DEPAVER
3rd February 2004, 23:15
What follows are a series of essays, designed to provoke thought and discussion. I will do my best to respond to serious questions and inquiries, but don't have the time to become involved in long, drawn out, point-by-by discussions.
In short, I believe there are serious deficiencies in current anarchistic and socialistic thought, primarily because they too often ignore the non-human. I consider myself an anarchist, but my world view is definitely from the "green" viewpoint.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How do we change the prevailing social system to one that rewards
cooperation, altruism, equality, mutual aid?
HOW do WE CHANGE the SYSTEM?
I think the answer is: we don't.
I don't think we can change the prevailing system. I think the
prevailing system is in place because it has provided the desired ends for
the people who benefit from it and manipulate it. The prevailing system has
resisted change for hundreds of years, despite the obvious inequities that
it sustains. The underlying assumption of the prevailing social system, the
meme, is so powerful and so intimately inculcated into our society, that it
is very difficult to identify, let alone think of changing.
HOW do WE CHANGE the SYSTEM?
I think the answer is: we become the change.
This is a difficult concept because the current meme tells us we must
"fight" to "oppose" that which we seek to change. We have to "work" to elect
those politicians who promise to support our beliefs. We must support our
military and police who are defending our rights. We do so much fighting and
supporting and defending and working, we never have a chance to do any
changing. So nothing changes.
We must become the change.
What are the characteristics of our society that we seek to change?
Competitiveness. Be cooperative. Stop working in a competitive job. Do
work that nurtures cooperation.
Hierarchy: Find meaningful work in a cooperative, community workplace.
If you can't find it, create it. Support local self-reliance, local
self-government, local autonomy. Support unions and cooperatives. Engage in
consensus decision making.
Greed: Simplify. Discover the joy and freedom of making less money. Quit
your job and find meaningful work.
Individualism: Join your local neighborhood association, or go door to
door and start one. Engage in conversation with your neighbors. Work to find
mutual solutions to local problems.
Consumerism: Learn the joy and freedom of owning less. Buy at thrift
stores, used book stores, garage sales. Cherish what works well.
Most importantly: Don't worry, be the change. Don't worry that everyone
else in your neighborhood, community, state, nation is not changing. Be the
change. Let your joy in life shine through. Others will be attracted to your
light. Share your experience with those who ask. Watch the change spread.
In this way we don't waste our energy opposing the existing system. We
pour our energy into the change as we turn our backs on the system that
drains so much energy from us. We release that energy into the creative
process of change. We build the new as the old withers and dies.
I will also add that such a society should be a peaceful society,
internally and externally, in that lack of coercion would also extend to
others outside the society.
There are basically two ways: either we turn our backs on the existing
society and build our own in our preferred image; or we overthrow the
existing society and replace it with our own.
Ed Abbey dealt with just this question in his Masters thesis. "Does the
'critical situation,' that is, the threat of violence from the existing
state in defense of its rule over the people, justify violence on the part
of anarchists in order to overthrow the state? Abbey concluded that none of the
writers of classic anarchist theory presented evidence that justified the
use of violence in the overthrow of the state.
The use of violence to counter the violence of the state has two
results: it necessitates the concentration of power necessary to bring
overwhelming coercive force against the state; and overthrowing the state
leaves the complex centralized state bureaucracy (the government) in place
and functioning, providing an opportunity for those who seek positions of
power to step into place and exercise coercive power over the winners of the
revolution. Those who seek this power may or not be members of the anarchist
society. (this is what happened to the Russian revolution).
If we decide to adopt the strategy of turning our backs on the state and
building our own society based on decentralized, locally controlled free
association and mutual aid, we disperse the power previously concentrated by
the state among the people, we withdraw that power and support from the
central state and we do not directly confront the power and authority of the
state, thereby alarming its defense mechanisms.
A good friend from Alaska learned from an Athabaskan friend in Koyukuk
that when you go hunting for bears you never brag beforehand that you are
going out hunting and you never stand in front of the bear's den and poke
around inside with a stick. Athabaskans have a name for people who do this:
the deceased.
Our long-term strategy is to build our ideal society from the ground up,
from the local to the regional, dispersing power among ourselves so there is
no avenue for the concentration of power, never confronting the state
face-to-face, never poking it with a stick. As our community of communities
grows, we draw off power from the state, at the same time that the inherent
contradictions of capitalism, the unsustainable nature of industrial
capitalist growth and the growing irrelevancy of the corporate dominated
central government weakens the state from within. The coming crisis of
energy production will also place a great economic strain on the state which
will be compensated for by strengthening the economic system of the growing
anarchy.
It will undoubtedly be necessary to counter violent oppression from the
state from time to time. This may not always require a violent response; in
fact we should resist any form of violent response as much as possible, as
this legitimizes the use of violence by the state, as we have seen at recent
antiglobalization protests. Particularly toward the end of the process, when
supporters of the state are most desperate to maintain control, violent
oppression by the state may necessitate a violent response in self-defense.
Nothing in anarchist theory rules out the use of force in self-defense, but
it must always be an ad-hoc response, only as strong as necessary and
immediately disbanded when the task of defense is accomplished.
The use of force, even in self-defense is a risky undertaking. Once the
necessary concentration of power is accomplished and shown effective, it is
very difficult to disband. This must be thoroughly examined and planned by
all members of the society at all levels of society before such an action is
attempted. It may be considered better to use non-cooperation and civil
disobedience rather than resort to a concentrated military response.
In short, I believe there are serious deficiencies in current anarchistic and socialistic thought, primarily because they too often ignore the non-human. I consider myself an anarchist, but my world view is definitely from the "green" viewpoint.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How do we change the prevailing social system to one that rewards
cooperation, altruism, equality, mutual aid?
HOW do WE CHANGE the SYSTEM?
I think the answer is: we don't.
I don't think we can change the prevailing system. I think the
prevailing system is in place because it has provided the desired ends for
the people who benefit from it and manipulate it. The prevailing system has
resisted change for hundreds of years, despite the obvious inequities that
it sustains. The underlying assumption of the prevailing social system, the
meme, is so powerful and so intimately inculcated into our society, that it
is very difficult to identify, let alone think of changing.
HOW do WE CHANGE the SYSTEM?
I think the answer is: we become the change.
This is a difficult concept because the current meme tells us we must
"fight" to "oppose" that which we seek to change. We have to "work" to elect
those politicians who promise to support our beliefs. We must support our
military and police who are defending our rights. We do so much fighting and
supporting and defending and working, we never have a chance to do any
changing. So nothing changes.
We must become the change.
What are the characteristics of our society that we seek to change?
Competitiveness. Be cooperative. Stop working in a competitive job. Do
work that nurtures cooperation.
Hierarchy: Find meaningful work in a cooperative, community workplace.
If you can't find it, create it. Support local self-reliance, local
self-government, local autonomy. Support unions and cooperatives. Engage in
consensus decision making.
Greed: Simplify. Discover the joy and freedom of making less money. Quit
your job and find meaningful work.
Individualism: Join your local neighborhood association, or go door to
door and start one. Engage in conversation with your neighbors. Work to find
mutual solutions to local problems.
Consumerism: Learn the joy and freedom of owning less. Buy at thrift
stores, used book stores, garage sales. Cherish what works well.
Most importantly: Don't worry, be the change. Don't worry that everyone
else in your neighborhood, community, state, nation is not changing. Be the
change. Let your joy in life shine through. Others will be attracted to your
light. Share your experience with those who ask. Watch the change spread.
In this way we don't waste our energy opposing the existing system. We
pour our energy into the change as we turn our backs on the system that
drains so much energy from us. We release that energy into the creative
process of change. We build the new as the old withers and dies.
I will also add that such a society should be a peaceful society,
internally and externally, in that lack of coercion would also extend to
others outside the society.
There are basically two ways: either we turn our backs on the existing
society and build our own in our preferred image; or we overthrow the
existing society and replace it with our own.
Ed Abbey dealt with just this question in his Masters thesis. "Does the
'critical situation,' that is, the threat of violence from the existing
state in defense of its rule over the people, justify violence on the part
of anarchists in order to overthrow the state? Abbey concluded that none of the
writers of classic anarchist theory presented evidence that justified the
use of violence in the overthrow of the state.
The use of violence to counter the violence of the state has two
results: it necessitates the concentration of power necessary to bring
overwhelming coercive force against the state; and overthrowing the state
leaves the complex centralized state bureaucracy (the government) in place
and functioning, providing an opportunity for those who seek positions of
power to step into place and exercise coercive power over the winners of the
revolution. Those who seek this power may or not be members of the anarchist
society. (this is what happened to the Russian revolution).
If we decide to adopt the strategy of turning our backs on the state and
building our own society based on decentralized, locally controlled free
association and mutual aid, we disperse the power previously concentrated by
the state among the people, we withdraw that power and support from the
central state and we do not directly confront the power and authority of the
state, thereby alarming its defense mechanisms.
A good friend from Alaska learned from an Athabaskan friend in Koyukuk
that when you go hunting for bears you never brag beforehand that you are
going out hunting and you never stand in front of the bear's den and poke
around inside with a stick. Athabaskans have a name for people who do this:
the deceased.
Our long-term strategy is to build our ideal society from the ground up,
from the local to the regional, dispersing power among ourselves so there is
no avenue for the concentration of power, never confronting the state
face-to-face, never poking it with a stick. As our community of communities
grows, we draw off power from the state, at the same time that the inherent
contradictions of capitalism, the unsustainable nature of industrial
capitalist growth and the growing irrelevancy of the corporate dominated
central government weakens the state from within. The coming crisis of
energy production will also place a great economic strain on the state which
will be compensated for by strengthening the economic system of the growing
anarchy.
It will undoubtedly be necessary to counter violent oppression from the
state from time to time. This may not always require a violent response; in
fact we should resist any form of violent response as much as possible, as
this legitimizes the use of violence by the state, as we have seen at recent
antiglobalization protests. Particularly toward the end of the process, when
supporters of the state are most desperate to maintain control, violent
oppression by the state may necessitate a violent response in self-defense.
Nothing in anarchist theory rules out the use of force in self-defense, but
it must always be an ad-hoc response, only as strong as necessary and
immediately disbanded when the task of defense is accomplished.
The use of force, even in self-defense is a risky undertaking. Once the
necessary concentration of power is accomplished and shown effective, it is
very difficult to disband. This must be thoroughly examined and planned by
all members of the society at all levels of society before such an action is
attempted. It may be considered better to use non-cooperation and civil
disobedience rather than resort to a concentrated military response.