I want to first of all be quite clear: I am not a member of Anonymous and I sure as hell speak for no one but myself, Kenneth Lipp, firstname.lastname@example.org. I will continue to add info to this post throught, etc, selah, amen___
This will nicely round out my three-P's of social history theme. I've hit Parrhesia , Panopticon , and now time for my namesake her, Praxis.
My concern is with Karl Marx's systematic theory of values; and his fundamental assumption concerning human nature, namely that human beings can be rational, for the significance of the dialectic in its "rational form" is that it enables them to comprehend the contradictory nature of reality as a prerequisite to changing it.
Intro to Das Kapital:
In the domain of Political Economy, free scientific inquiry meets not merely the same enemies as in all other domains. The peculiar nature of the materials it deals with, summons as foes into the field of battle the most violent, mean and malignant passions of the human breast, the Furies of private interest. The English Established Church, e.g., will more readily pardon an attack on 38 of its 39 articles than on 1/39 of its income. Now-a-days atheism is culpa levis, as compared with criticism of existing property relations. Nevertheless, there is an unmistakable advance. I refer, e.g., to the Blue book published within the last few weeks: "Correspondence with Her Majesty's Missions Abroad, regarding Industrial Questions and Trades' Unions". The representatives of the English Crown in foreign countries there declare in so many words that in Germany, in France,to be brief, in all the civilised states of the European Continent, radical change in the existing relations between capital and labour is as evident and inevitable as in England. At the same time, on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, Mr. Wade, vice-president of the United States, declared in public meetings that, after the abolition of slavery, a radical change of the relations of capital and of property in land is next upon the order of the day. These are signs of the times, not to be hidden by purple mantles or black cassocks. They do not signify that tomorrow a miracle will happen. They show that, within the ruling-classes themselves, a foreboding is dawning, that the present society is no solid crystal, but an organism capable of change, and is constantly changing.
Specifically, the rational form would eventually enable the working class to understand the contradictory nature of capitalist reality. Indeed, the "ultimate aim" of Capital was to "lay bare the economic motion of modern society" in order to "shorten and lessen the birthpangs" of its transformation into communism. It is human rationality that under-pins Marx's well-known emphasis on the unity of theory and practice, in other words, his notion of "praxis": The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary praxis [Marx and Engels 1970, 121].
Thus, Capital can be seen as a contribution to the revolutionary praxis of the working class in he]ping it to achieve its historic mission via an appreciation of the contradictions of modern capitalism.
Marx's portrayal of humankind as potentially rational also resolves the puzzle as to why Marx could simultaneously entertain the idea of an historical telos, with its deterministic implications, and uphold the voluntaristic and reflexive notion of praxis or practical activity. He assumes that workers-through rational thought, through reflecting on their experience of capitalism, and notably through their increasing immiseration and growing collective strength, will inevitably want and be able to overthrow it . Moreover, this solution to the puzzle would also unite the historical teleology in Marx, which Hunt rejects, with the individual teleology, which he accepts. It is relevant to note briefly at this juncture that Marx's conception of rationality arguably was not based on the notion of hedonistic self-interest as claimed by Veblen, since Marx explicitly rejected Bentham. Rather, it stemmed from a need for individual and collective self-realization and for individual and collective telos, which required "an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" [Marx] and to develop in accord with their "human nature."
Marx, however, sought to locate this "historic mission" of the 'working class and his understanding of capitalism in a broader historical context. Thus, in the Communist Manifesto, he and Engels present the proletariat as the first potential ruling class in history to be a genuine "universal class."
All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority .
And in Marx's famous Preface, arguably his most definitive statement on history, he suggests that the capitalist era can be considered within a wider historical sweep. The regulative principle that determines whether different modes of production-ancient, feudal, capitalist-rise and fall is whether they are conducive to the development of the productive forces. At some stage, given production relations, instead of advancing production, they become fetters. Capitalist relations are no exception to this general rule. Furthermore, each mode of production creates within itself new social classes that are bearers of the new social relations of production. Again, capitalism is no exception; it generates within itself a working class-the social agent that will transcend capitalist relations. Marx's intellectual project was predicated on the notion that the working class had the capacity to be an effective source of change, which was in turn derived from the assumption of human rationality. Even if the Preface is not regarded as Marx's definitive account of history--and we stress instead his more open-ended, empirical interpretation, as some commentators have done --we are still left with a highly teleological theory of capitalism, with its downfall being the inevitable result of its inner contradictions.
This is from IndyMedia
You may have heard in some of the news outlets that a group of "Hackers" have declared war on Scientology. Firstly, we're not hackers. We are an autonomus group of individuals who have come together to fight a common cause. It is our aim to make people aware of the wrongdoings and cult-like nature of this organisation, and ultimately reduce their ability to take and destroy lives. We are known as Anonymous.
When and Where
This began when the now notorious Tom Cruise video was leaked. When the scientologists attempted to have the video removed, it created a back lash within several large Internet communities who value free speech. Projet Chanology was formed. As a part of our new, and ongoing operation UK members are organising a protest at the scientology offices in London.
While I have attended Mayday and the G8, and so have some past experience, many of us are geeks, not activists. I am writing to you to request any help or presence you can offer. We believe that the media attention we have received is enough to validate our effectiveness and numbers. Thousands of Anonymous have already been engaged in direct action against the church.
I am anonymous, and I speak only for anonymous - but any help would be greatly appreciated. Our plans are publicly available, and there is much information to be found online.. an outline of our plan currently exists here:
You may also find our open messages to scientology here:
See the attached image for details of when and where.
I thank you kindly for your time.
We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget.
Most mass exposure to Anonymous is one-dimensional. For the more academically inclined, you'll find the field of information warfare exceedingly rich. Where information warfare was once a distinct discipline with military underpinnings, it has increasingly become fused with both the computer security and intelligence disciplines. Information warfare is still defined in some quarters as “information operations conducted during time of crises or conflict to achieve or promote specific objectives over a specific adversary or adversaries” (IWS, n.d.). Hutchison and Warren (2001) defined the essence of information warfare as where information “has to be manipulated to the advantage of those trying to influence it”.
These principles have not changed, yet the extent to which the application of these principles has infiltrated the contemporary corporate environment has shifted and extended. Whilst the definition is primarily military, the application of it has diverged into the corporate environment. Similarly, its composition and implication for the armed forces has also altered with the advancement of technology.
The military are increasingly dependent on communication systems, networks and electronic sensors, reflecting a change in the characterisation war from a physical battlefield to a modern digitized one, supported by information and executed remotely (Frater & Ryan, 2001). Related to this is the application in the commercial environment where competitive business wars are waged with knowledge and control of communication networks. The changes driven by new technology reflect both a transformation in the command and control of military forces, and in how they are organised and trained. Perhaps what is key to this discussion is not that the focus of information warfare should move away from the its military basis, but that firstly its objectives and techniques now apply increasingly to the corporate environment, and secondly that the manner in which warfare is waged will evolve and change because of the advances in technology. Therefore, there is a shift in both application and execution of information warfare.
Of help can be a little research with your trusty Googler: (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group) , Wikipedia's entry on Anonymous)
Anonymous (used as a mass noun) is an Internet meme originating 2003 on the imageboard 4chan, representing the concept of many online community users simultaneously existing as an anarchic, digitized global brain. It is also generally considered to be a blanket term for members of certain Internet subcultures, a way to refer to the actions of people in an environment where their actual identities are not known.In its early form, the concept has been adopted by a decentralized on-line community acting anonymously in a coordinated manner, usually toward a loosely self-agreed goal, and primarily focused on entertainment. Beginning with 2008, the Anonymous collective has become increasingly associated with collaborative, international hacktivism, undertaking protests and other actions, often with the goal of promoting internet freedom and freedom of speech. Actions credited to "Anonymous" are undertaken by unidentified individuals who apply the Anonymous label to themselves as attribution.Although not necessarily tied to a single on-line entity, many websites are strongly associated with Anonymous. This includes notable imageboards such as 4chan, Futaba, their associated wikis, Encyclopædia Dramatica, and a number of forums. After a series of controversial, widely-publicized protests and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks by Anonymous in 2008, incidents linked to its cadre members have increased. In consideration of its capabilities, Anonymous has been posited by CNN to be one of the three major successors to WikiLeaks.
The following text can be found here:
I want to draw attention to the fact that this is not some far off possibility, or pure conjecture. The Guardian reported in March 2011 on a
“US spy operation that manipulates social media-
This is a very tangible example, perhaps harbinger, of the kind of surveillance which state and /or corporate interests might be expected to insinuate into pop culture, with ease, on a level playing field with legitimate users (or “openly clandestine” agents. There needs to be a means to speak fearlessly, and anonymity is a valuable resource to enable public candor).
Further documentation http://www.scribd.com/doc/54119385/HBGary-Federal-Berico-Palantir-Private-Corporate-Surveillance-Program-on-Activists
“Persona management: The deployment of entirely fake online personas controlled en masse by a human operator. Increasingly, this process is software-assisted, allowing a single individual to control fifty "people," at least in the case of the apparatus requested by the USAF when putting out bids to federal contractors such as HBGary. Such personas tend to be equipped with biographical data sufficient to present a front of legitimacy even to those with whom the personas communicate.Those communications in turn are regulated via software-based filters that aid in maintaining situational integrity throughout the entirety of each persona's interactions with its human targets; as is described at great length in this 2007 patent (hilariously portrayed as a method by which busy executives might better ensure that they do not say anything bizarre or insulting when dealing with foreign nationals despite that the fact that the authors happen to be working out of U.S. military installations in Virginia in conjunction with IBM, which itself does not seem to have ever gotten around to releasing any such product), linguistic and geographical considerations are taken into account automatically, along with a variety of others, in order to streamline the age-old internet practice of sockpuppeting."