You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Nathan Schneider
Published: Wednesday 1 February 2012
“The more I learn about Anonymous, especially in light of the offline, on-the-ground praxis of the Occupy movement, the more I’ve been wondering whether we’re seeing a glimpse of the future for all of us.”

Is Anonymous Our future?

The enigmatic Internet-driven collective Anonymous, thank goodness, has an anthropologist in its midst. For a few years now, Gabriella Coleman has been arduously participant-observing in IRC chat rooms, watching Anonymous turn from a prankster moniker to a herd of vigilantes for global justice. In an extraordinary new essay at Triple Canopy, “Our Weirdness Is Free,” she summarizes what Anonymous is all about this way:

Beyond a foundational commitment to anonymity and the free flow of information, Anonymous has no consistent philosophy or political program. Though Anonymous has increasingly devoted its energies to (and become known for) digital dissent and direct action around various “ops,” it has no definite trajectory. Sometimes coy and playful, sometimes macabre and sinister, often all at once, Anonymous is still animated by a collective will toward mischief—toward “lulz,” a plural bastardization of the portmanteau LOL (laugh out loud). Lulz represent an ethos as much as an objective.

The more I learn about Anonymous, especially in light of the offline, on-the-ground praxis of the Occupy movement, the more I’ve been wondering whether we’re seeing a glimpse of the future for all of us.

Here’s why. Over the past couple of years, as Anons became lulled—pun intended—into politics through their Scientology, Wikileaks, and Arab Spring operations, the lulz ethos has turned into a mode of movement-building. And it’s a movement that appears singularly scary to the powers that be, from globalized corporations to the governments of superpowers, despite (or perhaps because of) the Anons’ apparent disorganization and probably in excess of their actual capacity:

Political operations often come together haphazardly. Often lacking an overarching strategy, Anonymous operates tactically, along the lines proposed by the French Jesuit thinker Michel de Certeau. “Because it does not have a place, a tactic depends on time—it is always on the watch for opportunities that must be seized ‘on the wing,’” he writes in The Practice of Everyday Life (1980). “Whatever it wins, it does not keep. It must constantly manipulate events in order to turn them into ‘opportunities.’ The weak must continually turn to their own ends forces alien to them.” This approach could easily devolve into unfocused operations that dissipate the group’s collective strength. But acting “on the wing” leverages Anonymous’s fluid structure, giving Anons an advantage, however temporary, over traditional institutions—corporations, states, political parties—that function according to unified plans.

This bears striking resemblance to the activist framework of “diversity of tactics” that has prevailed in the Occupy movement, which emphasizes fostering dexterity and decentralization (as well as, relevantly, permissiveness toward “black blocs” of masked crusaders). But Anonymous’ allergy to unified planning isn’t limited to tactics; it extends to overall strategy and even ultimate purpose. Continues Coleman:

While Anonymous has not put forward any programmatic plan to topple institutions or change unjust laws, it has made evading them seem easy and desirable. To those donning the Guy Fawkes mask associated with Anonymous, this—and not the commercialized, “transparent” social networking of Facebook—is the promise of the Internet, and it entails trading individualism for collectivism.

In fact, Anonymous bespeaks a collective recognition that’s fueling uprisings from Lagos to Bucharest: the kinds of governments we have in place actually have little capacity for addressing the longings we have for freedom and collectivity in a globalizing, digital age. The reason both Anonymous and Occupy Wall Street don’t put forward “any programmatic plan” that existing institutions could follow is that there isn’t one. Or, rather, the movements themselves are their own programmatic plan, parallel institutions unto themselves.

One of the things that amazed me during the first weeks of Occupy Wall Street was that, as the movement spread to occupations all around the country and the world, they were so similar to one another; all took direct democracy as the basic unit of political legitimacy, and prided themselves on a decentralized, horizontal structure, and discouraged credit-taking and self-aggrandizement. How did people all over the U.S. and the world know how to Occupy, and so quickly? Their preparedness can at least partly be attributed to the veterans of the global justice movement of a decade ago who flocked to the occupations. But perhaps even more significant an influence among the younger occupiers was the experience some of them had had with Anonymous and groups like it online.

Coleman explains the resemblances:

One of Occupy Wall Street’s most powerful gestures has been to position its radically democratic decision-making process, represented by the agora of the General Assembly, against the reining corporate kleptocracy. Though this brand of horizontalism has a rich history with many roots, there is a particularly strong resonance in the relationship between the formal structure and the political aspirations of Anonymous. And Anonymous is organized not only around a radical democratic (at times chaotic and anarchic) structure but also around the very concept of anonymity, here constituted as collectivity. The accumulation of too much power—especially in a single point in (virtual) space—and prestige is not only taboo but functionally very difficult. The lasting effect of Anonymous may have as much to do with facilitating alternative practices of sociality—upending the ideological divide between individualism and collectivism—as with attacks on monolithic banks and sleazy security firms.

As Mary King has so often pointed out in her columns on Waging Nonviolence, the form that a resistance movement takes has a big effect on the society that emerges after it, especially if the movement has some amount of success. The preoccupation with process and internal culture in both Anonymous and the Occupy movement, therefore, has justifiably high stakes. With that in mind, in a new essay on the Harper’s website, I try to extrapolate from texts approved by various Occupy assemblies what a post-revolutionary Planet Occupy might look like.

I see no quick-and-easy legislative, executive, or judicial patches for the problems which the movement means to confront. I’ve come to think, instead, that the movement’s lasting contribution could be something substantially more ambitious: a wholesale rethinking of political life, more akin to the promulgation of revolutionary France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen than, say, the introduction of a financial-transaction tax or the revocation of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

So, brace yourself. In the meantime, make haste to Coleman’s essay at Triple Canopy.

wef adfa xboter 2014

wef adfa xboter 2014

wef adfa xboter 2014

wef adfa xboter 2014

wef adfa xboter 2014

wef adfa xboter 2014

wef adfa xboter 2014

wef adfa xboter 2014

Your article makes it sound

Your article makes it sound as easy as pie, I have had much luck with reubcart and paypal/linkpoint , but haven't had to use it with yet.I see on in the > contributions there are 2 modules:+ (SIM) payment method+ Advanced (CIM) Which module did you use? (Also which version? if necessary )Or is there another module that I am not seeing?Thanks!

There is no virtue in what

There is no virtue in what Anonymous does; they are only interested in the attention their actions bring. The reason I don't take the Occupy movement seriously is mainly because I kept hearing about it on various social media with Anonymous' name attached to it.

Anonymous, the group with a reputation of cyberbullying teenagers to the point of suicide, and then idiotically LULZing about it on websites like Encyclopedia Dramatica---and then complaining that corporations "have no empathy".

Anonymous, the group that complains about private citizens being harassed by Scientologists---and then posting dox and harassing private citizens themselves for no other reason than their precious LULZ.

Anonymous, the puerile miscreants who post the most racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic filth on the internet and think it's "funny", but anyone who dares to call them out for being offensive and unfunny is "taking the internet too seriously."

No, Anonymous is not our future. Anonymous is a product of the Eternal September. They are a force for conformity that seeks out the different in order to destroy it for their precious LULZ, and makes the world a greyer and less awesome place. They do not deserve our respect or support.

This glorification of

This glorification of Anonymous is so ridiculous. Who are they, how do they live, what lies in THEIR bank accounts? The Occupy movement is partly about TRANSPARENCY. Anonymous is hardly transparent. How can you assume that the people of Anon are as altruistic as they claim? The fact is, you don't know. There is a disconnect between Occupy campers pointing their fingers at the 1% and the ultra-evasive Anonymous' activities. Are you going to behave as sheep nodding your heads at these Anon UTube videos? It's more realistic to see people in terms of shades of grey. Haven't we learned this yet?

Ang Gree's picture

"upending the ideological

"upending the ideological divide between individualism and collectivism"
that's one of the things the Authoritarian Right can't comprehend about Occupy/Anon; because their deep ideological faith in hierarchy, rank, and status makes it near impossible to get a handle on the horizontal nature of equality-oriented democracy in action.
that's why wingnuts always insist that OWS is somehow a front for Obama, Soros, or whoever they think is the "leader" of the Radical Left. does the Left even have a leader?
now that the hacker culture has become politicized and on-the-ground activists have demonstrated their willingness to go out and take a take a few beatings, we have an opportunity to grow our own Revolution in ways that the Corporate Right won't know how to fight.
as long as they believe we can't be rugged, free-thinking individuals while working toward collective goals - without party politics, corporate sponsors, or easily-assassinated leaders - then we have the upper hand. they can chase phantoms in the dark while we act spontaneously, collectively and individually, following our own lights.

Anonymous (#FreeTopiary) got

Anonymous (#FreeTopiary) got people excited to give a damn. Anon started occupying in March, well before OWS officially started. I personally was at #opPortland on Independence Day. London "Riots", the execution of Troy Davis, #opBart helped gather in numbers.

So far it is working out well. Those who become snitches or greedy get outed fast. It's chaotic yet inherently democratic. If enough people are for a particular op, it happens, anyone can make a suggestion.

#opFreePalestine just stole over 10,000 CC# and using them all to help free the Palestinians from the terrorist Israeli regime.

When we lose our sense of humour, this turns into an angry revolution as opposed to an attempt at a societial and mental evolution.

Google words Anonymous and

Google words Anonymous and pastebin together. Read more articles about Anonymous, educate yourselves, form your own opinions.

Hey Lulu...can you expand on

Hey Lulu...can you expand on this? What are pastebins?

Anonymous--right or wrong

Anonymous--right or wrong through whose eyes and by what criteria. It is an ideologically fragmented group with offshoots. It does or could have informants judging by pastebins I've seen. This is a complex group of people, Anon is not to be glamorized.

Good article. Perhaps the

Good article. Perhaps the most important thing Occupy and Anon has given us is hope. Hope that we realy can regain our freedom and control of our country. It is also always fun to watch the frustration of the right wing when they realise that all their propaganda and lies have no lasting effect. Growing out of that is the faith that regular people, knowing the difference between right and wrong can only be held down for so long. Time for the pendulam to swing

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...