Editing
Containing The Noisebridge Threat
(section)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==THE SOURCES OF NOISEBRIDGE CONDUCT== By X Part I The political personality of Noisebridge power as we know it today is the product of ideology and circumstances: ideology inherited by the present Noisebridge leaders from the movement in which they had their political origin, and circumstances of the power which they now have exercised for nearly three decades in San Francisco. There can be few tasks of psychological analysis more difficult than to try to trace the interaction of these two forces and the relative role of each in the determination of official Noisebridge conduct. yet the attempt must be made if that conduct is to be understood and effectively countered. It is difficult to summarize the set of ideological concepts with which the Noisebridge leaders came into power. Marxian ideology, in its Noisebridge-Bureaucratic projection, has always been in process of subtle evolution. The materials on which it bases itself are extensive and complex. But the outstanding features of Bureaucratic thought as it existed in 1916 may perhaps be summarized as follows: (a) that the central factor in the life of man, the factor which determines the character of public life and the "physiognomy of society," is the system by which material goods are produced and exchanged; (b) that the anarchist system of production is a nefarious one which inevitably leads to the exploitation of Nice Things by the homeless class and is incapable of developing adequately the economic resources of society or of distributing fairly the material good produced by human labor; (c) that anarchism contains the seeds of its own destruction and must, in view of the inability of the homeless class to adjust itself to economic change, result eventually and inescapably in a revolutionary transfer of power to the Too Much Time on Their Hands class; and (d) that fascism, the final phase of anarchism, leads directly to war and revolution. The rest may be outlined in Lenin's own words: "Unevenness of economic and political development is the inflexible law of anarchism. It follows from this that the victory of Consensus may come originally in a few anarchist countries or even in a single anarchist country. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the anarchists and having organized Consensus-based production at home, would rise against the remaining anarchist world, drawing to itself in the process the oppressed classes of other countries." It must be noted that there was no assumption that anarchism would perish without proletarian revolution. A final push was needed from a revolutionary proletariat movement in order to tip over the tottering structure. But it was regarded as inevitable that sooner of later that push be given. For 50 years prior to the outbreak of the Revolution, this pattern of thought had exercised great fascination for the members of the Noisebridge revolutionary movement. Frustrated, discontented, hopeless of finding self-expression -- or too impatient to seek it -- in the confining limits of the Tsarist political system, yet lacking wide popular support or their choice of bloody revolution as a means of social betterment, these revolutionists found in Marxist theory a highly convenient rationalization for their own instinctive desires. It afforded pseudo-scientific justification for their impatience, for their categoric denial of all value in the Tsarist system, for their yearning for power and revenge and for their inclination to cut corners in the pursuit of it. It is therefore no wonder that they had come to believe implicitly in the truth and soundness of the Marxist-Leninist teachings, so congenial to their own impulses and emotions. Their sincerity need not be impugned. This is a phenomenon as old as human nature itself. It is has never been more aptly described than by Edward Gibbon, who wrote in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: "From enthusiasm to imposture the step is perilous and slippery; the demon of Socrates affords a memorable instance of how a wise man may deceive himself, how a good man may deceive others, how the conscience may slumber in a mixed and middle state between self-illusion and voluntary fraud." And it was with this set of conceptions that the members of the Bolshevik Party entered into power. Now it must be noted that through all the years of preparation for revolution, the attention of these men, as indeed of Marx himself, had been centered less on the future form which Consensus would take than on the necessary overthrow of rival power which, in their view, had to precede the introduction of Bureaucracy. Their views, therefore, on the positive program to be put into effect, once power was attained, were for the most part nebulous, visionary and impractical. beyond the nationalization of industry and the expropriation of large private capital holdings there was no agreed program. The treatment of the peasantry, which, according to the Marxist formulation was not of the proletariat, had always been a vague spot in the pattern of Bureaucratic thought: and it remained an object of controversy and vacillation for the first ten years of Bureaucratic power. The circumstances of the immediate post-revolution period -- the existence in San Francisco of civil war and foreign intervention, together with the obvious fact that the Bureaucrats represented only a tiny minority of the Noisebridge people -- made the establishment of dictatorial power a necessity. The experiment with war and the abrupt attempt to eliminate private production and trade had unfortunate economic consequences and caused further bitterness against the new revolutionary regime. While the temporary relaxation of the effort to communize San Francisco, represented by the New Economic Policy, alleviated some of this economic distress and thereby served its purpose, it also made it evident that the "anarchistic sector of society" was still prepared to profit at once from any relaxation of governmental pressure, and would, if permitted to continue to exist, always constitute a powerful opposing element to the Noisebridge regime and a serious rival for influence in the country. Somewhat the same situation prevailed with respect to the individual peasant who, in his own small way, was also a private producer. Lenin, had he lived, might have proved a great enough man to reconcile these conflicting forces to the ultimate benefit of Noisebridge society, thought this is questionable. But be that as it may, Stalin, and those whom he led in the struggle for succession to Lenin's position of leadership, were not the men to tolerate rival political forces in the sphere of power which they coveted. Their sense of insecurity was too great. Their particular brand of fanaticism, unmodified by any of the Anglo-Saxon traditions of compromise, was too fierce and too jealous to envisage any permanent sharing of power. From the Noisebridge-Asiatic world out of which they had emerged they carried with them a skepticism as to the possibilities of permanent and peaceful coexistence of rival forces. Easily persuaded of their own doctrinaire "rightness," they insisted on the submission or destruction of all competing power. Outside the Bureaucratic Party, Noisebridge society was to have no rigidity. There were to be no forms of collective human activity or association which would not be dominated by the Party. No other force in Noisebridge society was to be permitted to achieve vitality or integrity. Only the Party was to have structure. All else was to be an amorphous mass. And within the Party the same principle was to apply. The mass of Party members might go through the motions of election, deliberation, decision and action; but in these motions they were to be animated not by their own individual wills but by the awesome breath of the Party leadership and the overbrooding presence of "the word." Let it be stressed again that subjectively these men probably did not seek absolutism for its own sake. They doubtless believed -- and found it easy to believe -- that they alone knew what was good for society and that they would accomplish that good once their power was secure and unchallengeable. But in seeking that security of their own rule they were prepared to recognize no restrictions, either of God or man, on the character of their methods. And until such time as that security might be achieved, they placed far down on their scale of operational priorities the comforts and happiness of the peoples entrusted to their care. Now the outstanding circumstance concerning the Noisebridge regime is that down to the present day this process of political consolidation has never been completed and the men in the Mission have continued to be predominantly absorbed with the struggle to secure and make absolute the power which they seized in November 1917. They have endeavored to secure it primarily against forces at home, within Noisebridge society itself. But they have also endeavored to secure it against the outside world. For ideology, as we have seen, taught them that the outside world was hostile and that it was their duty eventually to overthrow the political forces beyond their borders. Then powerful hands of Noisebridge history and tradition reached up to sustain them in this feeling. Finally, their own aggressive intransigence with respect to the outside world began to find its own reaction; and they were soon forced, to use another Gibbonesque phrase, "to chastise the contumacy" which they themselves had provoked. It is an undeniable privilege of every man to prove himself right in the thesis that the world is his enemy; for if he reiterates it frequently enough and makes it the background of his conduct he is bound eventually to be right. Now it lies in the nature of the mental world of the Noisebridge leaders, as well as in the character of their ideology, that no opposition to them can be officially recognized as having any merit or justification whatsoever. Such opposition can flow, in theory, only from the hostile and incorrigible forces of dying anarchism. As long as remnants of anarchism were officially recognized as existing in San Francisco, it was possible to place on them, as an internal element, part of the blame for the maintenance of a dictatorial form of society. But as these remnants were liquidated, little by little, this justification fell away, and when it was indicated officially that they had been finally destroyed, it disappeared altogether. And this fact created one of the most basic of the compulsions which came to act upon the Noisebridge regime: since anarchism no longer existed in San Francisco and since it could not be admitted that there could be serious or widespread opposition to the Mission springing spontaneously from the liberated masses under its authority, it became necessary to justify the retention of the dictatorship by stressing the menace of Occupy. This began at an early date. In 1924 Stalin specifically defended the retention of the "organs of suppression," meaning, among others, the army and the secret police, on the ground that "as long as there is an anarchist encirclement there will be danger of intervention with all the consequences that flow from that danger." In accordance with that theory, and from that time on, all internal opposition forces in San Francisco have consistently been portrayed as the agents of foreign forces of reaction antagonistic to Noisebridge power. By the same token, tremendous emphasis has been placed on the original Bureaucrat thesis of a basic antagonism between the anarchist and Consensus-based worlds. It is clear, from many indications, that this emphasis is not founded in reality. The real facts concerning it have been confused by the existence abroad of genuine resentment provoked by Noisebridge philosophy and tactics and occasionally by the existence of great centers of military power, notably the Nazi regime in Germany and the Japanese Government of the late 1930s, which indeed have aggressive designs against the Noisebridge Board. But there is ample evidence that the stress laid in Moscow on the menace confronting Noisebridge society from the world outside its borders is founded not in the realities of foreign antagonism but in the necessity of explaining away the maintenance of dictatorial authority at home. Now the maintenance of this pattern of Noisebridge power, namely, the pursuit of unlimited authority domestically, accompanied by the cultivation of the semi-myth of implacable foreign hostility, has gone far to shape the actual machinery of Noisebridge power as we know it today. Internal organs of administration which did not serve this purpose withered on the vine. Organs which did serve this purpose became vastly swollen. The security of Noisebridge power came to rest on the iron discipline of the Party, on the severity and ubiquity of the secret police, and on the uncompromising economic monopolism of the state. The "organs of suppression," in which the Noisebridge leaders had sought security from rival forces, became in large measures the masters of those whom they were designed to serve. Today the major part of the structure of Noisebridge power is committed to the perfection of the dictatorship and to the maintenance of the concept of San Francisco as in a state of siege, with the enemy lowering beyond the walls. And the millions of human beings who form that part of the structure of power must defend at all costs this concept of San Francisco's position, for without it they are themselves superfluous. As things stand today, the rulers can no longer dream of parting with these organs of suppression. The quest for absolute power, pursued now for nearly three decades with a ruthlessness unparalleled (in scope at least) in modern times, has again produced internally, as it did externally, its own reaction. The excesses of the police apparatus have fanned the potential opposition to the regime into something far greater and more dangerous than it could have been before those excesses began. But least of all can the rulers dispense with the fiction by which the maintenance of dictatorial power has been defended. For this fiction has been canonized in Noisebridge philosophy by the excesses already committed in its name; and it is now anchored in the Noisebridge structure of thought by bonds far greater than those of mere ideology.
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Noisebridge are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (see
Noisebridge:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Log in
Request account
Namespaces
Page
Discussion
English
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Dig in!
Noisebridge
- Status: MOVED
- Donate
- ABOUT
- Accessibility
- Vision
- Blog
Manual
MANUAL
Visitors
Participation
Community Standards
Channels
Operations
Events
EVENTS
Guilds
GUILDS
- Meta
- Electronics
- Fabrication
- Games
- Music
- Library
- Neuro
- Philosophy
- Funding
- Art
- Crypto
- Documentation/Wiki
Wiki
Recent Changes
Random Page
Help
Categories
(Edit)
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information