The Embodiment of Societys Contradiction - Essay Example

The Internet in Mass Struggles and Electronic Civil Disobedience Contradictions continue to exist in all social structures that exist today. Government exists in every nation. However, it is itself the embodiment of society’s contradiction. This is because of government’s inherent tendency to be detached from the conditions of the people. This is not true only in the case of countries ruled by autocratic regimes but even in the so-called democracies. In fact, even the government of the United States, supposedly the world’s most influential democratic nation, has many times formulated and implemented policies that do not represent the real interests of the people. They will always declare that their decisions are always based on the interests of the people but, in fact, they hover on the nation as a superstructure. The state, instead of being an apparatus meant to serve the people, becomes the instrument of the individual or clique that is in power. It becomes “by no means, a power forced on society from without” (Engels 326) instead of emanating from the people. The state is, by its existence alone, the proof that society is beset with contradictions between a government and its people. State machineries for coercion such as the judiciary and the penal system and the armed components of the police and military are meant to defend the interests of those in power. While unequal treatment and alienation of the people cannot be avoided for as long as governments exist, there are chances that such conditions can be altered and or, at least minimized in countries that uphold democratic ideals. However, for genuine democracies to work, the people must be politically conscious and assertive of their rights. Allowing the government to function without restraint from the people will always lead to abuse of power. It is common for governments everywhere to pay lip-service to democracy. However, their practices only prove that they are actually serving the interests of the wealthy elite only. Democracy cannot be realized from above. If there is anything closest to the democratic ideal of ‘government by the people for the people,’ then the subjective force that will compel government to function must come from the grassroots. Hence, there is a need for social movements that actively present the issues and sentiments of the grassroots sectors. These must have the correct strategies to advance the interests of the grassroots. (Laclau 154) There basically two types of strategies that can be applied by the grassroots sectors. These are armed struggle and parliamentary struggle. Armed struggle is advanced by those who no longer believe in peaceful means in resolving contradictions between the state and people. Those who employ parliamentary and unarmed struggle usually believe that the social system can still be changed through the introduction of reforms by governments pressured by social movements. Whatever strategy is used, there is always the need to arouse, organize, and mobilize the masses. Those who adhere to the theory of protracted people’s war pay attention to base-building, which requires political education and organization of the masses. Those advocating open, legal, and parliamentary struggles consider political propaganda, education, alliances, and organization highly important to achieve victories. At present, the internet has become the new battlefield for propaganda between governments and social movements. Adherents to armed and unarmed strategies to achieve social transformation have both used the internet as a medium for raising people’s consciousness on issues and analyses of problems created by governments. Those waging armed struggles, however, encounter greater degrees of difficulty in operating and maintaining internet-based forms of propaganda because of the obvious fact that these are considered illegal but are using legal media. The websites of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the Peruvian Communist Party, who are both leading people’s wars in their respective countries, are constantly being bothered with efforts from governments. Aside from actual attempts to damage or block the websites, they have found it difficult to link up to servers after they have been placed by the US government’s list of foreign terrorist organizations along with the likes of Al Qaeda. (US Stated Department) Those waging open and legal struggles have used the internet in more creative means. They have utilized not just websites for propaganda purposes but also blogs, podcasts, and the social networks for organization and various forms of linkages. The internet has provided them the opportunity to reach out to more people than the traditional propaganda forms and activities. The problem with this form is that it certainly cannot reach out to those who do no have access to the internet. However, when it comes to building up international support for their causes, the internet is the best medium. This has been proven by many recent cases of mass struggles of international significance such as the actions against the US-dominated World Trade Organization economic policies and against the US-led invasion on Iraq. The internet has employed not just to call for mass mobilization but for the mobilization itself in the form of video sharing. An outstanding case of how the internet can be used in furthering the cause of social movements is that of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN). The EZLN, or the Zapatistas, started out as an armed rebel movement in Mexico’s impoverished state of Chiapas. It followed the classic Latin American model of struggle, an uprising composed mostly of poor peasants and indigenous people launching armed attacks on government barracks. Soon, with the Mexican armed forces far superior in numbers and equipment inflicted them with military setbacks. Annihilation would have followed similar to what happened in Mexico’s leftist rebellion in the seventies. However, this was prevented when the political support came pouring for the Zapatistas from different parts of the world while international condemnation on the Mexican government’s brutal suppression of the movement arose. This was made possible because the Zapatistas extensively used the internet to explain to the legitimate causes of the rebellion and expose the human rights violations committed by the Mexican government in response to it. A netwar ensued and proved itself to be more effective than the armed struggle it initially launched. Many international observers and analysts saw it as an armed rebellion of a small under-equipped army that was “transformed and expanded, within weeks, into a nonviolent, less overtly destructive, but still highly disruptive movement that engaged the involvement of activists from far and wide and had both foreign and national repercussions for Mexico.” (Ronfeldt et al) It was the heavy pressure from the international community that actually obliged the Mexican government to enter into peace negotiations. Further bloodshed was prevented and a number of demands by the Zapatistas were met. However, constant vigilance is necessary and this should be observed in the internet. Otherwise, the Mexican government can always launch fresh attacks on the Zapatistas while the world is not watching. In 1997, when the netwar was at ebb, government paramilitary forces breached peace agreements and initiated attacks on the civilian population in the village of Acteal. The Zapatistas had to reactivate its network of supporters through the internet and launch again the netwar. Despite the effectiveness of the internet as an instrument for social movements, as shown in the Zapatistas’ case, this still has limitations. Unless these limitations are addressed, its use by social movements may even be put to an end soon. Not everyone has access to the internet, especially in underdeveloped countries, in which social contradictions are sharpest. Because of this, the internet cannot be a major factor in raising the political consciousness of the masses. According to Jakob Nielsen “the economic divide is a non-issue, but the usability and empowerment divides alienate huge population groups who miss out on the Internets potential.” (The Digital Divide) Another thing is the internet’s vulnerability restrictions by governments and self-restrictions by companies operating the servers. The internet, just like the other forms of media remains dominated by big business, which often veer towards political and economic conservatism. It will be very easy for the US government, or for any other government, to implement a crackdown on websites, which it considers as threats to national security. In fact, the US government has made serious efforts to improve cybersecurity. One step it is taking is to enhance its cyberspying capability. The Pentagon had even spent $100 million for this from October 2008 until March 2009. (Pentagon Bill to Fix…) The use of the internet for social movement propaganda is a form of electronic civil disobedience. However, it may not be very effective still if the regime it is being used against is easily swayed by local or international opinions. Internet propaganda as electronic civil disobedience is essentially similar to dogs that bark loud enough for everyone to hear but do not bite. Hacking government or even corporate websites, however, is a more proactive approach. Hacktivism is described as “the nonviolent use of illegal or legally ambiguous digital tools in pursuit of political ends.” (Samuel) Hacktivist tactics include defacing websites, service denial attacks, virtual sabotage, redirects, and stealing information. These tactics do not only hit the means of propaganda of the opposing force, whether state or corporate, but paralyzes their communications and computer systems. However, social movements are principally reliant on the concerted action of the masses. Therefore, hacktivism should only play a supporting role to this. Employing it as a separate and principal form of struggle will not bring about social change. It will just be considered as a disruptive effort by a group of individuals that is not understood or appreciated by the masses. It should be used as one of the many tactics employed by social movements in support of the more mass-based actions, whether these are armed or open and parliamentary. Works Cited Engels, Frederick. “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.” Karl Marx and Frederick Engels Selected Works Vol. 3. Moscow, 1973. Laclau, E and Mouffe, C. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso, 1985. Nielsen, Jakob. “The Digital Divide: The Three Stages.” Alertbox, November 20, 2006. 11 March, 2010. "Pentagon Bill to Fix Cyber Attacks: $100 M. Tech.” CBS News, April 7, 2009. 12 March, 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/07/tech/main4926071.shtml Ronfeldt, David, John Arquilla, Graham Fuller, and Melissa Fuller. “The Zapatista "Social Netwar" in Mexico.” RAND Arroyo Center, 1998. 12 March, 2010. Samuel, Alexandra. “Hacktivism and the Future of Political Participation.” August 2004. 13 March, 2010. US State Department. “Foreign Terrorist Organizations.” Fact Sheet, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism 8 April, 2008. 12 March, 2010. Read More