Overstepping the Bounds
Why a struggle for a future that would satisfy the interests of the majority will inevitably overstep the boundaries set by the government that serves the ruling class.
A necessary introduction
The existing system is a dictatorship of a tiny privileged minority.
We are not be fooled by empty phrases about «democracy», «common values» and «human rights» that are rattled around so often in those countries that cover their dominant position in the global economy by a neutral-sounding term «developed». The cheap rhetoric of other governments, those that call for preserving «stability» and «tradition» at all costs, does not deceive us either. We can easily see these very governments conduct policies that cause a deep economic, cultural and demographic decline of their own societies.
Both the hypocritical humanism of the former and the corrupt nationalistic patriotism of the latter have the same goal: to preserve, by any means necessary, the political and economic system that provides the tiny ruling minority with the rights and means to exploit the rest of the world for its own gains.
For us, the people of the «lower classes», this system officially leaves two «legal» ways to influence the course of events:
- Participation in various movements and organizations, for example, the Greens, if you are concerned about the environment, various charities, if you are concerned with the issue of poverty, a multitude of organizations for protection of civil rights - and so on.
- Involvement in official politics - if you have bigger plans. The political systems of most modern states regularly simulate democracy by conducting «free» elections and providing their citizens with the opportunity to participate in various ruling and opposition parties.
Of course, any such organizations that amass any significant amount of resources inevitably start to suffer from a «disease» that is inherent in the system: all significant positions are quickly filled by immoral social climbers who care only for their own well-being and promotion.
Both these paths lead only to a meaningless waste of resources for the benefit of the existing system This issue is covered in more detail in our Manifesto, in the section An Easier Way.. Besides, this pretense of democracy can only be maintained in the most economically prosperous countries, where most of the population is more or less content with their lot, and any emerging conflicts can be quelled by a combination of temporary concessions and a decisive actions of the repressive apparatus of the state Usually in the form of armed suppression by the police, the national guard and other punitive organizations. A typical example is the case of the student protests against increased tuition fees in London. within the boundaries of particular territories and social groups.
Mounted police charges protestors against increased tuition fees in London, UK
When the government shows its teeth
Russia presents a rather typical example. During the oil-induced prosperity of 2000-2008 the government routinely developed various «democratic institutions» and sometimes (but not too often) supported grassroots initiatives, and also allowed for a greater freedom of speech. The most extreme cases of social protest were solved by one-time handouts and theatrical intervention on the part of high-ranking officials.
With the onset of the crisis, especially its second phase (from 2013-2014) unrest in society grows, and the funds to suppress it with handouts shrink even further.
In these conditions the government has shifted from alternating between carrot and stick to mostly using the stick. It has passed a number of restrictive laws and plans on passing even more, laws that reduce to a minimum even the theatrical and fake dialogue that used to exist between the majority of the «lower classes» with the minority of the «upper class», through their formal representatives in the government.
At the same time, laws that benefit the real owners of the country - capital owners, not necessarily Russia-based - are being passed as well. Whether in the form of the so-called «social security reforms», or the royally approved new season of privatization of state corporations, including huge oil companies like Rosneft.
This has obviously changed the overall political climate in the country.
Before the crisis the government, directed by the big businesses, only seriously targeted those who entered a direct confrontation with these businesses and therefore endangered their profits. One of the most gruesome examples is the affair of Valentin Urusov, a worker who was incarcerated for several years for creating an independent trade union that fought to improve working conditions. According to both Russian and international labor organizations, the charges brought against Urusov were fabricated by his employer, the Alrosa corporation. The speed with which the authorities had responded to help their real masters is rather telling.
As the crisis worsens, the measures taken by the government to ensure the stability of the system that allows Russian and foreign businessmen to make a fortune at the expense of the people become ever tougher. Repression and intimidation of labor activists became commonplace, with them being declared extremists left and right. The low-ranking pawns of the repressive branches of the government work extra hard, declaring any attempt at self-organization that infringes on the interests of the «important men» to be extremist, and waging a preventative war against activists.
Their «big brothers» in the capital don't slack off either. In the last few years the criminal code articles dealing with extremism have been extensively corrected in the direction of more severe punishment and a wider sphere of application of these articles. At the same time, the federal government quickly proposes, and the legislative assembly rubber-stamps a bill that reduces punishment for economic crimes and raises the threshold of damages necessary to open a criminal investigation. To put it simply, the state will now forgive businessmen more and punish them less. The government has once again provided a service for its real masters.
Judging by this course of events, the authorities are really afraid for the well-being of their masters and take great pains to intimidate or better yet incarcerate everyone who is deemed even a little bit dangerous.
The results speak for themselves. The unfettered machine of oppressive «anti-extremist» legislation has reaped a number of victims, previously rather unlikely to even be noticed by it.
Here are just a few examples:
- A gym owner, singer and DJ - for posting two pictures on social media.
- The ZOV movement An initiative group «For a Responsible Government» (ZOV) - for attempting to call for a referendum in accordance with existing Russian laws.
- A self-employed blacksmith Despite the religious context of the affair, it was still handled by the same Extremism Prevention Center, also known as the E-Center. - for doubting the veracity of the Bible and the existence of God on social media.
- A shop assistant, also a single mother - for a single picture on social media.
- A mechanical engineer - for a single re-post on social media.
- A SpbSU student, a MSU professor and others - for re-posting a text about a «people's assembly» and propagating texts about direct democracy and other inconvenient ideas.
However, we feel the need to stress the fact that we do not condone the opinions and methods of most of these people.
Obviously, these people belong to completely different social strata, have extremely different views, are members of different organizations or of no organization at all. Basically, they are completely different people, that have only one thing in common: every one of them has dared to express their opinion that happened not to match the «correct opinion» actively enforced by the government.
Let's assume that we will try to achieve the goals of our project within the legal boundaries set by the «powers that be».
The United States Senate
To do so, we would have to register our own NGO, and better yet, an official political party. Which means handing over membership records to the authorities and submit all our activities to a regular audit.
The good part is that we would have a potential opportunity to participate in the «free and fair» elections, conducted by their rules. It is simply impossible to win such elections for an organization that officially declares our goals, which has been proven by history time and again A more detailed overview of this issue can be found in our Manifesto, in the section An Easier Way? Normal politics..
The rest has to be chalked up as the bad part:
- All more or less significant members of the project will soon be placed on official or clandestine watch lists.
- Publicity makes the project and its members easy targets for propaganda manipulation by the official media.
- The project has to fit obsolete organizational models.
- An officially registered organization has to constantly «watch its tongue» to avoid being banned.
- An official organization has to deal with a veritable mountain of paperwork provided by government bureaucrats.
And to go to all these lengths and expend enormous resources, only to discover that some of our documents has been labeled «extremist» and our organization is disbanded, with all official members called in for questioning by the police? The examples above clearly indicate what turn this story would take next.
Therefore, we have a simple choice to make: to play on the legal field and fight by the rules provided by a dishonorable enemy who constantly changes these very rules to their own advantage, which is almost the same as to stop fighting entirely and thus betray ourselves and everyone who lives by their own labor, or...
Since you are reading this, our choice must be rather obvious.
The new rules
The government has set new rules of the game.
It has openly demonstrated that any dissent against its course that protects the interests of a bunch of parasites will be brutally suppressed.
Any publicly expressed opinion that does not match its own is declared «extremism», and any possibility of dialogue with the critically inclined part of society is ruled out, which makes discussing any alternatives and reaching a compromise impossible.
It has turned its back on the majority to serve the rich minority.
The government has ordered everyone to shut up, and most people obeyed. Those who didn't, and continue to behave as usual, are «persuaded» by specially trained people.
It has put and end even to the last illusory remains of an opportunity to effect some kind of change while acting within the boundaries of the law. The only option left to us is to stay silent and support everything that the government does for the sake of its masters.
Anyone who does not want to put up with this finds themselves outside the rules set by the authorities. The government has only one thing to say: «We don't want to talk to you, for all your questions and propositions we only have one answer: the criminal code!»
We get their message
Fearing for its own future and the prosperity of its masters, the government forgets that all the obstacles it creates are implemented and maintained by our own hands, and with the tools that we make - we, the people who live off their own labor. And we know how to circumvent them or use them to our own advantage.
We have compiled a set of methods that allows to overcome any prohibition on organization that is not under official control.
We have gotten rid of the necessity to «watch our tongue». If a mere call for the authorities to adhere to their own laws is considered «extremism» nowadays, what can be said about a call for a radical transformation of society?
We understand that anyone who fights for social equity and the common good today faces a choice: express their opinion openly and suffer the consequences, or step beyond the boundaries set by the government, and act according to the principles of mutual support, justice and equality.
To avoid any misunderstanding
Some people may mistake this text as a justification of terrorism or a call for terrorist actions. This would be incorrect. We reject terrorism as a method unsuitable for our project‘s goals Besides, the history of the XIX and XX centuries clearly shows the folly of the very idea to radically transform society by actions of terrorists. A good example from Russian history of the XIX century would be the «People’s Will», and a decent example from more recent European history is the Red Army Faction from Germany..
Our first objectives are to assist self-organization of the people, broaden their worldview, create a systemic understanding of the world, and foster pride and self-confidence among people like us, who create modern civilization by their own labor, therefore giving them a feeling of their own strength and an understanding of their true capabilities of remaking our society and the world as a whole.
To those still in doubt
A word for those who still doubt the truthfulness, sensibility and veracity of what we just said.
We don't ask anyone to take us on our word. All information provided can be easily verified via the Internet or via personal experience.
The doors of official political parties and NGOs are open for everyone... yet. If you think you have a lot of time to spare Unfortunately, we don‘t actually have much time left. The modern global economy is careening towards collapse and does not leave much space for optimism. The existing government has proven to be blind to these problems, which is one of the reasons motivating us to action. This issue is addressed in detail in the paper The limits of the modern economic system, which takes into account current economic trends and the condition of the planet’s ecosystems.,- go on, check for yourself. But keep in mind, that if you don't have increasing your own wealth and standing as the objective, the result will be rather predictable.