An overly sympathetic introduction of self-elected actors
The image is one of an unoriginal apocalypse. The breakdown in law and order. A very real if unlikely threat to civilization. That is no doubt how most State agencies around the world react. It’s what happens in the sci fi action flick when the hero is too late to stop the otherworldly threat. Ordinary people get involved. They riot. One last acting out of the headless body politic in a foolish act of self destruction.
Yet in the real world. The one in which people cross borders to hopefully find a little work before deportation. The world in which cities swell as millenia old farming communities are dispossessed. A world in which the Eastern European, African, and Asian immigrants share a commonality with white middle class North Americans: An identified obstacle in the state and market to their desires. In this real world the riot is not the chaotic breakdown of the social order. It is much more a renegotiation of the boundaries of reality.
Perhaps, it is desperately wished, to the point of becoming reality, that something revolutionary might be accomplished in the moments of a scripted confrontation continually rewritten during the performance. The images activists use can be understood as embodied image acts. The propaganda machine used by anti-globalization activists can be understood as both examples of what Liza Bakewell calls “image acts” (1998) and Brenda Farnell describes as “an embodied account of categorization and cognition” (1996:311). The discursive practices of anti-globalization media revolve around an embodiment of image acts that are produced both as the product of activist discourse and practices of organization and resistance – a sort of ill defined dialectic. The discourse is further complicated as it interacts and contradicts embodied and discursive practices of mainstream media and the police, other actors that anti-globalization activists must be particularly cognizant of in the collective process of creating a representative set of images, discourse, and practices in a self-consciously collective setting.
Those who would like this state of affairs – the exception to the state of exception – the activists themselves, the autonomous media creators, would have us believe that such an apocalyptic clash is inevitable and grows directly out of an innate human desire for total freedom from domination. Indeed anarchy may be “as old as humanity… a longstanding tendency in the history of human thought” (Graeber and Grubacic: 2004). Such an approach is useful in as far as it allows for a distancing from naturalizations of domination so rampant in common sense and governmentality. Yet to understand the historical development of the Internet media phenomenon commonly called “riot porn” one must look for the specific historical rise of the “anti-globalization” movement of the late 20th and early 21st Century.
Something like this happened: Once upon a time, for better or for worse, the global Left, in spite of their major sectarian splits, where beholden to the existence of the Soviet Union in political, ethical, and practical concerns. Then the Soviet Union went away. The capitalists claimed the end of history – and it seemed to happen, the social-democratic left imploded along with the Soviets. The way was clear for the elite of the global core capitalist nation-states to “create a single unified global market, whose financial mechanisms could then operate through [the newly emerged] instantaneous electronic means” (Graeber 2009: xi). This financialization began before the collapse of the Soviet Union, but with the only concrete alternative out of the way, neoliberalism was able to move forward with its radical agenda. What really happened at the end of history in the 1990s was not a reason to celebrate for most of the poor in the world:
For anyone paying attention, of course, the reality was very different. Borders were not being effaced, but reinforced. Poor populations were still penned into their countries of origin (in which existing social benefits were being rapidly withdrawn) “Globalization” merely referred to the ability of finance capital to skip around as it wished and take advantage of that fact. Most of all, however, the period of “globalization” – or neoliberalism, as it came to be known just about everywhere except America – saw the creation of the first genuinely planetary bureaucratic system in human history (Graeber 2009: xi).
1994 seemed to be the year that resistance to this state of affairs began in earnest. The Zapatista uprising in Chiapas, Mexico saw the first internationally publicized example of what was to become known as the “anti-globalization” movement. Already all the elements of the movement where in place: attacking the state in retaliation against market forces, the use of “nonviolent direct action… as a force for global revolution” (Graeber 2009: xiii), and the use of the Internet as the primary media of propaganda. What is perhaps improperly called the anti-globalization movement in North America took place between 1994 and 2003 with a high point in November of 1999 in Seattle (Graeber 2009: xiii-xvi). However social movements are processes of the contestation of existing and the creation of new social relations and never follow discrete historical outlines very closely. While anti-globalization proper as a movement may be gone, current protest currents worldwide obviously developed out of the anti-globalization movement and share perhaps the most important fuel – the factor that unites, explains, inspires, and makes militant direct action meaningful: “the movement of movements” (Graeber and Grubacic 2004): anarchism.
It goes by many names world wide: Autonomism, Zapatistas, alterglobalization, anti-capitalism (after anarchism this seems to be the preferred label in North America). The radical ideology and practice of anarchists constitutes a sort of “habitus of what here might be called ‘generic radicalism’” (Garcelon 2006: 73) Yet they all share several things in common: “decentralization, voluntary association, mutual aid, the network model… [and] a rejection of any idea that the end justifies the means” (Graeber and Grubacic 2004). The last is the rational of direct action “a form of resistance which in its structure is meant to prefigure the genuinely free society one wishes to create” (Graeber 2007: 378). Prefigurative politics is the realm of creativity for the global movement against domination by capital and is the means of the activists’ propaganda machine is produced.
Collective Representation: Prefiguring Information Production
The practice of do-it-yourself media creation by anarchists and other anti-globalization activists has its core in two problems: The belief by activists that “the corporate media is essentially a venue for propaganda… TV networks being capitalism firms, it would be hopeless to believe they could ever be expected to correctly convey an anti-capitalist point of view” and as a result in any direct action situation the “media will systematically biased in favor of the police” (Graeber 2009: 439). The policing strategies surrounding direct action events are the second factor of what is important information for anti-capitalist media activists. The solution activists have developed relies on what Graeber calls Collective Representation as a “sense of collective production recurs on every level of representations and communication in the process of putting together and carrying out an action” (2009: 484).
The Internet can be seen “as a radically decentralized new media technology” that allows the dissemination of “repertoires of contention” by means of “mediums of collective agency” (Garcelon 2006: 55). Media owned by corporations tends to follow “sender-receiver models” (Garcelon 2006: 56) that structurally entails the centralization of all aspects of traditional media: state, editorial, and financial. The Internet offers an alternative “[p]eer-to-peer exchange – from the many, to the many” (Garcelon 2006: 57). Since the “Internet developed independently of corporate control” it does not pose problems of “information scarcity” (Garcelon 2006: 57) that corporate media presents.
Indymedia is the most sustained example of an anti-globalization inspired media undertaking for the most part performed by self-described anarchists (Garcelon 2006: 59). Indymedia began as a website news service in November of 1999 in Seattle to facilitate communication between the activists and protesters at the World Trade Organization ministerial (Garcelon 2006: 60). As of April 2003 there were 111 Indymedia sites operating in more than 43 countries (Garcelon 2006: 60). The explosion of Indymedia is directly related to the need of anti-capitalists around the world to disseminate information in a manner congruent to their ethical ideals of prefigurative direct action. Garcelon, throughout his paper, shows an annoyed exasperation at the ethical commitments anarchists make, none the less is able to gleam some important aspects of the Indymedia phenomenon: Most sites are run by young adults, tend to grow directly out of coordination of anti-globalization protests, a counter-cultural milieu and the self-professed anarchism of the participants (2006: 70-71). Indymedia acts largely as “potential common ground between groups rooted in…divergent” (Garcelon 2006: 65) centers of activism that allows the “diversity of views about social movements and grassroots organizing” (Garcelon 2006: 63) by the very participants themselves.
Joshua Atkinson as analyzed narratives of anarchist groups in the United States using “alternative media” which he defines as “any media that are produced by noncommercial sources and attempt to transform existing social roles and routines by critiquing and challenging power structures” (2006: 252). Atkinson uses a qualitative media analysis to “identify the constitutive elements of cultural values and identity” (2006: 252) in order to glean what anarchists are trying to accomplish with their propaganda. Atkinson’s study focused on printed media (the zine is a media form meant for print but is often distributed electronically) but is useful to any examination of anarchist media projects.
Atkinson sees the “overarching resistance narrative” as inter-textual with “multiple ‘fragments’ rather than existing as a completed whole” (2006: 253). From within this inter-textual collection of fragments
narrative fragments – constrain reality through constitutive function or a function of ‘ideological rhetorical force’. First, the constitutive function of cultural value explains the storyteller’s culture in terms of traditions, beliefs, institutions, and language to outside audiences, while shaping the language within the culture in terms of values, motives, and desires. The storyteller attempts to create a dichotomy of ‘us against them’ by outlining the values embraced by the culture as pure and the contradictory nature of values held by opponents as harmful (Atkinson 2006: 254).
This description is rather facile and could easily be objected to on such grounds, but when “the problems that face the anarchist propagandist” when
[t]he ideas he is putting forward are so much at variance with ordinary political assumptions, and the solutions he offers are so remote, there is such a gap between what is, and what, according to the anarchist, might be, that his audience cannot take him seriously (Ward 1973: 9)
it is easy to see why anarchist propaganda might take the spectacular bent it does. The potentials for what Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz calls “aberrant coding” the tendency for a semiotic code to be misinterpreted (1993:68) are disproportionately high. Aberrant coding is no doubt a feature of all semiotic codes; however, a discourse so remotely to the hegemonic common sense of political discourse in North America runs a much greater chance of systemic aberrant coding.
The largely Internet based propaganda machine of anarchists is often created by “organic intellectuals who are responsible for a creating a consciousness about the nature of domination in society” (Atkinson 2006: 255). The anarchist organic intellectual must generally provide “depictions of anarchist cultural values as well as depictions of anarchist identity” so that in “instances in which opposing identities where depicted” that “tales of anarchist actions and exploits were relayed creating a ‘unity of experience and action’” (Atkinson 2006: 260).
Atkinson found the following fragments of narrative continually resurfacing: “cultural values of egalitarianism and suspicion of authority” as well as “community and political action-oriented identities”, “the cultural value of solidarity”, and “a cultural value of sexual egalitarianism” (2006: 265).
The Continuing Insurrection: Anarchist Culture and Theory
Anarchists have always seemed to suffer a “criminalization and pathological representation” (Cross 2003). This is largely a result of media institutions and police openly hostile to anarchism and anarchists if not the exercise of free speech and political activism generally. Another example of aberrant coding. Yet anarchists do in fact break windows of corporate stores, torch police vehicles, blockade the road, rush lines of riot police, and rarely back down from (the cheering section anyway) a riot. Furthermore anarchists love to make propaganda videos, distributed over the Internet, using images of such confrontations – usually footage collected by Indymedia activists.
‘It’s the End of the World as We Know it and I Feel Fine” is a more or less weekly Internet broadcast news and entertainment program targeted at anarchist audiences. The website http://submedia.tv/stimulator features Franklin Lopez as the 5t1mu7@t0r or the stimulator. The show is a combination of stolen network news footage, interviews with activists, and a bricolage of footage from militant protests and riots around the world. (See figures 1-3)
What possible rational reason could anarchists have in presenting such images to the public of themselves? If anything anarchists want to be publicly seen as being a progressive and constructive movement of experimentation with non-alienating and non-dominating ways of being. Where does property destruction and the riot (generally reported as being synonymous by outsiders) fit into this? These activities generally fall more under what Cross calls the “embodied… practical refusal of hierarchies, and the physical assertion of the freedom of the individual” (2003). The embodied refusal is comprehensible as what Liza Bakewell terms “image acts” (1998). Images are “an authentic, original document , a presentation rather than a re-presentation” such that “images have more to their mission than the description of an alleged authenticity that is external to them but are themselves veritable actions” (1998:22). Anarchists do not create riot porn in an attempt to transform apathetic masses into activists. It is as Brenda Farnell calls for “an embodied account of categorization and cognition” (1996:311) such that “a theory of images ought to form part of a theory of action” (Bakewell 1998:22) in that anarchists and anthropologists would find an amendable theory of value in the construction of radical political subjectivities. Riot porn is not so much a call to action but a “semiotic practice… that utilize body movement” (Farnell 1996:314) as it is not so much that “a mental arena in which images or rules exist prior to our acts” so much as a challenge presented to create a “new definition of human agency that transcends the terms of the old dualisms” (Farnell 1996:314).
To be fair to the whole of the anti-globalization movement and to anarchists specifically, it should be noted that anarchism has a diversity akin to any moralistic or ethical social project (its not unlike Protestant Christianity in this respect or an academic department in a university). Graeber and Grubacic claim that “[a]narchists are distinguished by what the do, and how they organize” (2004). They outline a basic grouping: “Anarcho-Syndicalists and Anarcho-Communists, Insurrectionists and Platformists, Coorperativists, Councilists, Individualists, and so on” (2004). These categories are vaguely aligned with what Graeber and Grubacic call “new” and “old” anarchism . This division is largely based on generational differences within activist communities. “Old” anarchists tend to attached to large internationally federated organizations such as the Industrial Workers of the World and the North Eastern Federation of Anarchist-Communists which tend to be based on ideologies of class struggle and tend to be fiercely proud of their respective sectarian histories. “New” anarchists tend to be more fluid in their associations and focus on non-labor movement oriented issues (2004). The production of riot porn is firmly in the hands of activists that could be considered Insurrectionists – for whom the goal of anarchist organizing is to bring about militant direct action, property destruction, and confrontations with the police. No small amount of discourse accompanies insurrectionist tactics. Tiqqun, a French insurrectionist journal in Introduction to Civil War claims that
If certain theses such as “the war of each against each” are elevated to the level of governing principles, it is because they enable certain operations. So in this specific case we should ask: How can the “war of each against each” have begun before each person had been produced as each. And then we will see how the modern State presupposes the state of things that it produces; how it grounds the arbitrariness of its own demands in anthropology; how the “war of each against each” is instead the impoverished ethic of civil war imposed everywhere by the modern State under the name of the economic, which is nothing other than the universal reign of hostility (2010).
The insurrectionary anarchists are not the source of violence but rather are reacting against the State’s violence. It is the resistance to this violence that insurrectionary anarchists experiment with more egalitarian social relations by directly confronting the most objectionable form of domination: State and Capital. Johann Kaspar claims that what unites individual uprisings along insurrectionist lines is “a gap in the center of all these conflicts: the lack of demands” (2010: 5). To Kaspar the “demand is a contract, the guaranteed expiration date of one’s struggle, the conditions for its conclusions” (2010: 7). But anarchists in general, and insurrectionists in particular the goal of any reform oriented protest should be “the form as the demand to someone for something, and the content as rejecting anyone’s attempt to accommodate anything” (Kaspar 2010:16).
The insurrectionist discourse justifies the riot as the ultimate form of refusal of domination. Insurrectionism seems the more radical, the more nihilistic form of anarchism. In spite of this, or perhaps because, the definition of violence to insurrectionists is of vital importance. Graeber explains that
journalists have a fairly idiosyncratic definition of “violence”: something like “damages to persons of property not authorized by properly constituted authorities.” So if even one protester damages a Starbucks window, one can speak of “violent protests” but if police then proceed to attack everyone present with tazers, sticks, and plastic bullets, this cannot be described as violent (2007: 379-380).
This definition of violence should be outrageous to anyone who isn’t a sociopath. That it isn’t is further evidence to the anarchist of the need for militant direct action. Property destruction becomes appropriate as “an attempt to ‘break the spell,’ to divert and redefine. It is a direct assault upon the Spectacle” (Graeber 2007:381) with the effect that
When we smash a window, we aim to destroy the thin veneer of legitimacy that surrounds private property rights. At the same time, we exorcise that set of violent and destructive social relationships which has been imbued in almost everything around us. By “destroying” private property, we convert its limited exchange value into an expanded use value.
A storefront window becomes a vent to let some fresh air into the oppressive atmosphere of a retail outlet (at least until the police decide to tear-gas a nearby road blockade). A newspaper box becomes a tool for creating such vents or a small blockade for the reclamation of public space or an object to improve one’s vantage point by standing on it. A dumpster becomes an obstruction to a phalanx of rioting cops and a source of heat and light. A building facade hammer the same way again. The potential uses of an entire cityscape have increased a thousand-fold.
The number of broken windows pales in comparison to the number broken spells–spells cast by a corporate hegemony to lull us into forgetfulness of all the violence committed in the name of private property rights and of all the potential of a society without them. Broken windows can be boarded up (with yet more waste of our forests) and eventually replaced, but the shattering of assumptions will hopefully persist for some time to come (Graeber 2007:381).
To hopefully not too poorly paraphrase 19th Century anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, the destructive and the creative impulse in humankind are closely related and share a dialectical relationship.
As Bakewell emphasizes the action-oriented nature of images in advertising (1996:25) we are surrounded by the Spectacle that casts spells constantly. Yet Bakewell says with the proliferation of “scientific paradigms modeling its shape and the thick descriptions interpreting its contexts, the understanding of what (and how) our contemporary images mean and do continues to elude us” (1998:29). The fact of this probably has more to do with academics inability to realize the embodied context of knowledge production making a truly critical probe of the meaning of corporate property and its destruction by activists and the valorization of the images of such acts because the images are too contemporarily political.
Spectacular Encounters at the End of a World:
The Streets, Police, and Symbols of Things that Do Not Exist (Yet)
Some memories would be more vaguely remembered if they were not inscribed on the body. You tell the difference between a protester and a member of the community in a city with a summit protest by who wants to talk about the shit storm downtown. Odd how a police assault smells like a salad: the white foam of pepper spray swirling in an eye bath of water, vinegar and pepto bismol. A description is not the pounding heartbeats or the screams of mixed defiance, triumph, and terror. No amount of writing can convey the truth of a situation in which a police officer stops traffic on a busy street so you personally can cross it safely to only follow you into a park, push you to the ground, place his foot on the back of your neck – this is a fact communities of people of color brutalized by police know painfully well. No amount of description tells the truth.
The truth comes out in fragments. In the negotiation on the streets between activists, protesters, and the police. The summits of the IMF, WTO, G8 – the targets of direct action by anti-globalization activists of all stripes are “largely symbolic events” self-celebratory rituals, and networking occasions for some of the richest and most powerful people on earth” and thus the object of the protest is to “create a sense of siege” (Graeber 2007:387). This leads to the police to a problem of “how to justify [violence] against a movement that was overwhelmingly non-violent” (Graeber 2007:386). In response the police in the United States have “adopted a very self-conscious media strategy” (Graeber 2007:388) that revolves around “daily press conference with wild accusations” in which the corporate media “reproduce anything they said, and rarely consider it to merit a story if, afterwards, the claims turned out to be false” (Graeber 2007:388). The police imagination is full of urine filled Supersoakers, hunting slingshots, and the occasional murder of a police officer by protesters – all apocryphal – seemingly to psych up the police to carry out their duty (Graeber 1998:388-390).
The police actions at such events has nothing to do with keeping law and order as most would probably define it. If anything “Black Bloc anarchists [the classical property destruction tactical unit of the movement] might be said to be living a hidden aspect of the American dream” as if Hollywood is any indication “Americans seem to rather like the idea of property destruction” (Graeber 2007:394).
Indeed capitalism, the social system the anarchists are railing against, is in fact, according to Graeber a “potlatch society” “built around the spectacular destruction of consumer goods” (2007:394). If anything the property destruction operates within the logical of capitalism as “[i]t is a system that can only renew itself by cultivating a hidden pleasure at the prospect of its own destruction” (Graeber 2007:395). The problem the police as proxies of the State and Capitalism is not in the loss of private property and the profit available from such but in the possibility that by “inculcating a certain passion for or delight in smashing and destruction of property can very easily slip into a delight in the shattering of those structures of relation that make capitalism possible (Graeber 2007:395). The problem, from the perspective of the police seems to be a belief that a sort of “collective consumption” is in fact a “tacit attack on the principle of hierarchy” such that the “very existence of the police is tied to a political cosmology which sees such forms of collective consumption as inherently disorderly” (Graeber 2007:396).
Within any social conflict, communication and understanding must accompany any use of violence. Violence without the desire to negotiate is the surest route to genocidal, terroristic warfare. Yet in the rules of the game of the summit protest “each side acts as if it is playing a game whose rules it had worked out exclusively through its own internal processes, without any consultation with the other players” (Graeber 2007:397). To do otherwise would be for the police to negate their belief that as representatives of the state they have a moral monopoly on the use of violence. Obviously this is problematic when facing a social movement that fundamentally rejects that monopoly. The real political operation of the confrontation is “not the power to win a contest, but the power to define rules and stakes” (Graeber 2007:402-403). The real question of power for anarchists then is to “regularly try to do is to level a systematic and continual challenge to the right of the police, and the authorities in general, to define the situation” (Graeber 2007:407).
A context of constant negotiation between two groups that do not recognize the moral authority of each other must then be negotiated withing what Cross calls the “semiotic domain of knowledge” (Cross:2003). In a semiotic domain of knowledge the black dress and bandannas used as masks by Black Bloc activists is not only to protect against police surveillance (Cross:2003) but an appropriation by protesters of the garb of the black clad riot police. Black dress in the situation is simultaneously a symbol of the State’s sovereignty and the anarchists’ rejection of that sovereignty.
Conclusion
Marxism makes its contribution to social science in the academy in a largely sociological way. It is accepted as legitimate sociology within the academy. Anarchism is more self-consciously anthropological. However anarchism is very unlikely to become an acceptable academic tradition like other social movements have accomplished – it is too radical, too political, too willing to give no as an answer.
This hardly matters as anarchists have developed their own means of collective representation. Indymedia and other Internet based media initiatives allow for control of content by participants in contrast to any effort to be mediated by corporate media or academic discourse. Prefigurative political practices allow not only self-identified anarchists a means of propaganda, but an entire social movement a means of create images through action. The practice, more than any particular image, is what carries the ultimate meaning for the participants – all semiotic meaning is ultimately dependent on the process of its creation.
The choice of using the images of semi-violent confrontations with police is not out of adolescent desires to rebel or an attempt to mobilize such rebellious desires. Rather, the image is an embodiment of a practice of building a power of definitions in contrast to the hegemonic. This leads to a constant unacknowledged negotiation with the police at protest events. The police themselves react in a similar way, of attempting to remove the power to define the nature of the situation from the public sphere.
As much as it may seem the events and activities described in this paper are out of the ordinary – the reality of anarchist activism is it is moving away from a “summit hopping” strategy and becoming much more generalized. Anarchists do not simply riot and take pictures of themselves doing it. The degree of organization that accompanies any summit protest is astounding. This organizing does not respect borders, ethnicity, or really any institution of separation. The images of riot porn are only showing the surface of a complicated process – symptomatic of the riot as tactic, the riot symptomatic of deep deep social dissatisfaction and an attempt to ameliorate the situation – however fleeting.
Seemingly, the resulting discourse could be cynically interpreted as a form of desperation – if not in the form of the riot as a protest tactic, then in the diversity and decentralization of the plethora of images and explanations accessible to the public. Maybe anarchists would have more respect, more sympathy, and more power if a united statement was presented. Contradiction can bread confusion which is very clear in the interaction between the police and activist discourses. But to the anarchists and other media activists to present a final product, for consumption by a public along the lines of mainstream media practices would be to reproduce the very social relations they fight against in their media practices. Presenting a finished product, polished and with a label of identity without making visible the social relations and the process of creation behind them is simply commodity fetishism. Commodity fetishism is the precise target of property destruction. The dishonesty of commodity fetishism is the most enduring and important obfuscating hegemonic discourse anarchists fight against. To not present the contradictions, not not make the process of construction visible would be to loose all hope in the embodied practice of prefigurative political activism. As a result, there is no end product for consumption. Fragments emerge instead. Poetic in the extreme; nihilism and optimism, abstract theories of subjectivities and concrete descriptions of material conditions, concomitant moralism and determinism. The importance lies not only in theoretical or strategic discourses – the beauty comes from the flourish of a discourse willing to negate itself in constant acts of revolutionary regeneration. Maintaining the imperatives of prefigurative practice requires that anarchist discourse, whether textual or as image acts, will always be a form of embodied knowledge.
Figure 1. A “Black Bloc” retreats from a police car they have lit on fire.
Source: http://submedia.tv/stimulator/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/header.jpg
Figure 2. A young person confronts a riot cop in a line of riot police.
Source: http://submedia.tv/stimulator/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/youthVriotcop-300×63.jpg
Figure 3. A protester points a water squirt gun at a riot cop.
Source: http://submedia.tv/stimulator/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/protester-threatens-polic-001-300×180.jpg
Works Citied
Atkinson, Joshua
2006. Analyzing Resistance Narratives at the North American Anarchist Gathering: A Method for Analyzing Social Justice Alternative Media. Journal of Communication Inquiry 30(250):251- 272.
Bakewell, Liza
1998 Image Acts. American Anthropologist 100(1):22-32.
Cross, Jamie J.
2003 Anthropology and the Anarchists: Culture, Power, and Practice in Militant Anti- Capitalist Protests. Theomai 1(7): not paginated.
Farnell, Brenda
1996 Metaphors We Move By. Visual Anthropology 8:311-335
Garcelon, Marc
2006 The ‘Indymedia’ Experiment: The Internet as Movement Facilitator Against Institutional Control. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 12(55):55-82.
Graeber, David and Andrej Grubacic
2004 Anarchism: Or The Revolutionary Movement of the 21st Century. Irving: Irving Infoshop. http://irvineinfoshop.wordpress.com
Graeber, David
2007 Possibilities: Essays on Hierarchy, Rebellion, and Desire. Oakland: AK Press.
Graeber, David
2009 Direct Action: An Ethnography. Oakland: AK Press.
Kaspar, Johann
2010 We Demand Nothing. The Institute For Experimental Freedom.
Leeds-Hurwitz, Wendy
1993 Semiotics and Communication: Signs, Codes, Cultures. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tiqqun
2010 Introduction to Civil War. Los Angeles: semiotext(e).
Ward, Colin
1973 Anarchy In Action. London: Freedom Press.
April 20, 2011
Categories: Cultural Musings, Lefty nonsense . Tags: activist discourse, alternative media, anarchism, anarchist discourse, anti-globalization, black bloc, discourse, DIY, do it yourself media, franklin lopez, image acts, independent media, indymedia, insurrectionary anarchism, linguistic anthropology, linguistics, Liza Bakewell, riot porn, Seattle protests 1999, semiotics, Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz, WTO, zapatistas . Author: A is for... . Comments: Leave a Comment