-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/03/2016 05:29 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:34:07AM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:
A whole art and science of nonviolent strategic conflict addresses methods of applying coercive social and economic measures to modify the behavior of dominant syndicates including their State sponsor/clients. But an existential threat to these syndicates will ultimately result in their application of deadly force, and a response in kind.
at some levels, or in some cases, yes
BUT, not in all cases!
That is a part of the brainwashing - oh "they" are all so powerful, there's nothing "we" can do without being shot.
BOLLOCKS.
(I know that's not exactly what you said - point is, we have to bust our programming if we are to have any hope of making collective progress in useful directions.)
In what I call a "real" revolution, way more than 99% of the real work is nonviolent by nature. Organic changes in the actual process of social and economic life precede and drive the pressure to change political and economic institutions rendered obsolete by changes in the way people actually live. Efforts expressly targeting obsolete governing institutions for radical change are also inherently nonviolent at their inception; only violent counter-attack by established institutions threatened by organic change motivates public support for armed resistance. In turn, homegrown armed insurgencies depend on the committed support of large networks of non-combatants for their survival and success. But there is a limit to the power of strictly nonviolent force; generally speaking, policy adjustments in commercial and State institutions can be accomplished by non-violent means, while successful efforts to affect the abolition or radical restructuring of commercial and State institutions usually includes armed conflict during the endgame. Conversion of a Liberal Fascist State and its dominant industries to some kind of "level playing field" would be a very radical change affecting the entire power structure that defines commercial and State roles and activities; this is MOST unlikely to be accomplished without prying some people's "cold, dead fingers" off the levers of power.
Anarchy is not a proposed form of government or social order;
I disagree..
it is an informed critique of governments and social orders.
..political anarchy is much more than a critique - it suggests principles for principled ways for us to interact with one another, regardless of domain of activity.
Semantics: Applying "principles for principled ways for us to interact" is exactly what I meant by "an informed critique of governments and social orders." :o)
Perhaps "opt-in direct democracy" would be a better way to define "political anarchy" so that lay-persons can grok the concept, rather than get caught up in the common meaning of 'anarchy == chaos'.
Direct Democracy a.k.a. Mob Rule is one of my favorite political concepts; I spread its gospel, and promote it by actually doing it every chance I get. But resistance to onerous economic and political governance is not, in itself, a form of governance; it is a feedback process which, when successful, governs the governors by counterbalancing the economic and political power of dominant syndicates. My version of Anarchy is the study and practice of Direct Democracy.
If you want an anarchistic society, you will need to keep units of sovereign governance small enough that everyone can observe and play an active role in their governance.
And those units, however they each choose to operate, may syndicate as a syndicate of units.
[...]
You need to govern that State in a manner that never delegates decision making power; decision making by consensus assures that very few non-emergency decisions will be made at all; thus, State interference in private affairs will be very limited.
I'm not quite understanding what you're saying here. It sounds like you are speaking from a "we need a traditional 'democratic state'" concept, just without realising it...
I could agree that our tendency to not only speak, but to think in our 'traditional western schooled concepts' is a hard habit to break :)
I'll say, and how! What I was describing is governance as practiced by many so-called "primitive" people.
In short, you need to model your State as Bands, Tribes and Nations governed by open Councils acting on consensus only.
Watch my lips carefully, as I'm only going to do this once:
I don't need to model or otherwise do shit !
Got it?
Perhaps I should have said, "If you want to go from high level abstractions to methods that can be implemented in the real world, you might benefit from considering historical examples."
It's a simple concept. In fact, it is foundational to political anarchy theory, from my very limited understanding.
And you need to site it on a world where no other kind of State exists or can arise, because hierarchal governance in a caste system includes efficiencies that will enable other States to take yours over shortly after they see advantages in doing so. At best your Anarchistic State may survive by imitating the organizational methods of antagonistic States - - but then, you will no longer have an Anarchistic State.
Ok, statement of a potential problem clarifies your point. It is good to clarify potential problems.
Consider the example of Iceland, a model democracy where 1/3 million people have recently demonstrated that self governance is possible /even/ in a hierarchal system, if it is small enough to permit the electorate to observe its State and Corporate institutions in action. Iceland is fortunate in that, at present, the United States sees no major benefit in interfering with Iceland's internal affairs: Because Iceland is a de facto U.S. protectorate, functionally if not politically part of NATO. Geographical isolation is Iceland's saving grace, but alas, it's not one that most of the human race can duplicate.
But, step 1 is to: - clear our heads of our existing schooling/ concepts/ think - refrain (!!) from putting words in the mouths of another - regrain from telling others what they 'need' to do
Yes, we Westerners are so very very schooled, from childhood by our parents, and onwards, and so breaking these old communication patterns won't be easy.
But we have to start....
One thing I appreciate about Anarchists is that they can fight like cats and dogs over political bullshit, without losing an inch of respect and solidarity. Liberals, for instance, often don't make that cut - which I think is very unfortunate, since "their hearts are in the right place."
There are too many assumptions in your above stated problem, and so at the moment I suggest tidying up our languaging (I'm no exception either) so that when we state a perceived problem, we at least do so using terms concepts and assumptions we can agree on.
To do that we "have to" explicitly define our terms, distinguish historical data from abstract constructs, and clearly state material objectives to assure that our language and data are relevant to the work at hand.
The problem with "revolution" is semantic: We are taught that a revolution is an armed conflict that replaces one gang of rulers with another gang of rulers, who may or may not bring plans for a new social and economic structure with them.
It is much more than semantic - history shows us many examples of "bloody revolution", with vast millions of humans ending up dead in the process of "transition".
I am careful to distinguish between a "revolution" that installs a regime that is responsive to the social and economic demands of the people as a whole, vs. a "revolution" that installs a regime that forcibly dictates a social and economic order to the people. Both are called "revolutions" but most of the resemblance ends there. Blatantly repressive Fascist dictatorships call their rise to power "revolutions" and their autocratic rule "democracy."
My favorite definition of "revolution" equates it to "the world turned upside down."
[...]
According to this model, the "shooting war" phase of a real revolution serves the sole purpose of removing dead-end resistance to rule by new dominant syndicates that have already eclipsed the power of previously dominant syndicates.
A new syndicate does not start out "dominant". I guess you mean "new, soon to be dominant syndicate".
A syndicate that has become a dominant force through commercial competition, by fair means and foul, is already waging economic war against whatever syndicates its rise to power may inconvenience, and vice versa. When an emergent syndicate's growing economic power threatens to displace syndicates who control political institutions, overt political conflicts follow. When the structural roots of the conflict are sufficiently broad, deep and irreconcilable, a "revolution" that changes the form of government to accommodate new industrial, economic and (therefore) political and social realities may follow. Although such revolutions often include "shooting wars" the presence of politically motivated gunfire is not in itself a revolution, nor a necessary indicator of one.
And that's why the banks (the oligarchs) have funded all sides of every war in history - very profitable business, war.
So before going to war, ask yourself if you are selling your soul to the existing syndicates...
War takes many forms. Publicly funded mass murder for private profit is only one of them. Shutting down an industry through boycotts, strikes and blockades is an act of economic warfare. Destroying the perceived legitimacy of State institutions through propaganda is an example of political warfare.
The French and American Revolutions removed the institutions of Monarchy to make way for a New World Order where insurgent Mercantile and Industrialist factions share power with the older "landed" Aristocracy. That New World Order developed under Monarchy; its revolutions only restructured political power to reflect a new arrangement of economic powers already in place, and establish the new dominant syndicates as its "legitimate" rulers.
I am consistently reacting to what I am hearing from you as a fatalism, that "new syndicates" are already dominant before they even topple the existing syndicate, does not make sense.
My version of anarchist theory is a study of the dynamics of power in human social behavior. The State acts as a referee and enforcer in conflicts between individuals and between syndicates, in support of the stability of the dominant syndicates in the territory governed by the State. (Example: The U.S. Federal government defines the National Interest as the growth of the GNP and profitability of U.S. based corporate industries. In many policy contexts and documents, the National Interest has replaced National Defense as the stated beneficiary of military actions.) As changes in technology, population and environmental variables drive the rise and fall of dominant syndicates, stagnant or declining syndicates may use their established relationships with the State to cheat and take advantage, in an effort to retain their dominant positions. (A routine example: Eternal Copyright and DMCA etc. for media syndicates, conteracting the collapse to near zero of the cost of reproducing and distributing "creative works.") Rising syndicates must acquire enough economic and social power to successfully challenge both the market dominance of declining syndicates /and/ the power of the State as it is exercised on behalf of the declining syndicates. When changes in real large scale power relationships happen, and the State fails to adapt itself to these changes due to institutional commitments to declining syndicates, revolution follows. This model is exactly contrary to our cradle to grave indoctrination in the Great Men and Great Ideas model of historical progress, where revolutions /cause/ radical changes in the world of human affairs. In that context, the model I describe makes no sense at all. But in the context of the history of technology, it makes almost TOO much sense: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/james-burke-connections/ I view anarchist theory and practice as a discipline enabling the peasant classes of society to form ad hoc syndicates that develop and exercise social and economic power of their own. Our rulers seem to agree with me on this; anarchy has been suppressed by all means available to ruling class interests since its first appearance in the Enlightenment era. Representative Democracy, the "authorized version" of Enlightenment political organization, attempts to deliver power to the governed via the electoral process. I think we can agree that, at best, this method does not scale well. But as the old IWW slogan says, "Direct action gets the goods."
And I don't think in history it has generally been black and white (new vs old syndicate) either - the banks (old syndicates) funding both sides is the kind of 'armed revolution' we usually see in history...
My reaction is because you seem to deny (by assumption in the words you choose) these possibilities, for just some examples: - a new syndicate can start small, probably --should-- start small! - a new syndicate can be organically built. - a new syndicate might be just two women starting a computer repair "shop" - a new small syndicate, if it genuinely represents an improvement over the status quo (Uber), ought naturally grow into a large syndicate
Maybe I'm not expressing myself very well: All these examples of things I seem to "deny" are central to my view of how the world actually works. Cognitive dissonance may also be at work here: I look back at my personal struggles with political concepts and constantly ask, "Why the hell did it take so long to figure this shit out?" [...]
Absent a paradigm shift that replaces "progress" with "disaster mitigation, management and recovery," application of political theory and practice can only produce worse outcomes, not better ones.
It is all very well to start at the end goal, but not at a fatalistic "guaranteed" bad outcome - if that's all you envision, either get another vision, or start at the other end of the scale (how we can usefully form small syndicates, from 2 humans upwards, to work towards a possible better future).
I will -not- accept your fatalism and your presumed horrific outcomes.
I will -not- accept that there are no pathways to productively and usefully evolve towards political anarchy in broad action.
In the world of human imagination, anything is possible because wishing makes all things so. In the physical world, inflexible laws are self-enforced and can not be wished away. In the geophysical world, global warming is just one driver of industrial civilization's pending collapse: https://tinyurl.com/geophysics-ftw The slowing but still exponential growth of the human population is another; the flattening curve of food production capacity and rising curve of food demand are crossing now. Topsoil, water, phosphates, fuel and other essential inputs to agriculture are now approaching peak extraction / exploitation rates. This is in addition to, not because of, the problems inherent in global warming. Under these conditions the collapse of State and corporate power, relative to their present massive extent, seems inevitable. Opportunities for anarchists will be /very/ abundant, and Nature itself will decide which courses of action are "right."
My proposed solution is radical decentralization of industry and agriculture; adaptation of "low technology" not dependent on centralized heavy industry to replace "high technology" where and as it has real survival value; moving as many people as far away from population centers as possible; and distributing field tested strategies and technologies for the above as widely as possible while the networks and economies to do so are still up and running.
Sounds like there are possibilities for action by individuals and small syndicates that could arise from this viewpoint. I think this could be useful.
Back in the 1970s there was a bit of an "appropriate technology" movement in the same geographic/cultural locus that eventually produced those strange Cypherpunk critters. That same gaggle of crazy misfits got me started tracking geophysical issues way back then. Today, alas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcREKdqfOVQ But also, this and more like it: http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Global_Village_Construction_Set
Large scale industrial processes that systematically destroy the essential survival resources of future generations have to be halted as soon as possible. Hydraulic fracturing to harvest petrochemicals permanently destroys water tables. It is now decades too late to "stop" global warming, but not too late to limit the rate of onset, severity, and duration of large scale climactic disruptions on the way to a "new normal." Genetically engineered 'food' crops destroy topsoil ecologies, poison water supplies and threaten the genetic integrity of plant species necessary to large scale human survival. The longer these and other grossly destructive industrial activities continue, the lower the resulting long term carrying capacity for human population in affected regions.
[...]
Ready? Go!
:o)
ACK.
Great chatting :)
Yup. This here's the kind of bullshit that makes the flowers grow. :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXoqlDAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqvP8H/iHXKayxD+Xatoeo62/Acqej lRIPUbETgpWIMGfrDPRLgKDKMyMXeAy5bNG3XeFQ88JdhlNPfVUMoUq4KLiQKguI XSn/00/Sn0zlEJOR+z5XfLCaGlrisWB0kRwKbITCyb71pBtYZBLolp9Jlj0CBN+j d4Yne5hYixsQ/P6QrGa5JKX8zoZB5m8X71uo0NLWVLowvZFqm/wx08wgDdHvOgD0 KucZ3s1OamBM3m92J4EbKXPTytvu5mdMzweCawN5vRUjl3FS5SwCsfgETF6tSTUO AMLwbQ28q/TxBADtMVXdArbNdJS7tK3M6I3P3j+Km3+1a1PDQQ8ExGciLFNe850= =495X -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----