Insurgent Anarchism: the new networked resistance

by Nozomi Hayase on December 18, 2012

Post image for Insurgent Anarchism: the new networked resistance

With the advent of the internet, a huge shift has occurred from the centralized mass media to the decentralized network power of the new media.

INSURGENT ANARCHISM:

Part I: An Idea Whose Time Has Come
Part II: The Power of Networked Resistance
Part III: Forthcoming…

By Nozomi Hayase of the Associated Whistleblowing Press.

Clay Shirky, a consultant on the social and economic effects of internet technologies recently spoke of the emerging global interconnectedness and the possibilities it engenders. Shirky shared the success story of a platform called Ushahidi, a program that mines and collects data and provides information for emergency situations, like natural disasters. Ushahidi is shared globally to track election results and has been used to gather information about supply  needs in the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti. More recently, it has been deployed for disaster relief in Fukushima.

Intrinsic to Ushahidi and its model of innovation is what Shirky terms cognitive surplus: a combination of affordable technology and the presence of networks that coordinate time and talent. He describes how all technology supporting Ushahidi has existed for more than five years before the service itself emerged. At one point, ethnic violence erupted after an election in Kenya, and in response to a media blackout of what was happening, one lawyer began blogging about the bloodshed.

Soon her blog became virtually the only source of information, and when she got to the point where her effort could not keep up, a couple of computer programmers responded to the challenge expressed on her blog — leading to the launch of Ushahidi. Shirky points out how the launh of Ushahidi was a perfect example of opportunity design, rather than the program being designed around the technology alone:

Shirky further named Wikipedia as the most important example of cognitive surplus, pointing out how the success of this kind of platform lies in the articulation of a particular shared need. Along with widely distributed technology, Shirky spoke of a unique network, which is the other crucial ingredient in creating large-scale social participation. What’s interesting is the fact that the network he describes is fundamentally different from traditional forms of social organization. Technology alone cannot activate the kind of network that creates a large-scale effect like Wikipedia. It simply enables what is already activated inside each person and evolves new networks in service to it.

How is this kind of network different? What is triggered inside of all of us to create a network that is later recognized as a vital force behind large-scale global projects like Wikipedia?

Anarchistic Meritocracy

In contrast to Wikipedia, the old-fashioned Britannica-style encyclopedia was highly controlled. Selected experts would write and shape the historical narrative, while users had no opportunity to contribute their own unique knowledge and keep the information updated. The technology that supports each endeavor is different. Wikipedia was developed within the social and technological world of the internet, whereas conventional paper-based encyclopedias evolved with the printing presses of a previous era.

Compared to the contemporary, highly diversified distribution system of the internet, the printing press had a relatively high cost and therefore limited accessibility. The relatively expensive nature of the technology became prone to the ownership model, with commercial interests creating a gap between those who have access to the technology and those who do not. With consolidation of the press and media by large business, advertisement revenue and other interests became influential in the flow of information and knowledge.

This centralized control by private companies led to the current state of mainstream media, where an exclusive circle of appointed reporters parrot the official government line. Journalists are often tied to corporate sponsors and no longer think independently or ask hard questions. White House officials pick and choose who they allow at press conferences and give credentials only to those who implicitly agree not to challenge institutionalized power relations.

The ever-changing nature of the vital fourth estate is a direct reflection of the social structures and networks inside the system. Christopher Hayes, editor of Nation magazine described how the American social model of meritocracy — the idea that those who work hard and improve their lot can build their own prosperity — is inherent in the political mythology of the US. Hayes talked about how this notion of meritocracy contains within itself the seeds of its own self-destruction, by generating a tendency towards oligarchy. The acquisition of wealth on Wall Street and the one-dimensional methods of measuring intelligence for higher education have culturally defined the meaning of “merit” and have maintained the system over time.

Hayes notes how the ideal of individuals being rewarded by their capacity and hard work, rather than their inherited position and wealth, has met a reality where individuals advance in status due to race, family or privilege within a corporate framework, creating a form of cronyism based on pure self-interest. The language and story of meritocracy has been used for the self-protection of elites. It was packaged and sold as the American Dream, with a promise that if you work hard you will become middle-class.

Now with the exploding debt economy, exploitation of cheap labor and predatory lending, the entire global economy has been turned into massive consumer fraud. Hollowed out cities like Detroit have become symbols of these broken promises. People are realizing they have been fleeced by corporate America. This deep sense of betrayal and realization that the game was rigged is shared across political lines.

Just as with the current corporate takeover of every aspect of government, communication systems have become top-down narrow networks made up of an exclusive circle of elites, by way of association with prestigious universities, companies and a professional media class. Communication with the larger population in this model requires one to go through a pre-determined route of a central bureaucracy or pre-existing power structure. The idea behind this is a belief in trickle-down opportunity where merits are granted by favor of those above.

This highly filtered network is manifested in every facet of our social institutions. In the corporate work environment, employees must go to a supervisor to get approval for proposals or changes to the accepted way of doing things, instead of connecting directly to their colleagues to enact their ideas. In fact, the current form of representative democracy in Western societies itself is increasingly becoming antithetical to the meaning of the word ‘democracy’, as it has become a vehicle for the concentration and consolidation of economic power. In its hierarchical form, citizens are expected to believe politicians will act in their best interests and depend on them for solutions.

So what is the cost of living within such a social structure? Although this type of network brings efficiency and order, it inherently concentrates power in a few hands and suppresses the imagination of the individual. It conforms mindsets to the mold of the intentions and agendas of a select few, who weave the threads of public perception. One example of this blocked creativity is seen in the US two-party dominated political system, where citizens’ votes are locked into two essentially corporatist parties. Meanwhile, third party candidates are obstructed from ballot access by a system that sustains the two-party duopoly. The consumerist culture is another an example where the individual is reduced to a corporate target of mass marketing. Through standardized testings, schools turn minds into receptacles of dumbed down vocational training and create consumers rather then independent thinkers.

Now, with the advent of the Internet, a huge shift has occurred, which is at least as pivotal as the invention of the printing press. The move from centralized mass media to interactive digital sharing of information has opened up a whole new world of possibility. In this digital age, with unlimited and almost zero-cost of copying, everyone can create content and share it. Distribution is carried out through crowd-sourcing based on grassroots peer-to-peer resonance and affinity, in the form of the viral meme, re-tweets and file sharing.

In the old forms of printing, the flow of information was controlled from top down. Production and distribution remained at the mercy of vested corporate interests and a few ‘experts’ in the editorial room. Yet with the much more egalitarian nature of the internet, distribution naturally began to flow more freely. In fact, it seems to resonate with what Mikhail Bakunin, the Russian anarchist and philosopher described as the “absolute right to self-determination, to associate or not to associate, to ally themselves with whomever they wish”.

In Bakunin’s anarchism, people freely choose who to connect with and who not to. Here the power of voluntary association ensured by the First Amendment is truly exercised. What is emerging in today’s media landscape are the networks of anarchistic meritocracy, in which the everyday person creates their own equal opportunities to express themselves and determine what is worthy of their own newly discovered power of distribution. Those who want to listen can. Those who don’t simply don’t have to. Both production and consumption flow freely.

In this spawning network, merit is determined by peers, on the basis of how a certain piece of information resonates and finds passion among others, instead of through the traditional channels of appointed expertise and elitist credentials. If something has merit, it is shared and may even go viral, regardless of the social status of who came up with the “something”. What we are witnessing is a network emerging out of unfiltered and unmediated connections that actively engage individuals with one another through common interests or needs.

Shirky described it as a kind of network that creates coordinated voluntary participation, connecting individuals to larger efforts and malleable tools for successful organizing. An example of this is found in an online free ride-share service called PickupPal. It is a website where the sharing of travel needs is organically created through a coordinated carpooling system. At one point, PickupPal were sued by a bus company which argued in court that their initiative constituted unfair competition. But because the communication channels were open, people launched a campaign to fight the lawsuit and their efforts resulted in the actual law being changed.

When freed from old ties, in an anarchistic meritocracy, the imagination begins to weave its own tapestries. Instead of being prescribed and handed down from outside, the route outward emerges from within each individual and manifests itself only through connections with others. This ubiquitous connectivity is intrinsic within the internet. If a link is broken, the human need will find another pathway. Now each person connects with the other through mutual needs. What fosters networks is genuine enthusiasm and excitement experienced at a personal level. These networks evolve as new pathways — and new passions subsequently emerge from them.

This network of anarchic meritocracy is decentralized and it appears as if there is no leader. The level playing field is not imposed from the outside, but instead is a result of each person connecting with their power to guide their own life. It is not as if there is no governance or leadership. In an anarchistic meritocracy, everyone that is willing to become a leader, can become one. This is a network of unleashed imagination that stands in opposition to entrenched establishment forces.

The Death of Ideology and Birth of a Culture of Ideals

From Cairo to Moscow, from Madrid to New York, the year 2011 unleashed this very power of networking. Many acknowledged the vital role social media played in the global revolution of 2011. In his book Why It’s Kicking Off Everywhere, Paul Mason noted how communication technology is changing basic social interaction and even one’s sense of self. Mason described how a new type of freedom has unfolded recently within what he refers to as the ‘networked individual.’

This new type of freedom is expressed in the inclination to live within multiple networks with flexible commitments, something that was already observed by the sociologist Barry Wellman early in the development of information technology, even before the internet became an integral part of life. Mason claims that this newly emerged concept of the individual defining herself by way of a network is more pervasive than ever and is influencing both behavior and consciousness. Borrowing an idea from the sociologist Richard Senett, Mason characterized the networked individual as a person with “weak ties, multiple loyalties and greater autonomy.”

How does the networked individual affect the way we organize society and develop individuality as a basis of relationship? Andrew Flood, a member of the Workers Solidarity Movement explored how in the internet age, Mason’s idea of this new kind of individual is bringing changes to traditional social forms and to the revolutionary process. Flood observed how traditional labor movements are modeled on the trade union within the old factory system, where people are focused on collective bargaining rights and geographically tied to that system and community. He then compared this to a new form of organizing enabled by mass communication technology.

Social network analyst Barry Wellman gave a useful summary on this new type of individual emerging online, with “the move from densely-knit and tightly-bounded groups to sparsely-knit and loosely-bounded networks”:

Each person is a switchboard, between ties and networks. People remain connected, but as individuals, rather than being rooted in the home bases of work unit and household. Each person operates a separate personal community network, and switches rapidly among multiple sub-networks … the organic and multidimensional relationships of communities are being transformed into narrow digitally-enabled, highly individualized, networked relationships; perhaps most widely recognizable as Facebook “friend”-ings accompanied by Facebook “like”-ings as a possible substitute for shared community values and norms. (as cited in Flood, 2012)

Some might criticize this kind of networking for the apparent lack of loyalty or stability that traditional ties depend on. They claim that the social structure will be fractured. Yet, is this really true? How are networks of weak ties and multiple loyalties different from traditional ones? This new network is averse to the old organizing principles that emerged out of the Industrial Revolution. Within traditional national, religious or political social structures, the individual is defined through belonging to that particular group.

Here, opposing or alternative ideas are not easily tolerated. By fighting against different ideas, they strengthen group identity. Loyalty to the group easily places one into a simplified duality of complex power structures, encouraging such sentiments as ‘us’ and ‘them’. This is a structure where an idea that guides the group is easily turned into ideology. By converting masses into belief systems, ideology becomes a powerful driving force by deriving energy from those who support it. Every ideology maintains power through eliminating differing point of views and claiming superiority over others.

On the other hand, networked individuals with fluid multiple loyalties follow an anarchistic muse that opposes the domination of single belief systems and dissolves traditional structures of ideology in sometimes unexpected ways. In the US, the political system itself has become an ideology where the idea that one must go along with the controlled party system only derives its power through the engagement and participation of the people. The rise of Occupy, on the other hand, is an expression of a movement where people come together in the recognition of the failure of institutions that are driven by such statist ideologies.

A good example of the digitally enabled networked individual is found in the online collective Anonymous. This is a loosely tied global network without traditional or fixed leadership. No one can define what Anonymous is and one idea cannot fully represent the collective.Guy Fawkes masks from the film V for Vendetta have become the group’s iconic symbol. What binds Anonymous are primarily shared ideas. More and more the group has been taking a moral high ground by standing up for free speech, transparency and economic justice. Anonymous is a network of people with diverse backgrounds coming together for shared ideas.

“Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea!” (McTeique, Wachowski, & Wachowaski, 2006). From this point of view, some might see Anonymous as no different from any other group. Yet, their notion of ‘idea’ itself is different than the way it is held traditionally. For Anonymous, the ‘idea’ is not attached to a particular individual, group or belief system. In their words, “Anonymous is simply ideas without origin … With anonymous there is no authorship. They are simply a spark but not fire. There is no control, no leadership, only influence.”

The way of Anonymous is that of the networked individual. Unlike old styles of group membership where individual loyalty is demanded in the long term, along with an almost exclusive commitment to the group’s predetermined beliefs, the legion of Anonymous honors each person’s authentic choices of free association with a special cause or operation. This is seen in how their various ‘ops’ unfold.

Through an egalitarian and consensual form of decision-making in IRC chat rooms, one may freely put forward an idea for an operation. The proposed action is voted on and if enough people step forward, the action takes place. Some might think Anonymous is like an organization with certain identifiable members, yet this is not the case. Anonymous is not a defined group and is said not to have any identified leaders. It is an open source handle. William Jackson, a senior writer of Government Computer News (GCN) described how “Anonymous is not unanimous”, and that not everything done under that name is agreed to by the members.

For instance, in anticipation of the Bank of America DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attack that was planned by a section of Anonymous, some pundits were assuming that this was the same organization as Operation Payback, the Pay Pal/Amazon DDoS group. Yet, even though there may be some overlap for those who were involved in this Bank of America action, it was actually a distinct and separate endeavor.

This way, the Anonymous notion of ‘idea’ is different from the one held in the traditional structure that has tendency toward exclusivity by recruiting people into a single organization. One can find multiple ways of manifesting their intention and connections and people can move from one group to the other. One tradition of thought moves toward and corresponds with another without being locked in. What guides the networked individual is the idea directly connected with the will. Quinn Norton in the article, How Anonymous Picks Targets, Launches Attacks, and Takes Powerful Organizations Down articulated the inner-working of this leaderless collective:

Anonymous is a classic “do-ocracy,” to use a phrase that’s popular in the open source movement. As the term implies, that means rule by sheer doing: Individuals propose actions, others join in (or not), and then the Anonymous flag is flown over the result. There’s no one to grant permission, no promise of praise or credit, so every action must be its own reward.

This Anon’s ‘do-ocracy’ is a type of direct action that is fundamental to anarchism. Instead of an idea being imposed from outside and abstracted from one’s own experience, one connects with genuine passion and enthusiasm through an agreed-on joint effort. It is each person’s direct link to the idea that transforms the idea into an ideal. In the past, outer dogma, traditions or inspiration from charismatic leaders were what led people into action, but now the networked individual creates a different kind of organizing force. In this new network, the vital force comes from inside each person, from their free will to align themselves with particular ideals, without pressure or expectation from outside.

Anons also don’t have other obligations that come with formal group membership, so each operation can fully utilize and direct their passion and energy freely. As with the unique Anonymous expression “Do it for the lulz,” people also engage in the action out of pure love for the engagement and experience. They do things for the sake of it, because they love doing it rather than acting for some tangible goal and promised outcome.

This forms a different kind of movement where promise and goals are not the guiding force, but people engage because participating in the cause itself gives them meaning. Loose ties are indeed a strength that engender multiple loyalties. With this emerging networked individual, there is a potential for a larger sense of union. People are not coming together by association to a particular group out of duty, but instead through ideas turning into ideals by free choice and inspired will. This legion sees no borders or limitation as it rises through peer-to-peer communion, weaving a new destiny for humanity in a free associative culture of ideals.

Anonymous, the Mask of Anarchy

This networked individual seen in Anonymous shakes up the taken-for-granted identity. Existence in this modern world means one is destined to be defined through a Eurocentric perspective, under the dominance of a white male worldview. Most are inwardly enslaved by the single eye of empire that classifies according to particularities such as race, class, color of skin and gender into unspoken hierarchies. Franz Fanon studied the black psyche in the white world through his experiences in the Algerian resistance to French colonialism: “As painful as it is for us to have to say this: there is but one destiny for the black man. And it is white,” (2008/1952, p. xiv).

This experience is not something only from a past colonial era. A friend from Jamaica once shared her first-hand encounter with embedded racism. She described how in Jamaica, social class distinctions include skin color and other physical features, and that biological markers having evidence of white blood was given superior status with greater access to wealth, education, jobs and opportunity. She described how she was a privileged brown there, but tables were turned when she moved to the US and she was made to be black in a deeply racist society.

Anonymity offers freedom from being formed by other’s outer perception which often oppresses one’s existence. Whether it is a defiant protester with a Guy Fawkes mask on the street or an alias activist online, anonymity frees one from restrictions that are associated with social identity and pressures to conform. It is an act of dissension, an insurrection in the best sense of the word. One can engage in actions that are usually suppressed or discouraged in the belief that they do not fit social norms and may disrupt the existing social structure.

This allows each person to transform the centralized perception of privilege and increasingly exploitative corporate valuation. Just as the P2P anonymity of each Bitcoin transaction is made independently from a centralized bank, so too in this case, self-recognition is freed from outer influence of dominant structure. One wakes up from the position of being shaped by outer perception to actively engage in defining and creating one’s own identity.

Anarchism sees identity formation as free-flowing movement that cannot be defined or fixed from outside. The gist of anarchy opposes centralized control that blocks true individual autonomy. Just as what was done with the financial blockade of WikiLeaks, so to the character assassination of Julian Assange has been an attempt to block the autonomous process of self creation. Using smearing false portrayals with overused terms such as charged and rapist, the old-school media imprints manufactured images on public minds and imprison those who become victims of character assassination in their controlled perception.

Now the freezing force of imposed identity is inverted through the act of empathic union. “We are all Scott Olsen”, “We are all Bradley Manning”, “We are all Julian Assange”. It is this stagnation of individual freedom that Anonymous stepped forward to fight. Wherever oppression, abuse of power and bullies exist, Anonymous is found by masking one’s personal identity to align with others in the shared heart of affinity in action. In this way, Anonymous as networked individuals embody the essence of anarchy.

Loyalty in anarchism is not to a certain group or individual, but to the idea of decentralization and open space where each person can create their unique being and recognize the other in freedom. Intruders to this open space are caught on their radar screen. Whoever and whatever violates these principles will be met with Anonymous fury. Through passionate alignment with ideals that come through certain persecuted individuals, they dismantle a fixated perception and free those who have become victims of centralized oppression.

This mobilized identity was also seen in the Zapatista solidarity movement. Subcomandante Marcos was the spokesman for the rebel army fighting for the rights of indigenous peoples in Mexico. The government tried to undermine him by unmasking him and revealing his identity. When there was a move to discredit Shim by insinuating that he was gay, Marcos replied:

Yes, Marcos is gay. Marcos is gay in San Francisco, black in South Africa, an Asian in Europe, a Chicano in San Ysidro, an anarchist in Spain, a Palestinian in Israel, a Mayan Indian in the streets of San Cristobal, a Jew in Germany, a Gypsy in Poland, a Mohawk in Quebec, a pacifist in Bosnia, a single woman on the Metro at 10pm, a peasant without land, a gang member in the slums, an unemployed worker, an unhappy student and, of course, a Zapatista in the mountains.

Marcos is all the exploited, marginalized, oppressed minorities resisting and saying “Enough”. He is every minority that is now beginning to speak and every majority that must shut up and listen. He is every untolerated group searching for a way to speak. Everything that makes power and the good consciences of those in power uncomfortable — this is Marcos.

Anonymous is a mask of anarchy, a symbol and a shield for transformation that liberates our essential being from oppressive forces. Beneath the mask there is flesh, veins that feel and remember deep ties of humanity. When someone is in misery and suffering, we feel their pain. Our freedom is deeply intertwined. A uniformed mask changes its face with active imagining. The Guy Fawkes visage has come to represent these multiple faces.

This is a movement constantly changing shape through empathic imagination to unite with others in free association. By wearing the face of Guy Fawkes, an individual touches something larger and becomes part of the creative current of essential humanity; one that is constantly being formed, dissolved and renewed again.

Rebooting Civilization

A new network of anarchism is emerging at a global level. When the formal route of nation-state diplomacy fails, citizens of one country begin to directly connect with citizens of other countries to circumvent the hate and fear-mongering of their governments. For instance, with peer-to-peer communication, Iranian people have begun to support Israeli commoners and vice-versa, showing the world a new form of diplomacy that emerges from unmediated human connections.

People are now bypassing centralized state authority. A volunteer-run network called Global Voices provides translation for the international blogosphere, helping messages get through language barriers. Ivan Sigal, executive director of the organization pointed out how bloggers and citizen journalists are now working as cultural mediators.

Ad hoc movements have become instant mobile global aid campaigns that show what grassroots humanitarian intervention can look like as opposed to being guided or co-opted by state or corporate interests. Telecomix is a decentralized cluster of Internet activists committed to freedom of speech. It has no mailing address, no country, no bank account or physical headquarters. With no official membership, people spontaneously show up in chat rooms and start to participate. It is an anarchism-inspired network focused on direct action.

Telecomix provided tech support for the Arab Spring, both in Tunisia and Egypt, with modem faxes facilitating the flow of information. When Youtube is blocked in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan, Telecomix mirrors the videos to keep information flowing. Are those who network through peer-to-peer technology opening the door to a new civilization and ultimately transforming who we are becoming? This is a question explored by Don Tapscott, author and chairman of Moxie. Tapscott made the claim that the internet can reboot civilization. He described how it is building a platform that fosters a new culture of sharing and collaboration.

There is something unique about internet technology. Through analogue communication modes, such as the typewriter or the TV, the individual only interacts with others one way through a machine. Individuals are isolated as they express their own views. On the other hand, the internet allows us to interact in real time, while evolving new technologies on the ground level. It is highly social in nature, and this level of mutual connectivity was simply not possible with the technology of the past.

Tapscott described how the current digital age brought about a radical leap in civilization, just as the printing press centuries before had ushered in a mass communications revolution that empowered those with access to the press. The latest digital phase empowered everyone with an internet connection to become their own news network node. This is met with resistance by the existing culture that operates within the old media and the paradigm of the Industrial Age, marked by centralized and censorship. Tapscott explained:

The new media is the antithesis of all that. It’s one-to-one and many-to-many. It’s highly distributed, and not really controllable in a conventional sense. And as such it has this awesome neutrality. … The new culture of the web operates with a different principle creating a kind of networked consciousness: it’s about achieving power through people rather than over people. It’s about letting go to build more successful organizations and a more open society …

This revolution in technological infrastructure is becoming a pathway for the emergence of a new insurgent anarchism. The creativity that flows through the actions of networked individuals on the internet diverges from the insidious undertow of the dominant economic system. This centralized system of capitalism which depends on mass production, the profit motive, cheap labor and the notion of scarcity for market value is now being challenged by activities that operate on the basis of totally different principles of sharing, mutual development and affinity-oriented organization.

In his blog piece Watching Open Source Destroy Capitalism, J. D. Moyer made the claim that open source principles and corporate capitalism are actually antithetical to one another and cannot really co-exist. He gave an example of the rapidly changing music industry to show the clash of new and old models. He pointed out how the drives of artistic creation and sharing of work is more fundamental to artists than money making. When this is coupled with less expensive means of production, they become naturally more engaged in open source sharing. This challenges the recording and film industries that still operate under proprietary principles. As Moyer puts it:

Capitalism is based on scarcity. In order for the principles of supply and demand and “self-regulating” markets to function as expected, production and distribution channels need to be privately owned and tightly controlled …. Open-source destroys scarcity. When the means of production are free or very cheap, when distribution is free, and when producers prioritize values other than profit (things like social value, or status/bragging rights), then prices move quickly towards zero.

The Occupy movement celebrated its one year birthday on September 17. It was a testimony, a public realization of the truly inhuman nature of Wall Street cowboy capitalism. Jerome Roos of ROAR articulated how Occupy has morphed into a debt resistance movement and people are uniting through the bond of solidarity. People are waking up to a harsh reality, with exploding housing foreclosures, student debts and unemployment — and all the while, bankers are given a blank check.

Obama’s presidential campaign promise of ‘hope and change’ was deeply tied into intentional fraudulent misrepresentation. Instead, the world received a continuing rigged-casino-stock-market-cum-mutual-bondage-of-debt that ripped off the financial future of humanity. But, rage and indignation were not the only things that Occupy brought to the surface. People are now beginning to find the true source of wealth: mutual bonds based on trust.

Open source sharing is now practiced by millions of people online, shaping a gift and sharing economy. Through creating alternative models and avenues of economic life, this is beginning to subvert the dominant debt-based economy.

What is emerging now is innovative citizen diplomacy, alternative currencies and peer-to-peer journalism. These horizontal structures and ideas are breaking down traditional vertical structures and shaking up dependent identities embedded within them. A torrent of civic imagination is swirling through the disintegrating corporate political structures. Beneath the turbulent system error of outer calamity, a current of shared creativity is silently rebooting civilization.

Continued in Part III

References:

Fanon, F. (2008). Black skin, white masks. (R. Philcox,Trans.). New York: Grove Press. (Original work published 1952)

Hayes, C. (2012). Twilight of the elites: America after meritocracy. New York: Crown Publishers.

Mason, P. (2012). Why it’s kicking off everywhere: The new global revolutions. New York: Verso.

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

Clytie Siddall December 29, 2012 at 10:39

You have linked to the wrong “Global Voices” (a UK commercial translation company). This is the grassroots blogger/translation network:

http://globalvoicesonline.org/

@Clytie

Reply

# OCCUPY HISPANIA - IBERIA - LUSITANIA - INDIGNADOS # January 27, 2013 at 12:27

Same happening right now here in Spain, Europe

Reply

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: