Anarchist Federation Attacks Nuclear Power, Nanotechnology

The entire nuclear power program has been shut down in Japan, at least for now. Japanese citizens demanded it. Contrast that to the United States, where citizen demands to shut down nuclear reactors fell on Barack Obama's deaf ears. Not only has the President failed to shut down plants, he has authorized building new ones. Of course to a large degree any U.S. President is just a puppet of the corporate security state, which is heavily invested in nuclear power and weapons.

When democracies fail to act in a democratic manner there is going to be a reaction. Usually this is in the form of protests, like the anti-nuclear rallies of yore or the current Occupy actions. Some times incumbent politicians are successfully removed from office. Some times, however, a few people will actually try to do what it takes to stop evil in its tracks.

On May 7, 2012 the Olga Cell of the Informal Anarchist Federation International Revolutionary Front (a grand title for a group that probably has at best dozens of active members) shot Roberto Adinolfi in the leg as a warning to stop his activities. Adinolfi is the CEO of the Italian firm Ansaldo Nucleare, which specializes in engineering for nuclear reactors. The action took place in Genoa, Italy.

The American corporate security state long ago declared Earth Liberation Front (ELF) a terrorist group. ELF (actually autonomous individuals using ELF as a sort of trade name) has a non-violence code and has never harmed a human being, limiting itself to sabotaging equipment used to destroy the environment.
Without a doubt any extension of IAF-IRF to the United States will have broad repercussions. Against the slight possibility that the citizens of the U.S. will wake up and force their "representatives" to shut down nuclear power plants must be weighed the probability that the FBI, our national political police, will be used to hammer the entire anarchist movement.

Given human nature, some individual anarchists, or perhaps even small groups, are likely to imitate the IAF-IRF at some point. Given the nature of our government, the FBI will target mentally unstable individuals, entrap them, and declare they have earned their paychecks.

What is interesting about the United States is that it is very easy to obtain and carry ordinary weapons (guns and rifles) without violating the law. Explosives are another matter entirely. Only the government and corporations can legally possess and transport explosives.

Also, I would not assume any true believers in anarchism and environmentalism would choose to target the nuclear industry. Often local issues — the protection of local fauna, forests and streams — engender more passion than big issues like global warming or radioactive contamination.

It is notable that, as far as I can tell, only one IAF-IRF group, the Olga Cell, is fighting against the nuclear industry. The others have been fighting nanotechnology research. Others is a strong term here, as the only nation that has seen attacks is Mexico. Two bombing attacks against nanotech research centers there each resulted in one person being seriously injured.

The easiest way to ease concerns would be for President Obama to close all U.S. nuclear power plants. In individual states their governors or legislators could shut down the reactors. Since the Democratic Party has failed to take an anti-nuclear stance, those who participate in the electoral system will probably want to vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, this fall.

Nanotechnology is a tricky subject because it is so broad. Science-fiction nanotechnology tends to tiny robots eating bigger machines or turning humans into monsters. Since nano just means small, it encompasses everything from the processes used to produce the chips in the IPhone and IPad, to re-engineering naturally occurring viruses, to the production of tiny particles used in paints and inks. Opposing nanotechnology seems to be just a slant on opposing all technology.

The U.S. government and private corporations have spent a lot of energy targeting anarchist and environmentalist activists. The fact that anarchists and environmentalists have not shot back is probably due to our naturally non-violent nature and the semblance of democracy that always promises, and even occasionally delivers, reform. If lines harden everyone will need to chose sides. With the Republican Party, bankrolled by extremist capitalists, pushing our system ever to the right, I do not see a good outcome ahead.
 
Disclaimer: the author is an advocate of democracy, anarcho-syndicalism and eco-anarchism. The factual content of this story is derived from mainstream media sources, notably "Anarchists attack science" by Leigh Phillips, p. 561 of Volume 485 of Nature, May 31, 2012. The opinions are his own.

Approaching a Political State of Nature

In 1774, in September, on the second morning of the first meeting of the Congress of the British states in America, Patrick Henry shocked his colleagues with an observation. He stated that the colonial societies represented in that Congress had returned to a state of nature.

In political theory then, as now, a state of nature did not refer to living harmoniously with the ecosystem. It meant that the bonds of government, and even of society, were dissolved. It meant anarchy, as was most notably examined by English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. It was generally regarded as a bad thing. What good people were supposed to do when they found themselves in a state of nature was create a new social order including a government to their liking. Thomas Hobbes liked monarchs, but English society favored a republican form of government with a limited role for the monarch.

Patrick Henry was an interesting guy. He is best known to American's for crying, "give me liberty or give me death!" He owned a bunch of slaves at the time, so "me" should be emphasized. He did not want freedom for all. He wanted the liberty to own slaves, in which he felt he would be hampered by the Somerset Decision of the English court. However, he was consistent about keeping government close to, and controlled by, the (white male) people. He did not want to replace a tyranny based in London by one based in some American national capital.

What was probably most shocking about his statement that the colonies were already in a state of nature, was that it was not really true. The colonies were not in a state of anarchy. They were not exactly in a state of rebellion. The leaders of the colonies did not like taxes and they did not like their own power being limited by the British government. But life went on in 1774 in a manner little different than it had in 1770.

Henry was opening the door to a more subtle argument. He was giving a philosophical ground for the idea of a change of governments. He did not believe that you should have to pass through a state of anarchy to get to a new, improved government.

Anarchy and anarchism have the same language root and are often confused in the public mind. Anarchy is the absence of government. Anarchism is the political theory that society can be well organized without a government. In other words, anarchists believe that the "state of nature" can be transformed into a cooperative, peaceful society. In fact, they argue that government, even in its republican form, tends to become organized crime. Anarchists believe that governments do not prevent violence, they cause it. Most anarchists a peace-lovers.

I want to raise the question in your mind: are we in, or moving into, a state of nature in the United States? I thought we might be moving rapidly in that direction during the economic crisis of 2007-2008. Now it looks like the government and economy will muddle through, for the time being. But even the muddling through has greatly increased popular discontent. Why were bankers saved, and automobile executives and workers, while other businessmen and workers were given no help at all? Why spend so much on useless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when the money is needed in the United States? Why help spendthrifts who bought McMansions, but not those who saved up 20% down payments to buy modest houses?

If Barack Obama's campaign did nothing else, it raised popular expectations. He promised everything to everyone. If he even delivers on the minimal promises, by the end of the first year of the Obama administration the national debt will have risen by over 2 trillion dollars from where it stood before the election campaign season began. Nothing is planned to stem the growth of the population of the United States or the world; global warming will continue; the fish in the sea that have not been caught, will be caught soon enough.

I believe we are, for all practical purposes in a state of nature. We have the right to set up a society and maybe even a government that suits us. California, in particular, needs a whole new government, including the complete destruction of the Democratic and Republican parties. We need to annul many of the stupid, in fact reckless, policies that have been forced on us from Washington, D.C.

If Obama and the new Congress do the right things, then anarchy and global ecological collapse might still be avoided. I'll believe it if I see it.