions and interests with that of the public (government).  Leaving aside more ideological comments about the police in general, I for one am loath to see law enforcement agencies training and relying on private sector enterprises (that are entirely disassociated with any kind of “security” function no less) as a part of their general strategy towards combating crime.  Not only does this program beg for comparisons to Orwellian ideas such as the post 9/11 TIPS program and red-scare era “spying on your neighbors to root out communists”, but in general it fosters an atmosphere of distrust amongst neighbors and communities.  With trash collectors, postal workers, perhaps soon landscapers and whoever else in formal cooperative agreements with police and other government agencies to “keep an eye” on things, when is enough enough?  Will it be long before our thoughts, ideas, and opinions are enough to get us hauled away for being “suspicious” or “out of the ordinary”.

The depth of the problem of this kind of relationship (the one between Casella and the State police) may be lost on some, especially those who will make the usual “only law breakers have anything to be concerned about” argument.  But I wonder: waste collection and disposal are highly regulated for their impacts on public and environmental health and safety, is there really any way to trust that Casella is going to be held to task by the State and law enforcement agencies if they go astray of the law?  Just like cops who don’t give speeding tickets to other cops (on or off duty) how (or why) are we to trust that the appropriate people/agencies won’t do the same in the face of having to enforce the law against what could now be considered “one of their own”.  This is the problem of government and private sector collusion, and it’s why fascism is wholly rejected by nearly everyone the world over.

Speaking further to those that will argue that “only criminals” have anything to be concerned by here, or that such measures will help reduce crime and make our communities safer: I see the exact opposite.  I see the perceived need for a program such as this to be a sad and even dire statement about the state of our communities and our collective sense of humanity and social responsibility to each other.  Trash collectors, postal workers, landscapers, painters, neighbors- we should all be keeping an eye out for each other, and we should all take the appropriate actions when we see crime or concerning and suspicious behavior.  These are, after all, our communities, our homes and neighbors.  One thing I got from reading the TA article about this is that, before the “training” and implementation of this program, Casella drivers weren’t necessarily inclined to take action if, while going about their routes, they witnessed something criminal or disconcerting.  It is not a police sponsored or endorsed program we need to make our neighborhoods safer, it’s common sense, a notion of connectedness to place and people, and a personal recognition that we are each responsible for the quality of the places that we live.

Finally, I find the Times-Argus article on this matter to be an illuminating example of not only the increasingly poor-quality of journalism that they are offering Central Vermont residents, but of the exact problem of the Fourth Estate for the past several decades.  There is, of course, a noticeable difference between editorializing and journalism, but there is also a noticeable- and equally important- difference between reporting on a story and merely regurgitating the information handed out by those involved or “of authority” on a matter.  The “new journalism” which portends some kind of “objectivity” is a scam and an abomination.  The lie of human “objectivity”, in any kind of absolute sense, has done nothing but water-down and pervert what we have come to expect by the very medium which is charged with keeping us informed and protected from the worst that the government or Big Business will try to pass onto us.  Journalism, besides just giving us “the facts” (i.e., “President Bush signed this today”, “IBM announced that today”) should also put the events of a story into context; what’s the history of the issue? what’s the theoretical as well as practical context for such? what’s being gained and lost? who’s affected? what’s the dissenting or minority viewpoint? what do “officials” say about it? where do such officials derive their authority (and is it warranted)?  As I regularly read the Times-Argus at my local coffeeshop, I often ponder seriously whether or not to get a home subscription.  Tellingly, nearly every time I’m on the verge of making that investment, I am put face-to-face with some form of disappointing to abysmal reporting which turns me off.

I’ve known Wayne Price for several years now, having met him as a member of NEFAC.  Regular readers might also notice that I’ve re-printed a couple of his articles and pamphlets on this site when I felt the need to get a new post up but didn’t have the time or focus to write anything myself.  Last year, when Wayne published The Abolition of the State: Anarchist and Marxist Perspectives I put it up near the top of my ‘things to read’ list.  Unfortunately, I’ve just now gotten around to reading it.  I say “unfortunately” because Wayne has written a great book here, the kind that re-hashes and updates the ideas and reasons behind anarchist-communism and puts the “big picture” right in its proper place.

While little of this book is particularly new or ground-breaking, the entirety of it is important and timely.  With the resurgence of “anarchism” over the past decade there has emerged a sprawling debate about just exactly what such a politic looks like and stands for.  While often fairly nuanced and layered, much of this conversation boils down to two main camps: the more primitivist, “green”, “life-style” oriented idea of anarchism at the dawn of the Twenty-First Century, and the vision of anarchism that is strongly rooted in the idea’s origins in the mid and late Nineteen Century.  In my opinion, Wayne has done a great job in this book illustrating just why it is the latter, rather than the former, which wins the day.

Wayne is incredibly well-versed in Marx and Marxist ideas, and he applies the best and most lasting of these ideas to his understanding of anarchism.  At the same time, he uses his thorough understanding of anarchist ideas and history (as evidenced by this book’s 13 and a half pages of “references” at the back, which includes titles by everyone from Lenin to Lincoln to Maltesta to Kropotkin to Bookchin) to examine the failings of less anti-authoritarian socialist ideas such as what was advocated by Marx and his supporters.

While much of Abolition is a re-statement of classical libertarian-socialist ideas (essentially freeing today’s students from having to read-through the often antiquated language of Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin and the like) Wayne’s treatment of the subject matter is refreshing in his straight-forward, clear treatment of ideas that are all too often written in less than easy to comprehend ways.  Just as importantly, the classical anarchist and socialist ideas are updated to expand beyond simple class analysis (a major critisism from those who deride anarchist-communism and far left socialist ideas as “irrelevant” in these post-modern multi-class times):

Besides being against the state and capitalism, anarchists have opposed all forms of domination and oppression: the rule of men over women, of European-Americans over African-Americans, of Anglos over Latinos, of the imperialist nations over oppressed nations, of straights over Gay men, Lesbians, and Transgendered people, of the mainstream over political or religious minorities, and so on.  The record of Marxists is more mixed, but generally they have opposed many, if not all, forms of oppression.  While agreeing that the working class is central to the overturn of capitalism, most anarchists and Marxists today believe that these other forms of oppression are also real- overlapping and interacting with capitalist exploitation. (p. 4)

Another invaluable aspect of Wayne’s work here is the manner in which he places the State (government) in relation to capitalism and the exploitation of the working classes.  Wayne thoroughly and articulately shows how the ruling classes require the State apparatus to not only hold the working classes in their place, but to control the entirely self-destructive nature of capitalism and exploitive labor-relationships (through often superficial means such as minimum wages, safety and environmental regulations, and the like).  Not only does this work serve to explain why capitalism and patriarchy must be opposed entirely, but also why all forms of socialism that have endeavored to “take power” for the working class through appropriation of the appendages of the State have been an utter failure; for the latter, he trots out the history of “socialist” States such as Russia, China, and Cuba as well as the Russian and Spanish Revolutions and the on-the-ground fight against Nazism in Germany.  Perhaps most effective of all, he points to the rise of Social Democratic Parties throughout Europe- their promises and failures- throughout the last Century as proof positive that the final revolution and humanity’s ultimate liberation is and will always be at odds with the existence of a State “above and beyond” society at large.

It is said that the abolition of the state would result in chaos.  This is topsy-turvy.  It is the chaos of capitalism which requires the state.  In a society of constant competition and conflict, there must be a state to hold it all together.  Otherwise all will fly apart.  A cooperative, socialized, society would not need a state to act as the metal hoops on an exploding barrel.  It would hold together by itself.  Society could use the productive potential of modern technology to provide a comfortable life for everyone, with plenty of free time for participating in social decision-making, and the opportunity for creative, unalienated, labor for all.  (p. 13)

The Abolition of the State is a clear and well-written examination of anarchism and the competing ideas of how to accomplish a socialist revolution.  For many people who may be newly discovering such ideas, or who may be inclined to favor slower, more “transitional” forms of socialist revolution, few reads are as thorough and well-backed by historical example as this one; likewise, few authors today are as well-versed in the complexities of the State and its functioning’s and failures.  Abolition is a great read for both anarchists (who from time to time may need a refresher to keep their daily struggles in context) and the curious though skeptical who are turned off by overly academic or aged libertarian texts.

Montpelier, Vermont’s Independence Day Parade is a spectacle in itself. For one night- um, July 3- the nation’s smallest capital (population 8,000) becomes overwhelmed by as many as 20,000 visitors who hope to enjoy the fireworks as well as an hour long parade replete with Shriners, politicians both hopeful and incumbent, a strong showing by the world-famous Bread & Puppet Theatre, and most everything else you could imagine in an Independence Day Parade.

Two years ago, carpetbagger multi-millionaire Rich Tarrent, who ran as a Republican challenger to the Independent (Democratic Socialist) Bernie Sanders- who eventually went on to win and be the U.S.’s first “socialist” Senator- received a warm Montpelier-style welcoming to our renowned July Third Celebration: he got pied in the middle of the parade.

This year, in the midst of a contentious re-election campaign between himself, Democrat Gaye Symington and Progressive Party candidate Anthony Pollina, incumbant Republican Governor Jim “Doesless” Douglas got his just desserts: a pie in the face, delivered personally by the King of all pranks himself: Santa Clause. Santa, unfortunately, didn’t make it far before the Governor’s handler’s got a hold of him. Updates, if important, about his pending legal situation will follow. If available, photos will too.

Now, I like my job and the guy I work for is pretty cool.  I’m paid well, get a lot of flexibility in my schedule, and in general the place is pretty relaxed.  However, I know what the world “out there” is like; I know the mind-numbing absurdity that many of you put up with at work.  Which is why I’m going to share with you something sorta interesting that was passed on to me: a 1944 manual from the U.S. Office of Strategic Services on how to sabotage your workplace!  This formerly classified document was used as part of a presentation from two CIA members on the “Intellipedia” at something called the Enterprise 2.0 Conference.  Intellipedia, by the way, is a Wikipedia-like database used by the government intelligence community (I really just have to laugh at a phrase like that).

Back to that manual though.  You can download it, in it’s full 1944 glory, from here.  You’ll have to actually read the thing (or skim it, as I did) if you’re interested in figuring out why the hell the Feds would be interested in sabotaging businesses (the manual seems a bit convoluted on this matter, but one gets the sense that they didn’t necessarily even know how or why these tactics would be useful for them).  Then again, if you read the kinds of things in this manual, you get the sense that they quite possibly employed this strategy far and wide, perhaps as a big-picture psych-ops meant to bog down the entire country with a culture so insane and erosive that no one has the wherewithal to question the absurdity of homogenized American life.  Who knows.  But a list like this….

1.  Insist on doing everything through “channels”.  Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.

2.  Make “speeches”.  Talk as frequently as possible and at great length.  Illustrate your “points” by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences.  Never hesitate to make a few appropriate “patriotic” comments.

3.  When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.”  Attempt to make the committees as large as possible- never less than five.

4.  Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.

5.  Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.

6.  Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.

7.  Advocate “caution”.  Be “reasonable” and urge your fellow-conferees to be “reasonable” and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.

8.  Be worried about the propriety of any decision- raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.

…. reads like a typical day at your office, doesn’t it?  The comments on other sites that I found with this posted all read the same: “Describes my boss exactly!” and “Whoa- my workplace must be filled with government operatives acting this stuff out!”.  One of my personal favorites is the manuals suggestion to “bring a bag of moths into a theater showing propaganda films… Moths fly towards the brightest light source. In a cinema, that’s the projector lens”.  Cool!  I might just have to try this one.

Anyway, it’s good to know that the State has all its bases covered.