The nfo [about] page mentions something from Faithless’ “Weapons of Mass Destruction” : Inaction is a weapon of mass destruction.
Certainly, the ways of action are diverse and extend, across the board, from peaceful talks to violent protests. The way of the anarchist has always been radical in a belief that the only results that society will react to — not governments but the people that the anarchist believes to be serving — are those that shock and scare. Bombings, hijackings, vandalism. Governments have offset this belief by manipulating the media to shed a very negative light on said acts and instill fear in the populace — the theme has been exploited from Conrad’s “The Secret Agent” to Moore’s “V for Vendetta”. As a result, the masses turn to the only authority they know and somewhat trust — not because it’s what they believe in but simply because a change might be for the worse. You might or might not believe those stickers claiming that 9-11 was an inside job; but you have to agree, by looking at present-day United States, that people have happily given up many of their freedoms in search for protection. Approval ratings for Bush sky-rocketed, internal conflicts were paused - all because America was fighting against terrorists and the gruesome facts they perpetrate.
But real questions were avoided, reasons for actions were not sought, deeper problems were not addressed. The people didn’t care about much else, the slightest danger to their lifestyle was more than enough to terrify them into submission. The same happens to anarchists because, while they manage to scare people, they don’t have the methods to also convince them. The ideals are as ephemeral as the bomb smoke that dresses them up.
The other idea — that a lot of people think to be ineffective — is to act from inside the system. Immersing oneself in that which represents the enemy and destabilizing it from within. Some say the system overcomes you and adds you to its ranks — this is true and this happens frequently. It’s all of us that have ever lost a dream and attributed it to ‘becoming mature’ and ‘getting our shit straightened out’. Though maybe sometimes we just don’t see it. Hitler worked the system quite well, didn’t he? That he was a very negative element of history is another aspect and not a counter-argument. Anybody that has ever worked undercover has done the same — at great risk to themselves and possibly those close to them — and many still pulled through. People expect the acts that make history to come highlighted in the daily paper, but they rarely do. There isn’t almost any glory to be had in true revolution1. The Great Anonymous.
Another reason for which working the system2 is beneficial results from the perceived gradual change this offers people. No matter how corrupt the system is, no matter how many fronts the battle is fought on - people will be less observant of constant change, positive or negative, as long as the steps are small enough not to cause a paradigm shift. There will be less resistance and, especially, a heightened sense of understanding of issues. People have time to deal with these things, to understand these things and possibly make them their own. Remember that, if revolution is what you want, you cannot force upon people something they do not believe in — we’ve had communism fail plenty because of exactly that3. In 1984, Orwell speaks of “convincing people”, not of “terrorizing into submission”, and that makes all the difference.
This is too peaceful for many, too slow and too prone to error. I wonder whether some just need veiled excuses for bloody violence and dress those up in ideals because, somehow, they know to be wrong or insufficiently motivated. When choosing between blowing up a car in front of a packed coffee shop or totaling an empty corporate edifice, some think shock goes a longer way when blood is involved.
What would happen if the stock market crashed, though?
