Peter Kropotkin om, hvordan det alt for ofte går umiddelbart efter en “revolution” – fra hans bog The Conquest of Bread:
In several large towns the Commune is proclaimed. In the streets wander scores of thousands of men, and in the evening they crowd into improvised clubs, asking: “What shall we do?” and ardently discuss public affairs. All take an interest in them; those who yesterday were quite indifferent are perhaps the most zealous. Everywhere there is plenty of good-will and a keen desire to make victory certain. It is a time when acts of supreme devotion are occurring. The masses of the people are full of the desire of going forward.
All this is splendid, sublime; but still, it is not a revolution. Nay, it is only now that the work of the revolutionist begins.
Doubtless there will be acts of vengeance. The Watrins and the Thomases will pay the penalty of their unpopularity; but these are mere incidents of the struggle—not the revolution.
Socialist politicians, radicals, neglected geniuses of journalism, stump orators—both middle-class people and workmen—will hurry to the Town Hall, to the Government offices, to take possession of the vacant seats. Some will decorate themselves with gold and silver lace to their hearts’ content, admire themselves in ministerial mirrors, and study to give orders with an air of importance appropriate to their new position. How could they impress their comrades of the office or the workshop without having a red sash, an embroidered cap, and magisterial gestures! Others will bury themselves in official[Pg 19] papers, trying, with the best of wills, to make head or tail of them. They will indite laws and issue high-flown worded decrees that nobody will take the trouble to carry out—because revolution has come.
To give themselves an authority which they have not they will seek the sanction of old forms of Government. They will take the names of “Provisional Government,” “Committee of Public Safety,” “Mayor,” “Governor of the Town Hall,” “Commissioner of Public Safety,” and what not. Elected or acclaimed, they will assemble in Boards or in Communal Councils, where men of ten or twenty different schools will come together, representing—not as many “private chapels,” as it is often said, but as many different conceptions regarding the scope, the bearing, and the goal of the revolution. Possibilists, Collectivists, Radicals, Jacobins, Blanquists, will be thrust together, and waste time in wordy warfare. Honest men will be huddled together with the ambitious ones, whose only dream is power and who spurn the crowd whence they are sprung. All coming together with diametrically opposed views, all—forced to enter into ephemeral alliances, in order to create majorities that can but last a day. Wrangling, calling each other reactionaries, authoritarians, and rascals, incapable of coming to an understanding on any serious measure, dragged into discussions about trifles, producing nothing better than bombastic proclamations; all giving themselves an awful importance while the real strength of the movement is in the streets.
All this may please those who like the stage, but it is not revolution. Nothing has been accomplished as yet.
And meanwhile the people suffer. The factories are idle, the workshops closed; trade is at a standstill. The worker does not even earn the meagre wage which was his before. Food goes up in price. With that heroic devotion which has always characterized them, and which in great crises reaches the sublime, the people will wait patiently. “We place these three months of want at the service of the Republic,” they said in 1848, while “their representatives” and the gentlemen of the new Government, down to the meanest Jack-in-office received their salary regularly.
Tænk blot på komissærernes magtovertagelse efter den russiske revolution i 1917, og et tilsvarende forløb i alle andre revolutioner, som jeg kan komme i tanker om. Løsningen er, mener Kropotkin, at revolutionens “ledere”, hvis der er nogen, må tage ansvar for hele folkets velbefindende frem for at fokusere på deres egen betydning:
We must recognize, and loudly proclaim, that every one, whatever his grade in the old society, whether strong or weak, capable or incapable, has, before everything, THE RIGHT TO LIVE, and that society is bound to share amongst all, without exception, the means of existence it has at its disposal. We must acknowledge this, and proclaim it aloud, and act up to it.Affairs must be managed in such a way that from the first[Pg 21] day of the revolution the worker shall know that a new era is opening before him; that henceforward none need crouch under the bridges, while palaces are hard by, none need fast in the midst of plenty, none need perish with cold near shops full of furs; that all is for all, in practice as well as in theory, and that at last, for the first time in history, a revolution has been accomplished which considers the NEEDS of the people before schooling them in their DUTIES.
Som Felix Salmon skriver på Reuters.com i anledning af Murdoch-imperiets store iPad-satsning The Daily og dens tidlige død:
When the iPad was first announced, there were lots of dreams about what it could achieve, and how rich its content could be. But in hindsight, it’s notable how many of the dreamers came from the world of print. Web people tended to be much less excited about the iPad than print people were, maybe because they knew they already had something better. The web, for instance, doesn’t need to traffic in discrete “issues” — if you subscribe to the New York Times, you can read any story you like, going back decades. Whereas if you subscribe to a publication on a tablet, you can read only one issue at a time.
When the iPad launched, it allowed people to do things they could never do with a print publication: watch videos, say. But at the same time the experience was still inferior to what you could get on the web, which iterates and improves incrementally every day. The iPad then stayed still — the technology behind iPad publications is basically the same as it was two years ago — even as the web, in its manner, predictably got better and better.
One of the things that confused me, when The Daily launched, was the way in which it failed to leverage the wealth of rich and valuable content available within News Corp. You couldn’t watch episodes of The Simpsons, you couldn’t get access to amazing footage from Avatar, you couldn’t read exclusive extracts from HarperCollins books. Murdoch was happy to spend a large eight-figure sum on building custom-made content for the new publication; he even shelled out for a Superbowl ad. But he never managed to use The Daily as a means of bringing his company’s already-existing content to life in new ways for a new platform, and I suspect that iPad constraints are part of the reason.
Fordi en låst, “kureret” platform i sidste ende aldrig vil kunne konkurrere med et helt åbent system, hvor alle kan lave mere eller mindre, hvad de har lyst til. Folk har ingen grund til at vælge den lukkede og begrænsede iPad-avis, når avisernes almindelige hjemmesider allerede har langt bedre tilbud.
Via Boing Boing.
Sagen dækkes nu på hjemmesiden opendemocracy.net. Det er ikke ligefrem gavnligt for Danmarks i forvejen flossede omdømme:
The rich repertoire of exclusionist politics, cultural homogeneity, anti-immigration and anti-Islam stances [in Denmark] are only temporarily silenced under the effects of the crisis.
Unsurprisingly the story was soon co-opted and amplified by most of the populist right wing voices in the country. The Muslim members of the housing association board became the living evidence of what they, the ignored whistle-blowers, had predicted a long time ago. This version of events duly legitimized a new round of debate on value politics and cultural differences, the incompatibility of Islam with western, Christian values and Muslims’ undemocratic and intolerant ‘nature’. The story was also used as proof of how Muslims in the west misuse democratic rules when they finally get involved in democratic organs – and operate to replace Christian traditions with Islamic ones.
This logic was clearly and immediately underscored by the Danish People’s Party (DPP), whose spokesman on immigration and integration, MP Martin Henriksen, declared that ’this is the sign of a cultural clash between the Danish and the Muslim culture that has been there a long time – and if we do not fight back, we will lose even more of our own culture’, warning that this is what happens when ‘they [Muslims] get the majority’. To tackle the case itself, the DPP suggested passing a law regulating how housing associations decide on matters of Danish values and traditions. The party also bought the residents a free Christmas tree and organized a public meeting with Danish Christmas cookies and gløgg.
On his blog, another DPP MP, Søren Espersen, criticised the people who were ‘trying to minimize the event’ – the same who denied the worrying ‘problems’ of ‘the Ramadan dinner, the Muslim veil […] and the halal meat debate’. For Espersen, the build-up of these situations must be an indication of the gravity of the situation – a problem of which, of course, only the DPP had grasped the full importance.
Revealing in this respect was an article published by the tabloid Ekstra Bladet only a few days after the Christmas tree incident. The story reported the follow finding: ‘90 percent of those applying for Christmas help are Muslims’. The piece reported that 20 out of 22 applications for Christmas help in a Church Salvation Army district in Northern Jutland came from persons with clear Muslim names. The link with the Christmas tree story was explicit and the underlying assumptions very clear: why should these people get our Christmas help, when they refuse to celebrate the holiday and attempt to abolish it? Shouldn’t we rather help our Danish Christians?
Why doesn’t anybody stand up to these discourses?
The most worrying aspect of this controversy was the total lack of response from the other side. This national debate, triggered by a minor local decision, shows how difficult it is for voices that oppose culturalist logics to generate any significant counter-debate on these issues. Concerned about the negative reactions that this would produce among the public opinion and their potential voters, the people’s representatives prefer to silence these concerns, hoping to contain the echo and keep away from discussing value politics for as long as possible. Those who violently oppose non-western immigration could make their point – extensively. And the voices that should have contradicted them were nowhere to be heard.
Suk, og hvor har de ret.
Det bliver også jul i hackerspaces – i hvert fald i OSAA, hvor Klaartje Bruyjn fra Hack42 i Arnhem har afholdt en workshop om, hvordan man kan lave julepynt af gamle computerdele. Klik på billedet for at få adgang til resten af galleriet.
Modkraft.dk har interviewet Aritz Alberdi Arabadaza, der har mistet alle sine ting, da politiet kørte 50 hjemløses ejendele på Forbrændingen.
Fra Modkrafts artikel om Aritz:
Aritz Alberdi Arabadaza kommer fra Baskerlandet og er taget til Danmark for at finde arbejde.
Ligesom de godt 30 andre, der fik taget deres ejendele, overnatter og spiser han inde på hjemløsecaféen Grace i Stengade, der er lige ved siden af parken.
Artiz Alberdi Arabadaza hænger som mange andre sine ting i træerne i parken på Nørrebro, fordi de ikke må have dem opbevaret på hjemløsecaféen.
Men meget tyder på, at det nu bliver svært for ham at arbejde i Danmark.
Han havde en jobsamtale i dag (fredag, red.), men kan ikke få arbejdstilladelse uden sit pas.
– Hvor skal jeg gå hen for at klage? Hvor kan jeg få hjælp nu, siger han fortvivlet og forklarer, at ingen fik nogen information om, hvor tingene ville blive taget hen.
Politiet ville simpelthen ikke lytte på nogen protester fra de tilstedeværende.
Er det virkelig så anerkendt, at hjemløse er anden rangs mennesker, at man uden videre har lov at køre deres ejendele på forbrændingen? Kunne man forestille sig en lignende fremgangsmåde over for folk, der er mistænkt for at snyde i skat? Folk, der sover på gaden og/eller opbevarer deres ejendele i en park gør i det mindste ikke skade på andre.
Så blev Thor Möger smidt ud af skatteministeriet med fynd og klem. Sjældent har en fyring været så fortjent, af SFs første skatteminister og en horribel en af slagsen. Pressen er fyldt med lovprisninger af hans taktiske talent, men hvis dette talent bliver brugt til at gennemføre elendig politik, så gør det bare alting værre.
Mögers eftermæle er naturligvis primært skatterefomen. En skattereform det blev solgt på at nu skulle folk der arbejdede have mere. Dem der sled og slæbte. Lavede leverpostejmadder om morgenen.
Problemet er naturligvis blot at skattereformen er hamrende skæv. Kun én af VKOs reformer var mere skæv, hvilket siger ikke så lidt. Den tog fra de fattigste og gav til de rigeste. Dem der ikke æder leverpostej.
Dem der tabte på reformen var dem på overførselsindkomster – det var kontanthjælpsmodtagerne, dagpengemodtagerne og førtidspensionister. Herunder også de handicappede. Man må håbe det faktum at Möger brugte sit talent på at tage penge fra de blinde og syge og gav dem til bankdirektørerne gør ham uspiselig som minister senere.
At en SFer gør den slags legitimerer naturligvis at en kommende borgerlig regering rykker endnu længere til højre. Og det bliver Mögers arv. Et polariseret Danmark. Et fattigere underdanmark. Øget kriminalitet. Øget social usikkerhed. Mindre social mobilitet.
Men sikke et talent.
Mange medier fortæller i disse dage historien om “en ny karikaturkrise” og om, hvordan “folk” i den islamiske verden nu angriber ambassader. Jeg hørte sågar i radioen, at USA måske kunne lære noget af Danmark efter at “vi” havde en tilsvarende krise i 2005-2006.
Det er dog værd at være opmærksom på nogle ting i den sammenhæng. For det første, at det ikke er “folk” i den islamiske verden, der afholder demonstrationer mod en vis, elendig YouTube-film – det er en lille, ekstremistisk minoritet. For det andet, at vi formentlig lader os narre, hvis vi tror, filmen egentlig har så meget med det at gøre.
Issandr El Imrani forklarer:
It appears very likely that the Benghazi attack that killed US diplomats was a pre-planned attack by a group probably trying to avenge the death of Sheikh al-Libi, an al-Qaeda leader. And it seems that the initial Egyptian protests were in good part due to a call by a small Salafi group led by Mohammed Zawahri (Ayman’s brother) and a few fellow travellers, and timed for the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. That these protests expanded and got out of hand speaks volumes of the complicated, chaotic situation in Egypt. (I’ll pass on the government’s reaction, or lack thereof, for now.) I think it is important to see who involved in getting the ball rolling — and particularly the international network of Islamist activists who amplify and spread this manufactured outrage (I say manufactured because why now and not, say, at the time of the scandal over the desecreation of Quran by US soldiers in Afghanistan or other incidents?)
I’ll write more in the next few days, but here is an excerpt from [my] The National op-ed:
Islamist movements (even if they are not alone in this) have shown that they excel in using an insult (real or perceived) as part of their culture wars: the tactic is to portray themselves as the sole defenders of the faith. In this week’s case, they chose to do so even though the film in question was released only online and no one would have heard of it or paid attention to it without their efforts.
This, perhaps, is what has changed between the 1988 Rushdie fatwa and more recent examples of Islamist outrage: thanks to the internet, a regional Danish newspaper or an amateur film have become targets just as much as a celebrated, best-selling novelist.
Not that these protests, riots and killings are entirely about insults anyway: that the protesters chose to target US embassies has as much to do with other grievances (US-led wars, support for Israel, etc) and the convenience of having a prominent address, since protests outside the filmmaker’s house, say, are out of the question.
One can certainly question why protest organisers chose the embassies, as if the US government was responsible for a film made by one of its citizens. And why do organisers sometimes lie, as when Nader Bakkar – who speaks for Egypt’s Salafi Nour Party, a partner with President Mohammed Morsi’s party – told Al Jazeera Mubasher that the film had been broadcast on US channels?
And why, despite the risks of escalation made obvious by the attack that killed four American diplomats in Benghazi, did the Muslim Brotherhood’s secretary general, Mahmoud Ghozlan, call for new protests after Friday prayers?
Der er flere indlæg om sagen på Amranis udmærkede blog The Arabist, som nok ikke er det dårligste sted at følge med i disse dage.
Som Jacob Applebaum siger:
Appelbaum: Cell phones are tracking devices that make phone calls. It’s sad, but it’s true. Which means software solutions don’t always matter. You can have a secure set of tools on your phone, but it doesn’t change the fact that your phone tracks everywhere you go. And the police can potentially push updates onto your phone that backdoor it and allow it to be turned into a microphone remotely, and do other stuff like that. The police can identify everybody at a protest by bringing in a device called an IMSI catcher. It’s a fake cell phone tower that can be built for 1500 bucks. And once nearby, everybody’s cell phones will automatically jump onto the tower, and if the phone’s unique identifier is exposed, all the police have to do is go to the phone company and ask for their information.
Resnick: So phones are tracking devices. They can also be used for surreptitious recording. Would taking the battery out disable this capability?
Appelbaum: Maybe. But iPhones, for instance, don’t have a removable battery; they power off via the power button. So if I wrote a backdoor for the iPhone, it would play an animation that looked just like a black screen. And then when you pressed the button to turn it back on it would pretend to boot. Just play two videos.
Resnick: And how easy is it to create something like to that?
Appelbaum: There are weaponized toolkits sold by companies like FinFisher that enable breaking into BlackBerries, Android phones, iPhones, Symbian devices and other platforms. And with a single click, say, the police can own a person, and take over her phone. (…)
The first response people have is, whatever, I’m not important. And the second is, they’re not watching me, and even if they were, there’s nothing they could find because I’m not doing anything illegal. But the thing is, taking precautions with your communications is like safe sex in that you have a responsibility to other people to be safe—your transgressions can fuck other people over. The reality is that when you find out it will be too late. It’s not about doing a perfect job, it’s about recognizing you have a responsibility to do that job at all, and doing the best job you can manage, without it breaking down your ability to communicate, without it ruining your day, and understanding that sometimes it’s not safe to undertake an action, even if other times you would. That’s the education component.
So security culture stuff sounds crazy, but the technological capabilities of the police, especially with these toolkits for sale, is vast. And to thwart that by taking all the phones at a party and putting them in a bag and putting them in the freezer and turning on music in the other room—true, someone in the meeting might be a snitch, but at least there’s no audio recording of you.
Link (via Boing Boing).
“I har ikke skabt de lovede jobs – og intet tyder på at I kan skabe dem nu! ”
Rune Engelbreth Larsen rammer hovedet på sømmet:
Når spørgsmålet om et forbud mod drengeomskæring på den anden side ikke er helt så enkelt, skyldes det naturligvis en række yderligere overvejelser, der også, men ikke kun har at gøre med den årtusindlange tradition, idet et forbud vil få andre uoverskuelige følger, der ikke er begrænset til arealet af den pågældende drengs forhud.
Det er jo ganske indiskutabelt, at drengeomskæring vil fortsætte i stort tal illegalt efter et forbud, og at de hygiejniske forhold i givet fald næppe altid vil være optimale. Og går det galt, risikerer man, at ofrene ikke kommer på hospitalet, fordi det ville afsløre familien bag det ulovlige indgreb. Selv meget beskedne komplikationer kan med andre ord blive mange gange forværret.
En del muslimer og jøder ville utvivlsomt forlade Danmark i tilfælde af et forbud, hvilket kan tilfredsstille nogle, som hverken bryder sig om jøder eller muslimer. Men dermed er resultatet jo igen et andet end det tilsigtede (retten til selv at bestemme som voksen og myndig, om man ønsker medicinsk unødvendige indgreb foretaget eller ej), for nu foretages indgrebet bare uden for landets grænser.
Og hvordan skal forbudet håndhæves? Enhver jødisk og muslimsk familie vil selvfølgelig være under mistanke, og skal muslimske og jødiske drengebørn så tvangstjekkes af læger, eventuelt i følgeskab med politifolk og sagsbehandlere? Og hvad hvis de skjuler deres religiøsitet – hvor megen mistanke skal myndighederne have om den ‘forkerte’ religiøsitet, før de kan tvinge bukserne af drengene? Hudfarve? Etnicitet?
Læs bare det hele.
Man gyser ved tanken om brigader af socialrådgivere af politifolk, der drager ud i de jødiske og muslimske hjem og trækker bukserne af drengebørnene – som det i øvrigt også er sket for pigebørn i familier af somalisk herkomst. En slags institutionaliseret seksuel krænkelse eller i hvert fald ydmygelse, som forbuddet ville legitimere.
Ideen om et forbud er velment, men ikke gennemtænkt.