Towards a More Current Anarchism - Qritique & Commentary
author: A. C. Keefer-Project
 e-mail: nagasakinightmare1945@yahoo.com
"Towards a more current anarchism" is a brief essay that looks into the pertinence and effectiveness of modern day North Amaerican anarchism, and its movement, as a force for liberation- bringing to light some nagging deficiencies and offering hopeful suggestions focusing on relationality, sustainability and revolutionary dual power.
I understand and regret the fact that NOBODY on IMC tends to take the time and read a whole piece, most ALL of us just kind of breifly look through or skip ahead. That practice will make it hard to take anything meaningful from this...
Unfortunately I do not want to take the time to go through and HTML everything that was italicized or spaced in a specific fashion- keep this in mind, some meaning may be lost but hopefuly not too much.
|
Towards a More Current Anarchism
A Critique and Commentary on North American Anarchism in the 21st century
By A. C. Keefer-Project 2005/06
1.Intro
2.Relationality- Systems Thinking
3.Sustainability- Permaculture design
4.Revolution- Dual Power
1. Intro / Author
I am a young adult who came into a radical consciousness at an early age, going through various stages of political understand before arriving, initially quite skeptically, at Anarchism.
Since that time it has become a driving force in my life and I owe a great deal to those who helped introduce to me those ideas, the mind set and community with which I have sought my own personal liberation. From this point I have looked into many widely varying topics and fields in an effort to build my own capacity to benefit human society, notably this has recently taken me to Permaculture, a field in which I have recently obtained a Designers Certificate.
It should be said that I'm privileged by my skin, gender, sexual preferences etc. where I
live, in the Northwestern United States, to give some perspective on my writing and mindset.
Having never resided in or sufficiently studied any other location, and thus having real personal experience in only local matters, it makes the most sense for this piece to be intended for a North American audience, though obviously many points will have significance to those in other parts of the world, most likely more to the immediate North, like Canada, and parts of Europe- due to historical and current societal conditions.
Some of the language and ideas that are present within this piece may seem quite foreign to those not familiar, or in agreement with, at least some of the more basic concepts of anarchism.
The beginnings of a Critique
Through accumulated works that I have read, numerous discussions and other more subtle observations related to the topics of anarchism and liberation in general, I have embarked on a lifelong project, piecing together an idea of what our and related modern movements and socio/political trends look like- albeit a sometimes general one, as anyone can only hope to build when facing such a vast and complex subject.
I have come to greatly value the ability of individuals to look critically at an experience while still very much being a part of that experience- in this case holding anarchistic values-
and have come to make a point of doing just this in a reflective and conscious way. Of course, as anyone in this field might well assume, the ideas I have laid out here are just that- ideas, suggestions and invitations to further study, which may or may not be applicable.
It has come to my attention at this time, however, that the anarchism which is currently most popular in North America* (with those who self identify accordingly) is a movement which has in many ways fallen behind the times. It would seem that many of the basic concepts behind this 'main stream' Anarchism, if you will, are built around, use the language of (and thus perpetuate at least to some degree) obsolete and nearly useless paradigms. As such, the general ideology seems simplistic when compared to the task at hand. This has to do, to varying degrees, with external forces, such as capitalistic expropriation of symbols, etc. and internal ones as well.
*(While, as I like to say, there are as many Anarchies as there are Anarchists, generalizations sometimes must be made, in this case creating a specific body of thought and action from similar, if amorphous variants. In general, this mainstream anarchism was historically most influenced by the early European collectivists (and later specifically anti-state socialist) movements, but also later to a sometimes befuddling degree by the uniquely American Individualist (free-market) libertarians. Syndicalism played an immense part in the movement, leaving a strong, if recently diminished class-consciousness and a decidedly Red tint (as apposed to Green). The movement was significantly transformed by the early 1980s counter-culture boom, where, most notably punk rock music brought these classical ideas, often infused with an advanced analysis of the psychological aspects of oppression and isolation, plus feminism, pacifism and animal liberation, to a mass of discontented youth. A few of such groups disowned the idea of violent revolution, while most all kept doggedly to older protest politics, sometimes awkwardly so, especially when confronted by things like war or nuclear proliferation. It was around this time that the Black Bloc made its debut, changing the public (mis)conception of modern anarchists from crazed, middle aged bearded men in tattered suits tossing comical black bombs, to the crowd of black-clad, masked teenagers throwing Molotovs and spray-painting slogans. Ecology's importance elevated as a topic in the movement during the 1990s, calling long held dreams of advanced Industrial civilization into question. The counter-culture aspects of the movement (sometimes titled as "lifestylist") also increasingly came under fire from more classical New-Left tied anarchists, as there was felt increasingly a general wish to be something more or different than just the Left or libertarian faction of classical socialism. Around this time the most current trend of globalized solidarity in resistance to the program of capitalist globalization and neoliberalism (embodied in NAFTA, WTO, the World Bank and IMF etc.), came into being, the Seattle and Miami protests being turning points for American anarchist aims and consciousness)
This is of some concern to me because I feel that Anarchism is only desirable as a movement with a realistic potential for, and working constantly towards, complete liberation. However, it appears to me that some of us seem to think that because anarchism professes the ideal of this total liberation that it might be "perfect" in whatever state we find it in, and thus we become somewhat reluctant to learn from techniques designed, at least purportedly, outside of the framework of Anarchism proper. Maybe more often people are simply not encouraged to expand their analysis past an often unspoken point. This can lead to a static state- a kid of rote patriotism tantamount to death for the movement.
Anarchism's historically greatest strength may be its ability to constantly update, to remain pertinent and useful, unique to the situation without compromising its ideals.
At times though this process of slow, but generally constant advancement must become accelerated and more consciously directed- it wasn't that long ago when it was argued whether or not women's liberation or even anti-capitalism were pertinent issues within the movement. I feel that once again some commentary is due on the currency of modern day anarchism.
2. Relationality- Systems Thinking / Theory
Recently a friend of mine, while in a discussion on the subject of commonality in anarchist thought, said that it appeared that the only universal concept amongst us was a mistrust or malevolence towards government. I would agree at this time that this statement is overwhelmingly true, though I won't say that I like it. In fact, I would say that the prevalence of this thought is of some detriment to our cause. However, I will not argue, as many technically have, that there should simply be an expansive or more inclusive list of things which anarchism is briefly explained as being against, such as capitalism, patriarchy, racism, etc. though without question all of these oppressions must be challenged.
When addressing those who are not familiar with the concepts of anarchism, for example, saying in so many words that we are 'against government' (or allowing this simple idea to remain unchallenged) may not be deceptive exactly, but it does leave a lot- too much- to the imagination. For instance, "why?" What is it about government, something seen by most to be if not very favorable then utterly necessary, that we disdain? As many of us have no doubt encountered, intellectuals, and sometimes the public at large like to confuse hierarchy (and to a degree the state apparatus) with the only form of legitimate organization, viewing anarchy as without order. While an in-depth explanation should counter this and other incorrect ideas, often this is made impossible by ideologies that quickly solidify in the face of radical discussion.
Rather than constantly setting ourselves up for a fall, or an unnecessarily lengthy explanation, it should be considered (no matter how obvious the thought may seem) that proclaiming to be against the government body is not necessarily being for anarchism, meaning in this case self-management or non-hierarchical organization. A lack of so-called 'proper' government might well result in a state of outrightly chaotic violence and less official hierarchy, at least for a time, due to our lack of education within a life crippling society. This is a major problem in and of itself, and while seemingly curable by common sense, I feel that this topic requires a radical reappraisal if we wish to truly better the situation- a look to the roots.
When we say that we are against government (or capitalism, etc. etc.) first and foremost, this becomes increasingly how we think, and at the same time is because of how we think- it's a positive feedback loop. Of course the accompanying concepts and ideas tend to be far more complex than just this (depending on our tendency towards the intellectual), but it is how we tend to frame our further thoughts on the subject. Many at this point may object, saying that this is indeed correct and needs no attention. Anarchists are against government. The part of my question that I shall now focus on is then whether it is useful to continue putting the importance that we do on this of form thinking behind the statement.
To aid in understanding some of my concern, let us take a look at some linguistic and philosophical history. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries our modern mindset, being more scientistic, reductionistic and analytical, started to come into dominance by way of the Enlightenment- having been strongly advanced by the later prevalent natural sciences as an answer to the increasingly criticized mystic and mythical thoughts of the Dark Ages. An idea central to this new paradigm was that of objective rational thought and conquest. The very idea of existence itself became external in nature, making increasingly all of known reality only what you could touch or measure in an officially scientific manner.
In essence a major shift in dominant paradigms had begun, which included in it an advancement of the already established change from loving and seeking knowledge to believing in its absolute acquisition- thinking it possible to obtain pure fact with disdain or disregard for any unscientific "clouding" of the mind, being cultural, personal or otherwise*.
*(While in our modern society and culture we might say that there should be nothing wrong with seeking fact, it's absurd that we might promise a pure knowledge without some- however slight, interpretation. Even the simplest of ideas are viewed differently by different people- and are often able to be viewed differently on numerous levels of perception. Language, being the means by which we convey ideas, is itself only a form of symbolism. It should help us more, then, to seek out, expose and explain our unique perspectives in order to more clearly relate ideas)
With this broader change from being to a being came a break from the earlier somewhat relational thought and language (that is in so many words, having an equal emphasis on relationships as on parts) supported by experience, to a reduction of the world to separate, sometimes interacting but first and always divisible objects.
These changes in, for instance, the quest for knowledge and in the understanding of existence, were intimately related and constituted the immense shift in thinking which has affected (if not helped create) either more or less directly our various modern cultures, primarily those in Europe and the New world*.
*(Of course these brief sentences can do little justice to this topic on the whole and volumes have been written of it)
Obviously we might be very thankful for many related or accompanying progressions in true and useful scientific thought. At the same time, it would seem that this new trend, often called "utilitarian rationality," lent itself particularly well to the various Western and other conquests, industrial revolutions, and the rise of the so called technic or megatechnic age. In practice it is now far easier, culturally, to preclude or rather remove a moral, emotional or indeed human consideration on the usage and effect of a device, like a complex weapon, or what is referred to as a system (with it's now limited hierarchical meaning), like an army or political organization, on those real systems and communities, such as natural ecosystems or human populations, which are to be harmed or exterminated by its usage, since relationships are de-emphasized and thought is centered on the object and the alienated goal. Our anarchist critique of "the state" and our goal of its destruction has the ability to work in a similar way, if the danger is not consciously minded.
This society, now rational utilitarian in its underlying rejection of moral or ethical concerns, is really only suited to focus of material matters. The material "well being" or want of the now robotic individual is all that can be seen, and thus is often not sufficiently met precisely because of what is not seen, the irrational, philosophical or moral concern of justice.
The masters of this society, for whom material success (maximization towards excess) is the main concern, view those underneath them in a linear model, making people merely a means to an end.
(This matter is of the greatest philosophical concern, in that it strikes directly at the heart of any base for philosophy, disregarding offhand any non-mundane meaning or importance that humanity or consciousness itself might hold, generalizing the nature of existence)
This more or less anti-relational shift, which gave birth to this utilitarian rationality, also gave rise to prevalent and rampant Individualism (a property of parasitic hierarchy) and thus "mass" society, being made of numbers of separate individuals, as opposed to ordered communities. Individuals bred within this mass society are generally extremely socially deficient, lacking well-formed self-organizational skills and requiring outside management, consuming more energy and resources than need to be.
It is a fact that anarchism as a conscious social/political/economic movement came into existence during the upheaval of the industrial revolutions- specifically in the mid and late 1800s, and its descriptors were surrounded by an increasing economic mechanization (first through the factory model and then through steam power, electricity, etc.) though this particular point may or may not have as great a meaning as some more class-issue and classic-ecology oriented thinkers might claim. The above-mentioned trends in thinking were, however, in a state of some maturity at this time. The first and many subsequent works on anarchism, like those by Bakunin, Goldman, etc. were pieced together using this language.
Though these founding works were at times practically drenched in such linear and analytical thought I don't mean to imply that this flaw is the only cause of our movement's modern discrepancy, since our very perception of these works has changed over time, and also because their content, if not mode of communication, was at least basically about relationships. Certainly anarchism has advanced also, to a greater or lesser degree, despite them.
In recent times it has been recognized that this reductionistic world view, by itself, causes more problems than it solves, for the above mentioned reasons related to oppression, but more often within business sectors because of its tendency to promote inadequate communication within, or inconclusive information about systems, leading to an overall poor understanding of function, cause and effect, and thus existence.
As a more or less direct result of this, Ludwig Von Bertalanffy proposed the formal idea of Systems theory from 1945-1952, which was meant to aid in the structured understanding of systems of all kinds, through the use of various techniques. The theory was originally applied within fields like physics, biology, engineering and philosophy. Cybernetics was also greatly advanced by Norbert Weiner with his similar views. In 1980 Chaos theory turned the science and mathematics world on its head, in many ways directly because of the earlier Systems theory.
More importantly, however, the advancement of this theory brought about a wider recognition of the prevalence and importance of systems, interactions and linkages everywhere, leading to the much broader concept of "systems thinking." This idea seeks to recognize not just purely linear cause and effect relationships, but rather inherent and natural multidirectional interconnectedness, as well as dynamic processes which are continually active, in different ways at different times- rather than a set of more steady or even static states, as earlier reductionistic observation practices tended to produce.
At its base, this way of thinking brings in to focus the importance of all relationships themselves, rather than just the simple interactions of some objects, in all of reality.
It would be to our utmost of advantage as a movement* to come to know, make use of and expound this modern paradigm since it is vitally needed to meet the aims of a functioning anarchism- specifically in that a healthy society is one which fosters and cultivates the social aspects (relationships = system) of an individual. Indeed, anarchism is nothing without relationships. Part of this process, then, should be to give some serious thought to the nature of existence itself through philosophical consideration.
In this area I would stress a willingness to research topics and writers that might not normally be associated with anarchism. Many, for example, labeled the historian and philosopher Eric Voegelin as being right wing in his views, but in reality his work has probably much more to offer towards an anarchistic state of things than might be expected.
*(Some recent authors, including the local Binyamin Henri, have spoken of a relational anarchism as a specific body or trend within the movement, one that tries to look deep into the heart of the nature of order. This trend is occasionaly similar to that which is often described as "anarchism minus (or after) Leftism," or more broadly postanarchism, though the former Relational title does tend to be more specific with its purpose, and is in certain respects quite different. The trend to which I refer has many more facets that differentiate it from mainstream anarchism than just relationality (such as a tendency to find common ground between the Red and Green anarchist visions), though it is a concept which applies to itself, being tightly interwoven with every other consideration. This essay is very much, if not entirely, on the topic of at least a kind of Relational anarchism, and more specifically why it should replace, or rather educate and integrate with its more mainstream predecessor "like water for a wilted plant...")
With this new conscious embrace of relationality, we can now consider our "anti-government" dilemma. We are against government because it is the large-scale organization and legitimization of the social relationship of oppression- bureaucratic, political hierarchy.
While often we are prompted by reductionistic training to speak of government as a disease, it is more helpful to think of it as a kind of symptom, or rather an attribute, rather than a cause or an end in itself. It is a massively effective web of oppressive interactions, a tool, but not more, and to strike at government primarily, rather than more broad social relationships themselves, could be considered in a sense reactionary. Government without effect, without relationship, is nothing, just as no object can be "evil" without harmful effect on its surroundings, for without such an effect it is simply a benign object, though our subtle programming might cause us to conceptualize otherwise.
It seems ridiculous to even speak or think of government as a literal object, and I am not, my point is that we are tempted to do so in a vague fashion. This discussion is about trends of thought where concrete reality has little meaning.
Any degree of thought which puts an emphasis on the objectivity of government instead of the relational nature of oppression within the context of active liberation, for instance, is to be questioned.
As such we might well subdue the explanation of anarchists being against government. Yes, we are against the state, just as we might be against dying of bullet wounds- it's still the shooting that's the problem.
Instead, let us first and foremost be "against the social relationship of oppressive hierarchy."
This describes our stance without nearly the same risk of confusion; it is a solid, clear statement, which at the same time is pleasantly overarching and general. We have summed up anti-capitalism, patriarchy, racism, privileged violence, etc. etc. with one sentence. Instead of conjuring images of chaos and confusion (or historically miserable communist economic ruin, or matriarchy, etc.) in those who are not familiar with the idea, this statement should lead directly to a peek at what an anarchist society is all about, or at least away from what it is not.
This paradigm is also very useful in aiding the ordered organization and efficiency of the active
mind, leading often to a conscious appraisal of everyday life. It's not always simple or effective noticing where the separate entities of the state or capitalism enter everyday living, whereas domination is quite common- relationality makes the struggle for liberation more effective, and is in general a more realistic, radical understanding of the world.
Of course, better yet, we might say that we are "for social justice..."
3. Sustainability- Permaculture design / Application to logistics
Sustainability is an issue which has recently begun to acquire mounting attention and has enjoyed something of a comeback from its more popular days in the late sixties and seventies. This earlier period of increased energy and resource awareness was due largely to the peak of U.S. oil production and a slew of new theories pertaining to global warming. Issues such as water depletion, deforestation and the rise of recycling got a jump-start in this era.
During this same era, though on a more substantive level, a new concept was being pieced together by two Australians, Bill Mollison and David Holmgren, from varying existing techniques of often obscure sustainable agricultural practices. The construction of this idea, which correctly utilized systems thinking, was in response to an utterly wasteful commercial agriculture, and indeed entire society. They called this idea Permaculture.
After an initial paper outlining the theory of this new idea had been released, Permaculture started to branch out from mostly food production, and took the form of a broad set of principles and ethics which could provide a framework for the intelligent, connected use of a vast and malleable body of sustainable techniques (such as in organic gardening, natural building, renewable energy, etc. etc.) in nearly any circumstance. Within a very short time, enthusiasm over the current results and potential future of this idea seemed sufficient to take it abroad, and Permaculture spread across the planet. Some interest was lost after the momentum of the 1970s energy crises died down, but Permaculture has since become a paradigm and a movement that is quickly picking up speed as new impending energy and ecological crises take precedent.
Permaculture is, in essence, an idea that seeks to reclaim the ingenious of human innovation in its fullest sense, by rebuilding society with the utmost of consideration in energy interaction. By this I mean any interaction pertaining to useable energy (which is commonly referred to in the discussion of natural capital), such as its flow, capture, regeneration or expenditure. Permaculture sees the importance of relationships in a functioning system, rather than just its objects, and seeks to utilize them in a harmonized fashion.
.
Currently most of the world is operating under one system or another of extreme un-sustainability. In the U.S. there might not be one industry or practice which could be sufficiently more harmful than any other to discuss in particular, so we might say that our entire society, and indeed our culture is to blame. We have in the past, and continue on an increasing scale to poison and waste every basic natural resource that this planet has to offer. Even the least ecologically minded of capitalists have a hard time ignoring these issues nowadays, as increasing numbers and statistics are now in circulation that fairly well doom the future of this civilization.
Natural, non-human systems tend to capture energy efficiently in material resources, which are used many times before coming into a materially no longer useable state, which then go through a process of redistribution, which aids in the capture of energy once again. Energy flows in a loop, and there is no waste.*
Our modern human systems consume energy in a disproportionate manner to what energy is obtainable from a processed product- in a straight line with an ending point- often from the earth, to a factory, to a store, to your home, to a landfill. Copious quantities of energy and physical resources are lost without regeneration.
Permaculture works to replicate natural systems in our human endeavors, to reorganize society along a completely different line, which would afford every human the resources they need, for as long as there are humans. This idea is more radical than communism ever has been, by volumes. But like any radical ideology or program, it might not necessarily be treated as such.
Even though the first pages of Mollison's Designer's Manual read like an anarchist pamphlet, speaking of the discontinuation of reliance upon states and hierarchical organization, Permaculture has become a favorite pursuit of otherwise moderate liberals and leftists. In general, many wish to advance this extremely radical idea who have not themselves
come into a radical understanding of the way bureaucracy in organization works.
*(Lynn Margulis' version of Gaia theory, which speaks more or less about a kind of worldwide symbiosis, is also worth looking into for a more in-depth discussion of ecosystems)
If we as anarchists wish to better the world situation to the furthest extent, then we must apply relationality and systems thinking to our questions of labor and subsistence, but we must also realize and understand that a reorganization of purely political or market-economy society, as anarchism past has generally advanced, will not cut it. A look at ecology and the way we interact with the Earth is needed, but it's specifically a radical look that's most important.
Socialism, in so many words, has limits to what it can offer anarchists in all of the logistical concerns of a society. Socialism can help us decide how a factory should be run or how to delegate the task of removing garbage, but not if that factory should be run or if we can afford to produce any more garbage. Of course socialism is an idea that is helpful in general, but not to the degree we might have thought it was when industry and technology were less in question. Essentially, we must decide whether there's a point in creating an egalitarian society if it can't efficiently sustain itself or keep the planet it's part of inhabitable.
We must come to accept the love of sustainability inherent in anarchism, and foster its realization in terms of logistical social systems.
Permaculture has already started laying the framework for the construction of ecologically/logistically sustainable communities.
Of course, neither revolutionary idea is truly complete without the other (and both already contain numerous aspects of the other- there is no real dichotomy between them). Permaculture without anarchism is not truly sustainable as a movement since the driving force of Permaculture does not work with oppressive hierarchy, if only because those in power take more than their fair share, create friction which must inevitably turn into conflict, and hierarchical power structures themselves use more energy than they can functionally account for.
Luckily for us anarchists, the Permaculture movement is not nearly as closed to alternative, radical forms of organization as most. It's not uncommon to hear a large, diverse group of people, united maybe only by their interest in Permaculture, to discuss horizontal, rather than vertical decision-making and group structure. That's pretty impressive in this day and age. The best way to put it may be that there is, at least more so than in other places, a broad openness to political or philosophical discussion and adherence.
However, some, if not most discussion on the political level that takes place within the more established Permaculture rings has, in the past, had little basis in practice and hardly any history to back it up. Political proposals and ideas often are tainted by liberal misunderstanding and tossed about without much reverence to their possible significance. In general, there is a marked lack of sensible political (and strangely enough, sometimes economic) analysis. Anarchism has much to offer in this arena, with centuries of past trial and specifically pertinent insight within our collective body of knowledge.
We are at an extremely critical point in the history of both of these movements- a kind of anarchistic resistance and organization is at the moment the leading global revolutionary trend, as neo-liberalism is increasingly called into question, and upcoming energy and ecology crises of an unprecedented nature will require Permaculture solutions.
Unfortunately, maybe more so than ever before, the powers that be are acutely aware of this situation and are actively attempting to co-opt and subvert both movements, hoping to thwart any revolutionary potential held therein.
New corporations have sprung up in recent years dealing exclusively in large-scale sustainable design consulting, generally for government organizations and the UN, creating a multi-billion dollar industry out of a wide range of sustainability techniques, akin to Permaculture. This fact alone may be more or less daunting, but what is most frightening is the thought process associated with these new organizations, being, to a degree, pro- sustainability, but also pro- consumerism and capitalism, if strictly monitored by governments.
The representatives of these corporations speak about green energy and renewable resources, but also brand loyalty and profit- in a seemingly oxymoronic, but still reassuring (to their target audience) fashion. Through these venues, some governments have started diverting millions towards sustainability projects, primarily to save themselves, and only consequently us.
These global elites seek top-down sustainability, driven by a very real fear of losing the privilege and amenities they currently possess, as well as dreams of everlasting control.
As the U.S. Department of Energy has outlined in recent internal reports, if governments allow support systems to crash, the unincorporated people may take control of their own needs and would have no more use for them. As such, some governments are beginning to work in their own interests towards a state of official, but bastardized and self-conflicting Permaculture.
Currently, it would seem that a majority of Permaculture folks hold no unbreakable affinity for those bureaucratic, professional sustainability-design corporations always found in bed with big governments. As such, it's imperative that anarchists build strong bonds and alliances with grassroots Permaculture-related organizations and individuals now, to ensure the viability of a successful liberated future.
4. Revolution- Dual Power / Theory of action
Many anarchists can't seem to let go of a centuries old paradigm when it comes to revolution.
This way of thinking might best be summed up by that popular slogan "smash the state" that is fairly self-explanatory as far as aims go. This falls very much into my previous argument, in that although it may be exciting and catchy, it is largely simplistic if not outrightly stupid.
Unfortunately, in practice, many might not be much past this idea in terms of social action and progress, working towards the violent overthrow of the state- by brute force no less- as their primary concern.
This idea had a time and place in which it might have been more favorable, but for all intents and purposes that was a long time ago and very far away, when people lived more communally in spite of their rulers, before our modern societies pushed out most mutual-aid support systems and removed people from cooperative, interdependent production, trade and gift. To say that a lot has changed between then and now would be an understatement.
To start with, we now are now dealing with forces that could literally decimate the human race with their technology, if they so wished. This makes the idea of a segment of our population going up against the state seem fairly hopeless as far as purely logistical combat concerns go. The U.S. military in particular has an almost absurd disposition towards survival, capable of being resistant to most any attack and at least partly self-reliant for extended periods of time.
In any case, anarchists (who do not directly subscribe to the ideal of pacifism) sometimes tend to see discontent and agitation leading, often through increasingly confrontational protest tactics, towards open street fighting, directed riots and sabotage, eventually ending in the fall of the state. Or more often the whole idea is extremely vague, but in any case reliant upon attack in one form or another. And why shouldn't we expect this kind of plan, considering the violent history and thought of our society.
In any case, this scenario is ridiculous if successful anarchism is hoped for, if only because, as was explained, the destruction of the state shouldn't be our first and main concern. Bullets and bombs can kill politicians and police, but not societal paradigms or relationships. We also cannot rely on the immediate and spontaneous construction of efficient, egalitarian services and infrastructure within a recently exploded political vacuum. Violent, destructive revolution alone is really only suited to the replacement of one state government by another- not much of a radical revolution at all. As such, it doesn't truly meet our anarchist aims. We need to think about shifting our ideas and tactics, as revolutionaries around the world have already started to do, away from protest politics and/or destruction and towards constructive reorganization.
At this point we might question the whole intent of anarchism, since surely we don't want to place ourselves in a reactionary position by declaring ourselves only against. What is it that should drive us to disdain all that we do? It's that we can envision a better world, we are effectively against oppression because we love and value ingenuity, creativity, equality, and harmony. We may seek peace, but we must recognize that it doesn't just exist in the absence of overt political violence. Peace comes from social justice, something that must in turn be built, maintained and valued first and foremost.
We can no longer afford to concern ourselves only with a culture of resistance, we must also learn to value and build in ourselves and in our culture the capacity for subsistence.
The idea of revolutionary dual power is not a new one. A dual power is essentially an organization that exists and functions in defiance of its counterpart, the revolutionary distinction means that its purpose is to eventually replace that counterpart specifically.
This technique has in recent times become the preferred method for radical social change, and is perfectly suited for our own aims. In our case, building dual power institutions means organizing the logistical society we wish to see, piece by piece, so that most of the population may shift over (due to education and the now true and evident superiority of anarchist Permaculture), discontinuing reliance upon the dominant system, leading to its eventual collapse.
This process should not be thought of as truly 'bloodless' however since at some point the dying dominant system will almost inevitably lash out against its new competitor- but with separate functioning support systems, community defense forces might hold a good chance at fending off attack or attempted demolition*.
*(and also gain further public support by making apparent the brutality inherent in the old system, which is much easier, and the results more substantial, when defending real people rather than just ideals. Intelligent, well-planned sabotage and small-scale offense would also potentially help in lessening the potency of military or police repression at the moderate to more advanced stages of a Dual Power revolt)
Like anarchism and Permaculture, dual power is a practice that can at times be more concrete, and at times more a vague notion or tendency- but it is one that we must quickly become accustomed to.
Luckily, we can begin to start building this kind of revolutionary force right now, in that the concept of organizing most egalitarian, people based services is not something which requires a lot of convincing when it comes to less or non-radical folks. From my own experience all it takes is a plan, some leadership skills and a personal voluntary time and/or material commitment to organize most smaller, less crucial anarchistic social services*. The work that we could be doing ceases to be in preparation for "the revolution" but rather is the revolution.
*(In times of lessened social crisis it is probably important to start with low-intensity operations, like a volunteer courier service, to build trust and acceptance before moving on to something like community policing, substantial food production, etc., though it may not be long before these are absolutely required)
Specifics of action
Some important projects might include the organization of strictly local dual power monetary and barter systems, like that of New York's Ithaca Hours, for the initial build up of an overtly local consciousness and community wealth*.
Easily accessible community gardens or bike coops, for example, are projects which we can generally work towards without drawing unwanted attention- the illegitimate powers that be may not even notice the revolution that's taking place before we are able to start weaning from their systems of domination and inequality. At that time, depending on our degree of commitment, it may be too late for them to fully regain their control.
The organization of dual power freeschools, philosophical presentations and discussions, co-counseling parties, political/social analysis and reading groups, organizations to counter sexist socialization and work with survivors and/or perpetrators, to name just a few, are certainly of the utmost importance in facilitating the organized evaluation of our interpersonal relationships. As our rejection of materialistic reductionism suggests, our dual powers must always take more personal and cultural aspects, in addition to logistical ones, into consideration.
*(In general, though, we may wish to work away from money-based economies altogether, in that the organization and upkeep of a monetary system which fully disallows the continuance of capitalistic problems (such as the unfair accumulation of wealth, or the question of an accurate appraisal of the worth of time and services), seems like it would require an incredible, maybe unforgivable amount of energy- if there is in the future even to be paid "work" as we know it! Our time might be better spent working towards the construction of a gift dominated economy, where all needed, then wanted resources are simply produced and distributed with a cultural and organized societal understanding of mutual support)
Considering the importance of site or location design in Permaculture, city planning is a field that we may find creeping into our revolutionary considerations more often. With resource and energy distribution being of the utmost importance it may seem quite daunting having to deal with the physical structures and landscape that our current societies have so moronically produced, having been designed with profit or population control chiefly in mind. The demolition of our current physical city structures would likely require more energy use than the process could account for, but that doesn't mean that we should beat the dead horse of the "big city" unduly. Larger city layouts were designed, after all, with the cumbersome, weak and awkward societal mass (described earlier) in mind, where the physical layout does little to facilitate functioning community. Though the Red anarchists are quick to defend the viability of organizing large cities politically, the logistical upkeep of such sprawling locations may prove too hazardous to merit.
With this general idea of location sustainability in mind, I suspect that many of us will find the reorganization of physical communities around a kind of federated small-village model to make the most sense, removing buildings when deemed absolutely necessary and building natural ones in their stead, arranging transportation, living, producing, etc. arrangements according to well thought out and designed small localities, facilitating the decentralization of social systems all the while.
The modern neighborhood-centered organization of things like decision making associations, back-yard and community gardens, grocery co-ops, collective rainwater collection, solar energy grid tie-in (also battery operation), the reclamation of public space (and later private property) are all steps towards this more village-like scenario.
Possibly one of the most helpful principles a modern revolutionary could keep in mind is the encouragement and appreciation of diversity- in this case specifically in organization and tactics.
Of course we need cohesion (a common understanding of, and attitude towards oppression, possibly) if we wish to attain widespread liberation, but monoculture is dangerous in a movement, since specific weaknesses are multiplied until defeat is made easy, and thus likely. A wide range of tactics should not be suspect, as it often is today, for no one solution will answer all of the problems we face. It's vital that we all try something a little different, together, to ensure any success, and to make good of our fully unique human potential. The end result of our efforts cannot be uniform, that's as absurd as modern day globalized capitalism, trying to squeeze everybody into one mold. It can't and shouldn't work.
It must be remembered also that life is impermanence; situations change and our organizations should be able to take this into account.
5. Closing statements / Get started
This essay is by no means exhaustive when it comes to our particular far-flung anarchist movement, or my critiques or suggestions thereof, though I do hope that these topics have been arranged in a meaningful, related way, and that they may contribute to the advancement of the internal concepts of anarchism generally, in turn advancing our daily revolution.
We should remember that relationality, sustainability and dual power are all concepts that have already entered the mainstream anarchism- those of us interested in advancing these concepts within the movement and without are not alone, and the task is far from impossible.
If in doubt as to where and how to organize your own revolutionary dual power, you should find it helpful to check local independent news sources (like IMC websites, radical newspapers or letters) for information on existing organizations working on pertinent projects.
Talk with friends, family and neighbors about what they would like to see improved in your neighborhood and discuss the possibility of taking matters into your own hands (be patient and wait for particularly opportune moments to broach the subject of anti-oppression and the evils of hierarchy- these instances will arrive).
As Kropotkin and others pointed out decades ago, our human race couldn't possibly have survived up until now without that inherent "mutual aid" tendency which urges us to cooperate rather than compete. Although we have certainly strayed quite a bit from this general characteristic, it may not be too late for some- if not the majority of us- to encourage, foster and allow that side of us to prosper.
Thanks to B. Henri for helping to edit this piece, your insights are greatly appreciated.
I appologize for not including a bibliography, this essay was written in an almost sorry amount of haste and without much prior experience.
With any luck, this essay will become avail. in a more true format, physicaly published.
|
contribute to this article
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion
view discussion from this article
|
