It’s hard to be a cynic. I do appreciate the fact that it prevents me from occupying myself with ultimately futile activities. However, cynicism can too easily turn into hopelessness, which begets apathy. I don’t want to be apathetic. How do I reconcile my ideals and my desire for social change with the reality that the ideologies and relationships that constitute power permeate every single aspect of life, including institutionalized movements for change? Including revolutions?
I am opposed to violence. Violence is a function of structures of inequality. It is the basis of patriarchy and slavery and capitalism. Yet, is it possible to transform our world without violence? How?
I don’t believe in the “political process” – whatever that means in reality. There is no boundary separating corporate and financial interests from the institutional apparatus of sanctioned violence and social coercion that is the state. Trying to re-shape the system from within the system is like trying to dry yourself off in the shower. When is the last time that a boycott or a petition created lasting, meaningful social change? Even the protests that constituted the so-called “Arab Spring.” What is fundamentally different in Egypt or Tunisia or Libya, aside from greater poverty and more weapons floating around? Yet, if I take violence and politics off of the table, what is left?
I have long held that technology would be the “creation of the system that ultimately destroys the system.” I have talked a bit about the potential of the internet, in particular, to subvert and escape global capitalism. Yet, I have never given too much thought to hacking, as an aggressive action against the system. It’s getting hard to ignore these days. For one thing, we now live in a world where cyber attacks and cyber security are a solid reality. We have WikiLeaks providing us with classified documents. And we have groups like Anonymous, who hack corporations, governments, and other groups to make social/political statements.
We don’t need weapons to dismantle capitalism. Its entire infrastructure is digitally based, and totally vulnerable to cyber attack. We don’t need to engage in endless debates about the nature of power and the government, trying in vain to convince people that democracy is a sham. Hackers can pull away the curtain and show us who’s really back there and what they are doing.
The only problem is that, currently, hactivists tend to be stuck in the old mindset. They employ a “rights” framework and fight for isolated “freedoms.” They protest against particular governments – governments that are under the thumb of industrial powers, no less – without seeing the larger forces that are responsible for the actions of these governments. Overall, they retain a very reformist attitude, and they are not able to keep sight of the larger picture: the particular articulation of capitalist relations, liberal discourses, bureaucracy, and governmental power that orders global and local social structures.
Hactivism could be a very effective nonviolent form of resistance. It just requires a very clear definition of the enemy, and a will to complete transform society.
Showing posts with label revolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label revolution. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Revolution or Delinking?
My general purpose with the blog has been to provoke thought about questions that are rarely considered. I may make suggestions or undermine particular assumptions, but that does not mean that I feel like I have all the answers. I am just tired of the usual discussions; I want to think about the foundations of our social structure and imagine other possibilities. With that in mind, I try to tackle some common Marxist and reformist assumptions in this post without necessarily coming to any definite conclusions (regardless of the tone I take).
Moving on from the dilemma of policy change versus systemic transformation, I would like to consider the mechanism and possibilities for social change in greater detail. Following directly from reform v. transformation, one the of the most significant questions debated by those on Left is whether or not it is worthwhile to attempt change through political processes. Some argue that gradual reforms at the level of policy are more feasible than abrupt, large-scale transformations. If we ignore politics, they contend, we are doomed to failure. The other camp (with whom I tend to agree) replies that political change is merely cosmetic and does nothing to change the basic social order. Other avenues will be opened to maintain inequality and oppression when one pathway is blocked. And whatever “progress” is achieved is generally insignificant in the grand scheme of things (like re-wallpapering your house when it is structurally unsound and filled with asbestos). Trying to change the world through political processes is like trying to hold the dam with your finger.
However, I think the former group raises an important point when they insist that grand, sweeping revolution is not as feasible. If one examines history, it is clear that the only revolution which had any lasting and systemic impact was the bourgeois revolution (the various peasant rebellions and even the twentieth century communist revolutions did not seriously challenge the hegemony of global capitalism, else our world would look quite different today). The reason the bourgeois revolution was so successful on a global scale is because the incipient bourgeoisie had for centuries been developing their own institutions and domains of authority that existed independently from those of the existing social order. When that social order was challenged, there was something else there to take its place. The same cannot be said of the forces that currently seek to subvert the status quo. Right now, nothing else exists.
Michel Foucault, in a conversation with Noam Chomsky, insisted that it was impossible to envision change within the current system. The problem is that our consciousness is too permeated by the structures (physical and ideological) of the current system, even at the level of the language that we use (e.g. "justice"). Foucault contended that the task of someone who desires change is to study the subtle, overlooked mechanisms of power, in order that it may be resisted and subverted. The question is, though, how long must we continue to study? At what point do we take action? The bourgeoisie didn't accomplish a revolution by extensive observation. They simply got to work forging their own institutions. And all institutions comprising the modern world, as a consequence of the revolution, are bourgeois institutions. Foucault does provide an important insight for us: revolution will have to be total. No existing institution or ideology can be preserved. They are all bourgeois through and through. We must start from scratch.
There is another lesson from history. The weak never win. The bourgeois were the only successful revolutionaries and they were seeking domination rather than liberation.
Then there is the issue of what would follow revolution. Marx was vague about his conception of a communist utopia, but he was clear about his belief that revolution required a single, global movement (a united proletariat). Many socialists hope for a single world government (a socialist word government, of course). No matter what, though, the idea of revolution generally entails some sort of unity. This, more than anything else, makes revolution seem so unachievable. We must also consider more deeply whether unity is actually desirable. I have already questioned both the practical feasibility and the desirability of a single world government. In sum, I pointed out that it would entail more extensive technologies of social control, would create a whole new set of dangers as authority became increasingly concentrated and centralized, and would likely intensify ideological differences (at the same time as it tried to homogenize all difference) because of the high stakes involved in every policy decision. The social evolutionary desire for a single world government is also tied to latently racist ideas of the superiority of Western, secular culture (which, of course, would be universally adopted).
One problem with this idea of a single world society is the findings of sociological research that estimates the optimal group size to be rather small (say, around 150). There are many benefits (economic, physical, emotional) associated with maintaining the types of social bonds and communal solidarity that cannot exist as easily in larger groups. Furthermore, one must face the fact that social/cultural diversity will never be erased. There is nothing to be gained from trying impose a single worldview on everyone. That is not, of course, to say that people should live in isolated groups, or that they can never get along with or even understand people who think differently. I only suggest that people have different ideas about how to live their lives and organize their communities, and they should be free to do that as they please. If a group wishes to organize a community based on the principles of Sharia law, then so be it.
What that in mind, there is a principle that Marx expounded, which may be useful in rethinking revolution. Marx conceived of social evolution in cyclical rather than linear form. He believed that what would follow capitalism would in some ways be a throw-back to “primitive communism” (in which people lived in small social groups based primarily on kinship affiliations), yet with a new twist: technology. The new form of communism would be more enlightened, and with the aid of technology, allow for more dignified human occupations. I do not believe that Marx was ever clear about the size of the community(ies) involved in enlightened communism (if someone knows, please chime in and correct me), but regardless, the general principle may still be applicable.
What if we were to return to a more decentralized, communal social organization, yet continue to incorporate modern technologies into the production process? I can envision a world where communities keep up their own gardens and handcraft things like clothes and furniture; they also specialize in the production of one or more other goods that can be sold to other communities (and likewise purchase specially produced goods from other communities). The internet could facilitate widespread movement of products and ideas. Through the internet, people could maintain contact with others around the world; and movement from community to community would occur with ease (as has been true throughout human history). There would be no need for provincialism. Hopefully, though, materialism could be eradicated. People wouldn’t need to update their wardrobes with the change of every season, and collectible junk would be seen for what it is: useless. This is purely idealistic, of course.
If such a world were to exist, it would not require some large-scale, unified revolution. It would only require groups of people to decide, on their own, not to participate in the capitalist system. If everyone simply stopped participating, the system could not continue. Cessation of participation does not require any large-scale coordination. People can pull out on their own terms. In this respect, I greatly admire the Zapatistas and hold them as an exemplar of how to escape capitalism. It is possible to delink. Although the Zapatistas have not eschewed violence, one benefit of delinking is that it does not require violence (for those who oppose violence on principle, that is a huge benefit).
It is an interesting question to consider whether delinking as a paradigm for social transformation is more feasible and desirable than revolution. It seems less impressive, to be sure. But even if delinking isn’t the answer, the broader question is: why can’t we seem to think past revolution? We are given the choice of reform or revolution, and neither seems entirely satisfactory. So maybe we should try to find a third way.
Moving on from the dilemma of policy change versus systemic transformation, I would like to consider the mechanism and possibilities for social change in greater detail. Following directly from reform v. transformation, one the of the most significant questions debated by those on Left is whether or not it is worthwhile to attempt change through political processes. Some argue that gradual reforms at the level of policy are more feasible than abrupt, large-scale transformations. If we ignore politics, they contend, we are doomed to failure. The other camp (with whom I tend to agree) replies that political change is merely cosmetic and does nothing to change the basic social order. Other avenues will be opened to maintain inequality and oppression when one pathway is blocked. And whatever “progress” is achieved is generally insignificant in the grand scheme of things (like re-wallpapering your house when it is structurally unsound and filled with asbestos). Trying to change the world through political processes is like trying to hold the dam with your finger.
However, I think the former group raises an important point when they insist that grand, sweeping revolution is not as feasible. If one examines history, it is clear that the only revolution which had any lasting and systemic impact was the bourgeois revolution (the various peasant rebellions and even the twentieth century communist revolutions did not seriously challenge the hegemony of global capitalism, else our world would look quite different today). The reason the bourgeois revolution was so successful on a global scale is because the incipient bourgeoisie had for centuries been developing their own institutions and domains of authority that existed independently from those of the existing social order. When that social order was challenged, there was something else there to take its place. The same cannot be said of the forces that currently seek to subvert the status quo. Right now, nothing else exists.
Michel Foucault, in a conversation with Noam Chomsky, insisted that it was impossible to envision change within the current system. The problem is that our consciousness is too permeated by the structures (physical and ideological) of the current system, even at the level of the language that we use (e.g. "justice"). Foucault contended that the task of someone who desires change is to study the subtle, overlooked mechanisms of power, in order that it may be resisted and subverted. The question is, though, how long must we continue to study? At what point do we take action? The bourgeoisie didn't accomplish a revolution by extensive observation. They simply got to work forging their own institutions. And all institutions comprising the modern world, as a consequence of the revolution, are bourgeois institutions. Foucault does provide an important insight for us: revolution will have to be total. No existing institution or ideology can be preserved. They are all bourgeois through and through. We must start from scratch.
There is another lesson from history. The weak never win. The bourgeois were the only successful revolutionaries and they were seeking domination rather than liberation.
Then there is the issue of what would follow revolution. Marx was vague about his conception of a communist utopia, but he was clear about his belief that revolution required a single, global movement (a united proletariat). Many socialists hope for a single world government (a socialist word government, of course). No matter what, though, the idea of revolution generally entails some sort of unity. This, more than anything else, makes revolution seem so unachievable. We must also consider more deeply whether unity is actually desirable. I have already questioned both the practical feasibility and the desirability of a single world government. In sum, I pointed out that it would entail more extensive technologies of social control, would create a whole new set of dangers as authority became increasingly concentrated and centralized, and would likely intensify ideological differences (at the same time as it tried to homogenize all difference) because of the high stakes involved in every policy decision. The social evolutionary desire for a single world government is also tied to latently racist ideas of the superiority of Western, secular culture (which, of course, would be universally adopted).
One problem with this idea of a single world society is the findings of sociological research that estimates the optimal group size to be rather small (say, around 150). There are many benefits (economic, physical, emotional) associated with maintaining the types of social bonds and communal solidarity that cannot exist as easily in larger groups. Furthermore, one must face the fact that social/cultural diversity will never be erased. There is nothing to be gained from trying impose a single worldview on everyone. That is not, of course, to say that people should live in isolated groups, or that they can never get along with or even understand people who think differently. I only suggest that people have different ideas about how to live their lives and organize their communities, and they should be free to do that as they please. If a group wishes to organize a community based on the principles of Sharia law, then so be it.
What that in mind, there is a principle that Marx expounded, which may be useful in rethinking revolution. Marx conceived of social evolution in cyclical rather than linear form. He believed that what would follow capitalism would in some ways be a throw-back to “primitive communism” (in which people lived in small social groups based primarily on kinship affiliations), yet with a new twist: technology. The new form of communism would be more enlightened, and with the aid of technology, allow for more dignified human occupations. I do not believe that Marx was ever clear about the size of the community(ies) involved in enlightened communism (if someone knows, please chime in and correct me), but regardless, the general principle may still be applicable.
What if we were to return to a more decentralized, communal social organization, yet continue to incorporate modern technologies into the production process? I can envision a world where communities keep up their own gardens and handcraft things like clothes and furniture; they also specialize in the production of one or more other goods that can be sold to other communities (and likewise purchase specially produced goods from other communities). The internet could facilitate widespread movement of products and ideas. Through the internet, people could maintain contact with others around the world; and movement from community to community would occur with ease (as has been true throughout human history). There would be no need for provincialism. Hopefully, though, materialism could be eradicated. People wouldn’t need to update their wardrobes with the change of every season, and collectible junk would be seen for what it is: useless. This is purely idealistic, of course.
If such a world were to exist, it would not require some large-scale, unified revolution. It would only require groups of people to decide, on their own, not to participate in the capitalist system. If everyone simply stopped participating, the system could not continue. Cessation of participation does not require any large-scale coordination. People can pull out on their own terms. In this respect, I greatly admire the Zapatistas and hold them as an exemplar of how to escape capitalism. It is possible to delink. Although the Zapatistas have not eschewed violence, one benefit of delinking is that it does not require violence (for those who oppose violence on principle, that is a huge benefit).
It is an interesting question to consider whether delinking as a paradigm for social transformation is more feasible and desirable than revolution. It seems less impressive, to be sure. But even if delinking isn’t the answer, the broader question is: why can’t we seem to think past revolution? We are given the choice of reform or revolution, and neither seems entirely satisfactory. So maybe we should try to find a third way.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Issue Based Change VS Systemic Change
As I discuss possibilities for social change with various people in my life, I am continuing to circle back on and re-reflect upon ideas already discussed in this blog. I hope that this is not merely repetitive, and that my upcoming posts go beyond what I have already written... in some way or another.
I have talked quite a bit about my frustrations with reformism (see, for example, this post). In general, energies and wills get divided and dispersed. First, people are divided into separate interest groups based on gender, race, sexual orientation, and so on. Then, attention is pin-pointed to very specific issues that are supposedly of greatest concern for these (internally undifferentiated) groups. When this happens, there is no common enemy. Everyone has their own personal issues.
I have discussed Michelle Alexander’s problems with civil rights movements focusing so exclusively on issues like affirmative action (people see illusions of progress – token black people who are successful – and are blinded to enduring realities of racial caste). I even contended that Alexander’s concern about the drug war is still too narrow. No single policy or institution encompasses the broad economic and ideological foundations of racial caste.
I have also taken on, to some extent, the preoccupation with abortion within the women’s rights movement. In general, women’s rights tend to center around: abortion, birth control, and rape. Not that any of these are unimportant. However, this collection of issues defines women’s rights exclusively in terms of reproduction, obscures the way in which different women experience oppression differently, and does not expose or challenge the ideological framework that constructs gender.
The gay rights movement has pivoted primarily around two issues: repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and marriage equality. Neither of these battles addresses the real structural roots of homophobia. If anything, they strengthen and support capitalist institutions: those of the military and the traditional, nuclear family. (And really, what does the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell prove other than that the military is stretched too thin and really desperate for bodies?) Furthermore, the so-called “gay culture” (a combination of externally imposed stereotypes and practices born internally out of resistance) that the movement attempts to normalize reinforces the materialistic, superficial behaviors and attitudes that serve to benefit the capitalist system (for example, the obsession with fashion).
If everyone realized their common interests and could sustain a meaningful dialogue regarding both the positive and negative social implications of capitalism as it really exists (not as it should be in some hypothetical universe) – what kind of real social progress might be possible then? Even more, if a critical mass of people were willing to critically analyze and question modern institutions – the law, science, democracy, the family (in short, everything that fills us with such blind pride and faith) – together with all of the ideologies that sustain and are simultaneously produced by these institutions, how might we be able to re-imagine our world and the possibilities for social cooperation, for the better?
Our inability to ask the really difficult questions, and to think critically about the foundations of our society paralyzes any attempt at improving the lot of the poor, oppressed, exploited, and stigmatized masses.
I have talked quite a bit about my frustrations with reformism (see, for example, this post). In general, energies and wills get divided and dispersed. First, people are divided into separate interest groups based on gender, race, sexual orientation, and so on. Then, attention is pin-pointed to very specific issues that are supposedly of greatest concern for these (internally undifferentiated) groups. When this happens, there is no common enemy. Everyone has their own personal issues.
I have discussed Michelle Alexander’s problems with civil rights movements focusing so exclusively on issues like affirmative action (people see illusions of progress – token black people who are successful – and are blinded to enduring realities of racial caste). I even contended that Alexander’s concern about the drug war is still too narrow. No single policy or institution encompasses the broad economic and ideological foundations of racial caste.
I have also taken on, to some extent, the preoccupation with abortion within the women’s rights movement. In general, women’s rights tend to center around: abortion, birth control, and rape. Not that any of these are unimportant. However, this collection of issues defines women’s rights exclusively in terms of reproduction, obscures the way in which different women experience oppression differently, and does not expose or challenge the ideological framework that constructs gender.
The gay rights movement has pivoted primarily around two issues: repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and marriage equality. Neither of these battles addresses the real structural roots of homophobia. If anything, they strengthen and support capitalist institutions: those of the military and the traditional, nuclear family. (And really, what does the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell prove other than that the military is stretched too thin and really desperate for bodies?) Furthermore, the so-called “gay culture” (a combination of externally imposed stereotypes and practices born internally out of resistance) that the movement attempts to normalize reinforces the materialistic, superficial behaviors and attitudes that serve to benefit the capitalist system (for example, the obsession with fashion).
If everyone realized their common interests and could sustain a meaningful dialogue regarding both the positive and negative social implications of capitalism as it really exists (not as it should be in some hypothetical universe) – what kind of real social progress might be possible then? Even more, if a critical mass of people were willing to critically analyze and question modern institutions – the law, science, democracy, the family (in short, everything that fills us with such blind pride and faith) – together with all of the ideologies that sustain and are simultaneously produced by these institutions, how might we be able to re-imagine our world and the possibilities for social cooperation, for the better?
Our inability to ask the really difficult questions, and to think critically about the foundations of our society paralyzes any attempt at improving the lot of the poor, oppressed, exploited, and stigmatized masses.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
The People United... or, Divide and Conquer
This post is based on my sentiments about reform movements, the welfare state, and the non-profit sector.
I have argued that many people who genuinely desire to do good are coopted by the system and end up wasting all of their time and energy. I find this very frustrating; it seems there is enough will to change the system, but everyone is directing their efforts in different (and ineffective) directions.
In general, I believe changes made within the system (increasing minimum wage, improving funding for education, giving money and loans to the impoverished, legalizing gay marriage, raising taxes, cutting taxes, improving healthcare coverage, and so on) are merely cosmetic and fail to address the underlying issues, and therefore are necessarily of limited scope, both in terms of breadth and duration. These types of reforms only endorse and pereptuate an unjust system and lay the groundwork for future hardships and challenges faced by the oppressed.
What is fundamentally at issue is NOT money, or technology, or policy. The heart of the issue is relationships. Our global society is based on relations of exploitation - including, but not limited to, racism, sexism, heterosexism, and slavery. In fact, capitalism is impossible without some form of slavery, whether characterized as free labor or lack of self-determination. Although slavery has legally been abolished, capitalists have devised other means of obtaining free labor - internships and prison labor are a couple of examples. Some companies, like Walmart, have been accused of simply not paying their employees for all hours worked.
But believe it or not, the "dependency" form of slavery is both more widespread and more troubling. Most of the Third World has been forced into dependency relationships with the industrial powers. They are barely able to exert control over their own affairs. Many Third World citizens do not have any choice about what to produce or how to make their living. Their livelihood is determined by an international agenda. Sweatshops, plantations, and mines abound. Recent outrage over the Foxconn expose proves my point about the narrow scope of the reform attitude. People acted like this was the only place in the world where these conditions existed. They treated it as a problem of a single corporation, when it is the nature of our entire manufacturing system. And they pressed for some minor changes within Foxconn, ultimately leaving those workers on the assembly line and everyone else in the world out in the cold.
Clearly some of these changes make some difference in some people's lives. But my question is this. What if ALL of the time and energy expended in calling for and implementing these reforms, all of the people who belong to non-profits, NGOs, transnational organizations, and grassroots campaigns, came together and united for a single cause. What if everyone challenged the system itself? If all efforts were directed at ending this exploitative system... could it actually be transformed?
The image that comes to my mind is slaves on a plantation, petitioning to be allotted 300 more calories per day, rather than revolting or escaping to freedom.
I have argued that many people who genuinely desire to do good are coopted by the system and end up wasting all of their time and energy. I find this very frustrating; it seems there is enough will to change the system, but everyone is directing their efforts in different (and ineffective) directions.
In general, I believe changes made within the system (increasing minimum wage, improving funding for education, giving money and loans to the impoverished, legalizing gay marriage, raising taxes, cutting taxes, improving healthcare coverage, and so on) are merely cosmetic and fail to address the underlying issues, and therefore are necessarily of limited scope, both in terms of breadth and duration. These types of reforms only endorse and pereptuate an unjust system and lay the groundwork for future hardships and challenges faced by the oppressed.
What is fundamentally at issue is NOT money, or technology, or policy. The heart of the issue is relationships. Our global society is based on relations of exploitation - including, but not limited to, racism, sexism, heterosexism, and slavery. In fact, capitalism is impossible without some form of slavery, whether characterized as free labor or lack of self-determination. Although slavery has legally been abolished, capitalists have devised other means of obtaining free labor - internships and prison labor are a couple of examples. Some companies, like Walmart, have been accused of simply not paying their employees for all hours worked.
But believe it or not, the "dependency" form of slavery is both more widespread and more troubling. Most of the Third World has been forced into dependency relationships with the industrial powers. They are barely able to exert control over their own affairs. Many Third World citizens do not have any choice about what to produce or how to make their living. Their livelihood is determined by an international agenda. Sweatshops, plantations, and mines abound. Recent outrage over the Foxconn expose proves my point about the narrow scope of the reform attitude. People acted like this was the only place in the world where these conditions existed. They treated it as a problem of a single corporation, when it is the nature of our entire manufacturing system. And they pressed for some minor changes within Foxconn, ultimately leaving those workers on the assembly line and everyone else in the world out in the cold.
Clearly some of these changes make some difference in some people's lives. But my question is this. What if ALL of the time and energy expended in calling for and implementing these reforms, all of the people who belong to non-profits, NGOs, transnational organizations, and grassroots campaigns, came together and united for a single cause. What if everyone challenged the system itself? If all efforts were directed at ending this exploitative system... could it actually be transformed?
The image that comes to my mind is slaves on a plantation, petitioning to be allotted 300 more calories per day, rather than revolting or escaping to freedom.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
How Do We Change The World?
I have already spent some time on this blog trying to analyze the present possibilities for global systemic transformation, but I think the topic warrants more thought. For me, the most troubling question is whether or not positive change is even possible. I have maintained that the world is in the process of large-scale structural transformation, but have expressed some fear that what results will be even worse than what we have now. I have also given some attention to the “how” of revolution (have revolutions of the oppressed ever been successful?). It is this latter consideration that I want to expand on here.
How can real, positive social change be achieved? It is not easy to remain optimistic when one looks at historical precedent. Especially when the bar is set high: I only consider real systemic change to be anything that universally disrupts relationships of exploitation and oppression, that completely alters the foundation of the whole system. In short, it is only real change if we manage to surpass the current global capitalist system.
-Working through the political process is probably the least effective method. You don’t dismantle an oppressive system by working within it.
-Demonstrations and protests seem more palatable to me than voting. But what have they ever accomplished except for maybe some policy changes that don’t really alter the system? Mostly it is just political rhetoric and superficial conditions that are reformed by these activities, rather than the deep structures of social reality.
-Violent uprisings and coups, though unappealing to a pacifist like me, may be more effective still. Forcibly replacing political leadership has actually worked to some extent in Latin America. Yet, no one has managed to extricate themselves from the global capitalist system. What has resulted in Latin America has been more the establishment of social democratic regimes, which, although somewhat aesthetically pleasing, are not at all a departure from the current system. What one most often sees when a group of people tries to overthrow their government is that the old structures are left intact, and new people simply inhabit the old roles.
Now, Marx insisted that the proletarian revolution would have to be a single, unified global movement. That is because capitalism is a global system of oppression, and Marx envisioned a new type of global society emerging as the post-capitalist world order, so for him change could not occur piecemeal. One could argue that this is why all attempts at revolution have heretofore failed.
But I wonder whether any sort of universal global revolution is even possible. It is interesting to note that for many people involved in the Arab Spring (many but certainly not all), they do not see their current social reality as a failure of Western standards of democracy, to which they aspire (which is often how the Western media portrays the situation); while this perspective may be held by some, plenty of others view the status quo as a failure of Islamic standards of an ideal society, and wish to establish a new society based on Islamic principles. (One can see this in the election results.) What this means is that, while a vast majority of the world may be dissatisfied with the current system, our aspirations and visions for a new world are not identical. And it seems unlikely that everyone (or least a sizeable majority) would ever come to share exactly the same attitudes. Without, that is, mass brainwashing.
Furthermore, is a global society even desirable? It seems that a cohesive global society would not be possible without massive structures of governance and bureaucratic administration that would likely just further expand and intensify the governmental power relations in which people are already entrenched. Plus, it just does not seem practical to me.
Now, one should recognize that plenty of people have already managed to de-link themselves from the system to varying degrees. Of course there are the Kibbutzes, communes, Amish communities, etc. My favorite group is the Zapatistas – and this despite the fact that they are not pacifist. The Zapatistas managed to maintain the strength and cohesion of their movement because they refused to be co-opted by the political system. They simply created their own society, with their own form of leadership, within the state of Mexico. They also maintain global ties, for example participating in the World Social Forum. Small, individual communities do not entail isolation and provincialism.
So is this the only way out: for people to simply try to extricate themselves from the system where they can, as individuals or small groups? I should mention that I have made absolutely no effort of my own to disentangle myself from the global capitalist system. These things are easier said than done, and not guaranteed to be effective. Still, I think it is worthwhile to consider the options, and in particular the potential value of a mass movement of frustrated people forming their own communities and societies apart from the current system. The system surely cannot survive if a majority of people simply refuse to live within its bounds.
How can real, positive social change be achieved? It is not easy to remain optimistic when one looks at historical precedent. Especially when the bar is set high: I only consider real systemic change to be anything that universally disrupts relationships of exploitation and oppression, that completely alters the foundation of the whole system. In short, it is only real change if we manage to surpass the current global capitalist system.
-Working through the political process is probably the least effective method. You don’t dismantle an oppressive system by working within it.
-Demonstrations and protests seem more palatable to me than voting. But what have they ever accomplished except for maybe some policy changes that don’t really alter the system? Mostly it is just political rhetoric and superficial conditions that are reformed by these activities, rather than the deep structures of social reality.
-Violent uprisings and coups, though unappealing to a pacifist like me, may be more effective still. Forcibly replacing political leadership has actually worked to some extent in Latin America. Yet, no one has managed to extricate themselves from the global capitalist system. What has resulted in Latin America has been more the establishment of social democratic regimes, which, although somewhat aesthetically pleasing, are not at all a departure from the current system. What one most often sees when a group of people tries to overthrow their government is that the old structures are left intact, and new people simply inhabit the old roles.
Now, Marx insisted that the proletarian revolution would have to be a single, unified global movement. That is because capitalism is a global system of oppression, and Marx envisioned a new type of global society emerging as the post-capitalist world order, so for him change could not occur piecemeal. One could argue that this is why all attempts at revolution have heretofore failed.
But I wonder whether any sort of universal global revolution is even possible. It is interesting to note that for many people involved in the Arab Spring (many but certainly not all), they do not see their current social reality as a failure of Western standards of democracy, to which they aspire (which is often how the Western media portrays the situation); while this perspective may be held by some, plenty of others view the status quo as a failure of Islamic standards of an ideal society, and wish to establish a new society based on Islamic principles. (One can see this in the election results.) What this means is that, while a vast majority of the world may be dissatisfied with the current system, our aspirations and visions for a new world are not identical. And it seems unlikely that everyone (or least a sizeable majority) would ever come to share exactly the same attitudes. Without, that is, mass brainwashing.
Furthermore, is a global society even desirable? It seems that a cohesive global society would not be possible without massive structures of governance and bureaucratic administration that would likely just further expand and intensify the governmental power relations in which people are already entrenched. Plus, it just does not seem practical to me.
Now, one should recognize that plenty of people have already managed to de-link themselves from the system to varying degrees. Of course there are the Kibbutzes, communes, Amish communities, etc. My favorite group is the Zapatistas – and this despite the fact that they are not pacifist. The Zapatistas managed to maintain the strength and cohesion of their movement because they refused to be co-opted by the political system. They simply created their own society, with their own form of leadership, within the state of Mexico. They also maintain global ties, for example participating in the World Social Forum. Small, individual communities do not entail isolation and provincialism.
So is this the only way out: for people to simply try to extricate themselves from the system where they can, as individuals or small groups? I should mention that I have made absolutely no effort of my own to disentangle myself from the global capitalist system. These things are easier said than done, and not guaranteed to be effective. Still, I think it is worthwhile to consider the options, and in particular the potential value of a mass movement of frustrated people forming their own communities and societies apart from the current system. The system surely cannot survive if a majority of people simply refuse to live within its bounds.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
The Goals of "Occupy"
Although I wrote in a previous post that I disagree with the major criticisms of the "Occupy" movement, I do have one to level of my own. I think it is okay that they are not necessarily "for" anything, and I think it is fantastic that they are not (as of yet) working through the political process. The problem, as I see it, is how they have defined what they are against.
The name "Occupy Wall Street" says it all. The movement is targeted foremost at the "financial sector," as well as at large corporations, and thus the problem is framed in terms of "corporate greed" coupled with the government's inability to impose regulations and make everyone pay their fair share (to the contrary, offering large bail-outs). This, of course, is a worthy cause. However, I also believe it is myopic, in much the same way that I argued was the view espoused by Inside Job.
The inherent contradictions of capitalism (the drive to decrease wages and simultaneously increase demand; the negative effects of investments in technology on the rate of profit) have caused a decades-long period of economic stagnation - via a crisis of overproduction - of which the entire financial crisis is a mere symptom. All the while, the normal laws of capitalist production continue to redistribute wealth upward. The problem, then, is not greedy corporations per se, or the unregulated financial sector, but the very nature of the capitalist sytem.
The "Occupy" movement could easily turn into a critique of capitalism, although I highly doubt it will. The ideological work of turning capitalism into a sacred cow has been pretty successfully managed up to this point.
But even if "Occupy" was elevated to a critique of capitalism, its scope could be broader still. Capitalism is more than an economic principle. It is a way of organizing social relations. To that end, if one desires real change, a comprehensive critique of society, including all of its interlinked institutions, ideologies, and practices, is necessary. For everything is interrelated, and together comprises a system that is in its very nature exploitative. One should start to question the nature of the state, the justice system, the media, the family, science, the medical establishment (with its associated industries), and so forth, as well as highlight the ways in which racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and all other forms of discrimination emerge from the exigencies of these institutions.
Occupying Wall Street is nice, but there's a whole world to occupy!
The name "Occupy Wall Street" says it all. The movement is targeted foremost at the "financial sector," as well as at large corporations, and thus the problem is framed in terms of "corporate greed" coupled with the government's inability to impose regulations and make everyone pay their fair share (to the contrary, offering large bail-outs). This, of course, is a worthy cause. However, I also believe it is myopic, in much the same way that I argued was the view espoused by Inside Job.
The inherent contradictions of capitalism (the drive to decrease wages and simultaneously increase demand; the negative effects of investments in technology on the rate of profit) have caused a decades-long period of economic stagnation - via a crisis of overproduction - of which the entire financial crisis is a mere symptom. All the while, the normal laws of capitalist production continue to redistribute wealth upward. The problem, then, is not greedy corporations per se, or the unregulated financial sector, but the very nature of the capitalist sytem.
The "Occupy" movement could easily turn into a critique of capitalism, although I highly doubt it will. The ideological work of turning capitalism into a sacred cow has been pretty successfully managed up to this point.
But even if "Occupy" was elevated to a critique of capitalism, its scope could be broader still. Capitalism is more than an economic principle. It is a way of organizing social relations. To that end, if one desires real change, a comprehensive critique of society, including all of its interlinked institutions, ideologies, and practices, is necessary. For everything is interrelated, and together comprises a system that is in its very nature exploitative. One should start to question the nature of the state, the justice system, the media, the family, science, the medical establishment (with its associated industries), and so forth, as well as highlight the ways in which racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and all other forms of discrimination emerge from the exigencies of these institutions.
Occupying Wall Street is nice, but there's a whole world to occupy!
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
What Other World Is Possible?
This was supposed to be a lazy, cut-and-paste from an email, post. I just realized I was too lazy to even mention that it is an email that I wrote to someone
-------------------------------------
That is the question, isn't it? I think it boils down to the problem you formulated in our last phone coversation: have we reached a terminal point, beyond which no change is possible, or is there still possibility for structural transformation?
I have been reading someone who argues in favor of regionalization, at least as a positive direction to head in. It seems possible that this could occur, if shifting geopolitical alignments and general chaos in the interstate system were to someday intensify to the point of destroying the international apparatus of governance. Though regionalization in and of itself does not guarantee that the relations of production will be significantly altered. I could even imagine an infinite oscillation between the wax and wane of global integration.
One COULD look for the evolutionary regression that Marx expected: a sort of resurrection of the peasant industry, where production is organized more locally and communally, yet with all the benefit of new technology, and coincident with the dissolution of transnational and national forms of governance.
But the question still remains: what would it take to dismantle all of the current power structures? As you noted, the "technologies" - and I don't know if you meant it this broadly, but I would include all of the pertinent physical, institutional, and ideological infrastructure - have grown like weeds and stretched their tentacles into every aspect of life. It is not as simple as targeting corporations, or any single institution, regime, or set of policies. For one thing, the institutional basis of modern power relations is vast. Not only is "the state" very large and lacking definite boundaries (e.g. all the "private" contractors), but there is all the beaurocratic administration that pervades both the public and private sectors (as if there is a difference between the two); the stores of personal records culled from various sources, and to which corporations and banks, in particular, seem to have unfettered access; everything associated with our system of "justice," including the prison-industrial complex and all the suveillance capabilities of the police; the educational institutions and media outlets that often function as propoganda machines; the various foundations, nonprofit organizations, and research centers that attempt to manage populations based, in part, on the collection of copious amounts of individual data; the institutions of public health and medicine that have become less of a public "service" and more of a crusade to influence personal habits, augmented by their newly acquired abilities to define when life begins and ends; and, of course, science itself has become more than a delusional quest to master nature, as human beings and social processes are brought under its aegis (as a form of "nature").
But even then, one must not look solely at the institutions themselves, as they produce an extensive body of rhetoric, concepts, and values (which have in many cases taken on a life of their own) that instill habits, shape consciousness, and legitimize the interests that propogate them. There is the entire corpus of secular doctrine, which enshrines "the individual" as a sacred deity, and promotes vague and elusive values like "liberty" and "democracy," and, of course, "individual rights." As a corollary, there is the neoliberal ideology that equates capitalism with free markets, competition, and private enterprise (although quite the opposite is the case). Most important is the neoliberal myth that the system is just and anyone can be rich if they just try hard enough (with associated value that wealth is the greatest thing to aspire to, as well as a measure of a person's worth). There is also the secular ideology of progress, which views technology and scientific advancements as the only thing that makes life worth living; which would prolong life as long as physically possible; which insists that knowledge and wisdom are not possible without institutions of higher education; and which constantly strives to "reform" rather than to radically question. In addition to various manifestations of secularism, there are all the "isms" that serve to create false unities and enemies: nationalism, racism, xenophobia, etc. These are aided by the attitudes toward violence and war that are nurtured by popular entertainment and public imagery.
It seems that changing the system would entail: getting rid of the entire web of institutions that structure most of human social life, as well as actually altering everyone's consciousness. I guess that would qualify as a tall order.
So, then, to return to the question from which this all started: does this mean we're stuck?
-------------------------------------
That is the question, isn't it? I think it boils down to the problem you formulated in our last phone coversation: have we reached a terminal point, beyond which no change is possible, or is there still possibility for structural transformation?
I have been reading someone who argues in favor of regionalization, at least as a positive direction to head in. It seems possible that this could occur, if shifting geopolitical alignments and general chaos in the interstate system were to someday intensify to the point of destroying the international apparatus of governance. Though regionalization in and of itself does not guarantee that the relations of production will be significantly altered. I could even imagine an infinite oscillation between the wax and wane of global integration.
One COULD look for the evolutionary regression that Marx expected: a sort of resurrection of the peasant industry, where production is organized more locally and communally, yet with all the benefit of new technology, and coincident with the dissolution of transnational and national forms of governance.
But the question still remains: what would it take to dismantle all of the current power structures? As you noted, the "technologies" - and I don't know if you meant it this broadly, but I would include all of the pertinent physical, institutional, and ideological infrastructure - have grown like weeds and stretched their tentacles into every aspect of life. It is not as simple as targeting corporations, or any single institution, regime, or set of policies. For one thing, the institutional basis of modern power relations is vast. Not only is "the state" very large and lacking definite boundaries (e.g. all the "private" contractors), but there is all the beaurocratic administration that pervades both the public and private sectors (as if there is a difference between the two); the stores of personal records culled from various sources, and to which corporations and banks, in particular, seem to have unfettered access; everything associated with our system of "justice," including the prison-industrial complex and all the suveillance capabilities of the police; the educational institutions and media outlets that often function as propoganda machines; the various foundations, nonprofit organizations, and research centers that attempt to manage populations based, in part, on the collection of copious amounts of individual data; the institutions of public health and medicine that have become less of a public "service" and more of a crusade to influence personal habits, augmented by their newly acquired abilities to define when life begins and ends; and, of course, science itself has become more than a delusional quest to master nature, as human beings and social processes are brought under its aegis (as a form of "nature").
But even then, one must not look solely at the institutions themselves, as they produce an extensive body of rhetoric, concepts, and values (which have in many cases taken on a life of their own) that instill habits, shape consciousness, and legitimize the interests that propogate them. There is the entire corpus of secular doctrine, which enshrines "the individual" as a sacred deity, and promotes vague and elusive values like "liberty" and "democracy," and, of course, "individual rights." As a corollary, there is the neoliberal ideology that equates capitalism with free markets, competition, and private enterprise (although quite the opposite is the case). Most important is the neoliberal myth that the system is just and anyone can be rich if they just try hard enough (with associated value that wealth is the greatest thing to aspire to, as well as a measure of a person's worth). There is also the secular ideology of progress, which views technology and scientific advancements as the only thing that makes life worth living; which would prolong life as long as physically possible; which insists that knowledge and wisdom are not possible without institutions of higher education; and which constantly strives to "reform" rather than to radically question. In addition to various manifestations of secularism, there are all the "isms" that serve to create false unities and enemies: nationalism, racism, xenophobia, etc. These are aided by the attitudes toward violence and war that are nurtured by popular entertainment and public imagery.
It seems that changing the system would entail: getting rid of the entire web of institutions that structure most of human social life, as well as actually altering everyone's consciousness. I guess that would qualify as a tall order.
So, then, to return to the question from which this all started: does this mean we're stuck?
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Revolution of the Oppressed
It is a basic assumption of Marxism in general that revolution is the engine that drives structural change. Marx predicted that a global proletarian revolution would facilitate the post-capitalist phase of social evolution (his version of socialism). Neo-Marxists look toward fledgling revolutionary movements as the harbingers of salvation from capitalism.
Recently I was discussing with someone my belief that the world is on the verge of large-scale transformation. My conversation partner expressed doubt about the ability of current populist/revolutionary movements (MENA revolutions, Occupy Wall Street, etc.) to effect substantial change, while I insisted that they could very well intensify and merge into a single force.
But then I began to think about the assumptions I was making concerning revolutions. The last two major global transformations (1400s and 1700s) were organized in a significant way by the merchant class. This occurred because the merchant class lay outside of the relations of the dominant mode of production (focused on agriculture and hierarchical transfers of agricultural surpluses). Thus, the merchants were able to forge new relationships with the oppressed (peasant) class and the ruling class, as well as create new global webs of trade to support these relationships. In other words, the existence of a peripheral class with the ability to accumulate wealth is significantly responsible for the structural transformations that eventually resulted in the capitalist system.
It is important to note that there were peasant revolutions, and none of them were able to accomplish large-scale structural transformations. The revolutions that gave birth to capitalism, as Marx noted, were "bourgeois" revolutions - or, struggles between the bourgeoisie and the soon-to-be-overthrown ruling class. The bourgeoisie became the new ruling class.
So, if that is the case, why should the revolutions of the oppressed be any more successful this time around? There is just no historical precedent.
For Marx, a revolution of the oppressed was necessary because he believed that what followed capitalism had to be the apex of social evolution, which for him involved the elimination of all forms of exploitation and oppression. The only way this could occur would be if the oppressed themselves took a stand and dissolved all relations of domination. (If anyone else were to take charge of the revolution, they would simply become the new oppressors, much as the bourgeoisie did.)
But what if that which comes after capitalism is not a utopia free of exploitation? What if things get worse?
At the very least, I can say this: right now there does not appear to be a group of people akin to the merchant class who lie outside the bounds of capitalism, and who could initiate a political economic transformation of global scale. In this sense, I believe that Marx was right. It seems that there is no one else to take the revolutionary reins but the world's oppressed.
On the other hand, I do not believe, as Marx did, that this is a given. The oppressed might not actually try to transform the system, or at the very least they may be unsuccessful.
Furthermore, it seems possible that the ruling class could make an attempt at global transformation themselves, once they have finally exhausted (as they pretty much already have) the possibilities of the current system.
The conversation partner mentioned above mused that we have reached a terminal point, the end of the line. No possibility for any more transformative change. This is another possible scenario. I remain skeptical about the degree of stasis that can ever be achieved, however, as power is too disunified, contradictory, incompetent, and ultimately prone to undermining itself, to maintain any degree of stability. Already, one can see an increasing amount of disorder within the world system, including the gradual dissolution of its major geopolitical arrangements.
The bottom line is that, in this case, it is difficult to predict the future based on historical patterns, and there is no reason to assume that a proletarian revolution will or has to occur. I do, however, still feel confident in forecasting a long period of economic stagnation and political chaos. And as I view the world in which we live as a dystopia, from my point of view there is nowhere to go but up. Or... nowhere.
Recently I was discussing with someone my belief that the world is on the verge of large-scale transformation. My conversation partner expressed doubt about the ability of current populist/revolutionary movements (MENA revolutions, Occupy Wall Street, etc.) to effect substantial change, while I insisted that they could very well intensify and merge into a single force.
But then I began to think about the assumptions I was making concerning revolutions. The last two major global transformations (1400s and 1700s) were organized in a significant way by the merchant class. This occurred because the merchant class lay outside of the relations of the dominant mode of production (focused on agriculture and hierarchical transfers of agricultural surpluses). Thus, the merchants were able to forge new relationships with the oppressed (peasant) class and the ruling class, as well as create new global webs of trade to support these relationships. In other words, the existence of a peripheral class with the ability to accumulate wealth is significantly responsible for the structural transformations that eventually resulted in the capitalist system.
It is important to note that there were peasant revolutions, and none of them were able to accomplish large-scale structural transformations. The revolutions that gave birth to capitalism, as Marx noted, were "bourgeois" revolutions - or, struggles between the bourgeoisie and the soon-to-be-overthrown ruling class. The bourgeoisie became the new ruling class.
So, if that is the case, why should the revolutions of the oppressed be any more successful this time around? There is just no historical precedent.
For Marx, a revolution of the oppressed was necessary because he believed that what followed capitalism had to be the apex of social evolution, which for him involved the elimination of all forms of exploitation and oppression. The only way this could occur would be if the oppressed themselves took a stand and dissolved all relations of domination. (If anyone else were to take charge of the revolution, they would simply become the new oppressors, much as the bourgeoisie did.)
But what if that which comes after capitalism is not a utopia free of exploitation? What if things get worse?
At the very least, I can say this: right now there does not appear to be a group of people akin to the merchant class who lie outside the bounds of capitalism, and who could initiate a political economic transformation of global scale. In this sense, I believe that Marx was right. It seems that there is no one else to take the revolutionary reins but the world's oppressed.
On the other hand, I do not believe, as Marx did, that this is a given. The oppressed might not actually try to transform the system, or at the very least they may be unsuccessful.
Furthermore, it seems possible that the ruling class could make an attempt at global transformation themselves, once they have finally exhausted (as they pretty much already have) the possibilities of the current system.
The conversation partner mentioned above mused that we have reached a terminal point, the end of the line. No possibility for any more transformative change. This is another possible scenario. I remain skeptical about the degree of stasis that can ever be achieved, however, as power is too disunified, contradictory, incompetent, and ultimately prone to undermining itself, to maintain any degree of stability. Already, one can see an increasing amount of disorder within the world system, including the gradual dissolution of its major geopolitical arrangements.
The bottom line is that, in this case, it is difficult to predict the future based on historical patterns, and there is no reason to assume that a proletarian revolution will or has to occur. I do, however, still feel confident in forecasting a long period of economic stagnation and political chaos. And as I view the world in which we live as a dystopia, from my point of view there is nowhere to go but up. Or... nowhere.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Why Does "Occupy" Need to Stand for Anything?
The biggest criticism I have yet heard about the "Occupy" movement is that its goals are not clearly defined. They have not as thoroughly articulated what they are for as compared to what they are against. In fact, I recently ran across an opinion piece arguing that the demonstrators could put their energy to better use by trying to work through the political process.
I disagree completely. One of my favorite philsophers, Michel Foucault, responded to a similar criticism (that he would not propose any ideals for which he stood), by saying that the real task for anyone wishing to actually change the system is to investigate and understand in greater detail how the system currently works - to expose all of the subtle and diffuse mechanisms of power that are commonly ignored. Otherwise, Foucault insisted, thought is so permeated by the paradigms of the current system that people only end up reproducing that which they are trying to demolish. The results of the Russian Revolution are a great example of this principle (the revolutionaries somewhat unwittingly created a more capitalist society), and it seems that the revolutions in MENA could take a similar route: individual figureheads are being replaced but the system is being preserved.
Above all else, channeling the momentum of the "Occupy" movement into the political process would be the best way to kill the movement and ensure that nothing is done. That's what the political process is there for: to direct energies into benign activities that preserve the social order... and make people think that they are "doing something" even though they are not.
I say, "Occupy" is good enough as it is!
I disagree completely. One of my favorite philsophers, Michel Foucault, responded to a similar criticism (that he would not propose any ideals for which he stood), by saying that the real task for anyone wishing to actually change the system is to investigate and understand in greater detail how the system currently works - to expose all of the subtle and diffuse mechanisms of power that are commonly ignored. Otherwise, Foucault insisted, thought is so permeated by the paradigms of the current system that people only end up reproducing that which they are trying to demolish. The results of the Russian Revolution are a great example of this principle (the revolutionaries somewhat unwittingly created a more capitalist society), and it seems that the revolutions in MENA could take a similar route: individual figureheads are being replaced but the system is being preserved.
Above all else, channeling the momentum of the "Occupy" movement into the political process would be the best way to kill the movement and ensure that nothing is done. That's what the political process is there for: to direct energies into benign activities that preserve the social order... and make people think that they are "doing something" even though they are not.
I say, "Occupy" is good enough as it is!
Thursday, October 20, 2011
What "Occupy" Can Accomplish
I guess I can't have a blog like this and not comment on the "Occupy" protests. Although I have been busy and vacationy, and haven't really felt like writing anything lately. Just a few sentences...
In a general sense, these types of occurances tend to raise the heart rate of Marxists/neo-Marxists, as it demonstrates the types of conflicts that, according to them, are inherently built into the system. These events indicate that people have some sense of the limitations and injustices of the current political economic structure, and the ways in which they are being exploited to sustain it. More than that, they are dissatisfied enough to try to do something about it.
Many neo-Marxists, who have been writing for the past few decades about the current period of economic contraction (beginning in the 1970s), and theorizing the necessity of large-scale structural change, have insisted that growing social unrest was bound to occur sometime soon. Now it looks more probable that they could be right.
On the other hand, in a less general sense, do I think these particular protests are going to result in anything significant? My gut says no. But it is a start. Perhaps this is the first ripple of a movement that could, in the longer run, really reverberate and result in some major changes.
But the biggest take-home point is that conflict/resistance/revolution does not necessarily (if ever) result in real liberation. The conditions of most people, particularly the oppressed, do not actually improve in the long run. In fact, the historical precedent has been for structural rearrangements to serve as the ground of conception for new relationships and instruments of oppression, which are almost always far, far worse than what came before.
Thus, there is hope. And that is something. But the worst could be yet to come.
In a general sense, these types of occurances tend to raise the heart rate of Marxists/neo-Marxists, as it demonstrates the types of conflicts that, according to them, are inherently built into the system. These events indicate that people have some sense of the limitations and injustices of the current political economic structure, and the ways in which they are being exploited to sustain it. More than that, they are dissatisfied enough to try to do something about it.
Many neo-Marxists, who have been writing for the past few decades about the current period of economic contraction (beginning in the 1970s), and theorizing the necessity of large-scale structural change, have insisted that growing social unrest was bound to occur sometime soon. Now it looks more probable that they could be right.
On the other hand, in a less general sense, do I think these particular protests are going to result in anything significant? My gut says no. But it is a start. Perhaps this is the first ripple of a movement that could, in the longer run, really reverberate and result in some major changes.
But the biggest take-home point is that conflict/resistance/revolution does not necessarily (if ever) result in real liberation. The conditions of most people, particularly the oppressed, do not actually improve in the long run. In fact, the historical precedent has been for structural rearrangements to serve as the ground of conception for new relationships and instruments of oppression, which are almost always far, far worse than what came before.
Thus, there is hope. And that is something. But the worst could be yet to come.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
National Standards: The Tipping Point
The culminating moment of opposition between the national standards movement (which sought to retain, if not expand, the role of the federal government and the Department of Education) and the school choice movement that countered it, came in 1994. After A Nation at Risk was published in 1983, national committees were established in every major school subject to create voluntary national standards. The idea was to raise the quality of public education for everyone by outlining a clear set of common standards that would guide the improvement of curricula and instruction.
One of the last subjects to be tackled was history. Lynne Cheney, then chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities, funded and participated in the creation of the history standards. However, by the time the standards were nearing a state of completion, Cheney quit her position at the NEH and turned her attention to political concerns. An important mid-term election was approaching (the Republicans would finally gain control of Congress that fall) and her husband, Dick Cheney (also a Republican), was considering a presidential candidacy. At this time many Republican kingmakers had taken a strong interest in education and were full-fledged supporters of school choice. If you were a Republican with political ambitions, you had no choice but to take up the mantel of choice.
But Cheney did not just run away from the national history standards. She launched an all-out attack on them. She claimed that she had been bamboozled, and that the standards had been "hijacked" by a bunch of academic radicals who sought to use education to undermine the foundations of American society and incite a socialist/communist revolution. Her supporting examples (e.g. how many times George Washington is mentioned versus Harriet Tubman) are gross distortions of the documents, and sometimes outright false. Considering the level of her involvement with these standards, I have a hard time believing that she merely misinterpreted them. To me, the distortions seem completely intentional. In reality, there was nothing particularly out of the ordinary with these standards, except that they demanded much of students' ability to reason and form arguments. In fact, my own history education (which I would consider anything but radical) seemed to resemble the standards, with perhaps less rigor.
The article Cheney wrote for the Wall Street Journal ended up being a huge political cash cow. The controversy dominated public and political discussion for months and provided a platform for the Republicans to tighten their ideological narrative. (Just as a side note, the Senate voted to symbolically condemn the history standards; the only "nay" was a Republican who felt the wording was not strong enough.)
What Cheney and those who followed her were able to do was portray a certain relationship between the federal government and institutions of higher education: that academic radicals had in some way infiltrated or aligned with government bureaucracies and were simultaneously seeking to foment some kind of socialist or communist revolution. In this way, Cheney et al. were able to strengthen associations that derived from the core of their ideology, most notably the connection between projects and processes of national scope and radical social change, federal control and communist revolution.
With the "curriculum wars" of 1994, the idea of national standards was dead. The last remnants of what grew out of A Nation at Risk survived in the form of high-stakes testing and "accountability," and quickly adapted themselves to a new world dominated by "choice."
One of the last subjects to be tackled was history. Lynne Cheney, then chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities, funded and participated in the creation of the history standards. However, by the time the standards were nearing a state of completion, Cheney quit her position at the NEH and turned her attention to political concerns. An important mid-term election was approaching (the Republicans would finally gain control of Congress that fall) and her husband, Dick Cheney (also a Republican), was considering a presidential candidacy. At this time many Republican kingmakers had taken a strong interest in education and were full-fledged supporters of school choice. If you were a Republican with political ambitions, you had no choice but to take up the mantel of choice.
But Cheney did not just run away from the national history standards. She launched an all-out attack on them. She claimed that she had been bamboozled, and that the standards had been "hijacked" by a bunch of academic radicals who sought to use education to undermine the foundations of American society and incite a socialist/communist revolution. Her supporting examples (e.g. how many times George Washington is mentioned versus Harriet Tubman) are gross distortions of the documents, and sometimes outright false. Considering the level of her involvement with these standards, I have a hard time believing that she merely misinterpreted them. To me, the distortions seem completely intentional. In reality, there was nothing particularly out of the ordinary with these standards, except that they demanded much of students' ability to reason and form arguments. In fact, my own history education (which I would consider anything but radical) seemed to resemble the standards, with perhaps less rigor.
The article Cheney wrote for the Wall Street Journal ended up being a huge political cash cow. The controversy dominated public and political discussion for months and provided a platform for the Republicans to tighten their ideological narrative. (Just as a side note, the Senate voted to symbolically condemn the history standards; the only "nay" was a Republican who felt the wording was not strong enough.)
What Cheney and those who followed her were able to do was portray a certain relationship between the federal government and institutions of higher education: that academic radicals had in some way infiltrated or aligned with government bureaucracies and were simultaneously seeking to foment some kind of socialist or communist revolution. In this way, Cheney et al. were able to strengthen associations that derived from the core of their ideology, most notably the connection between projects and processes of national scope and radical social change, federal control and communist revolution.
With the "curriculum wars" of 1994, the idea of national standards was dead. The last remnants of what grew out of A Nation at Risk survived in the form of high-stakes testing and "accountability," and quickly adapted themselves to a new world dominated by "choice."
Thursday, July 28, 2011
The Russian Revolution Was Not Engineered
Admid all the distortions and misinformation regarding the Russian Revolution/Communism, there is one to which I would like to give brief attention.
It is commonly held that the Revolution was initiated and engineered by the Marxist intellectual elite: essentially a coup instigated by militant academics. It was Lenin's return to Russia (aided by the Germans, who were purposely trying to destabilize the country [this claim is true]) that enabled the Revolution.
In fact, Lenin was only opportunistic. A small subset of revolutionaries, led by Lenin, were able to coopt, by force, what was actually a much larger movement. There had been repeated peasant uprisings and other such turmoil for a while before the Revolution of 1917, and Lenin did not have much, if anything, to do with any of these acts of resistance.
It is severely misguided to assume that without Lenin, or even without the Bolshevik party as a whole, the Revolution would not have taken place. The revutionary forces minus the Bolsheviks were so strong that it is hard to imagine that peace could be kept. Granted, I do not believe that, without the Bolsheviks, there would have been a communist utopia. Probably some sort of milktoast social-democratic variety of capitalism would have prevailed. And then there would have been some other justification for the Cold War (assuming Russia would still have been imperialist), other than the pseduo-ideological one.
The point, however, is that the Russian Revolution is reflective of real anger and real determination to affect change, felt by a significant portion of the population. People were fed up!
This came to mind as I was reading Langston Hughes' biography, in which he describes the way his eastern European classmates (a large demographic in his high school) reacted to the developments abroad. They fiercly supported the Revolution and celebrated when the communists and socialists made advances.
The Revolution was not only a power struggle between the Old Guard and an Intellectual Elite. It was, in the beginning, a movement of the people.
It is commonly held that the Revolution was initiated and engineered by the Marxist intellectual elite: essentially a coup instigated by militant academics. It was Lenin's return to Russia (aided by the Germans, who were purposely trying to destabilize the country [this claim is true]) that enabled the Revolution.
In fact, Lenin was only opportunistic. A small subset of revolutionaries, led by Lenin, were able to coopt, by force, what was actually a much larger movement. There had been repeated peasant uprisings and other such turmoil for a while before the Revolution of 1917, and Lenin did not have much, if anything, to do with any of these acts of resistance.
It is severely misguided to assume that without Lenin, or even without the Bolshevik party as a whole, the Revolution would not have taken place. The revutionary forces minus the Bolsheviks were so strong that it is hard to imagine that peace could be kept. Granted, I do not believe that, without the Bolsheviks, there would have been a communist utopia. Probably some sort of milktoast social-democratic variety of capitalism would have prevailed. And then there would have been some other justification for the Cold War (assuming Russia would still have been imperialist), other than the pseduo-ideological one.
The point, however, is that the Russian Revolution is reflective of real anger and real determination to affect change, felt by a significant portion of the population. People were fed up!
This came to mind as I was reading Langston Hughes' biography, in which he describes the way his eastern European classmates (a large demographic in his high school) reacted to the developments abroad. They fiercly supported the Revolution and celebrated when the communists and socialists made advances.
The Revolution was not only a power struggle between the Old Guard and an Intellectual Elite. It was, in the beginning, a movement of the people.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
The MENA Protests
In my last post I asserted that the difference between dictatorships and democracies is a difference in degree and not in kind. State repression and violence are tied to overall conditions of poverty and lack of infrastructure.
What does this mean for MENA? Will these revolts truly end in a flowering of democracy in the Middle East?
Probably not. The root of the problem in that region is not dictatorship, per se. It is a history of colonialism and continued capitalist exploitation that has resulted in the destitution of a vast majority of the population. (Subject of part 3.)
The problem, as I see it, is that the revolts are not being directed at the real locus of oppression: capitalist imperialism. I am truly excited by the energy and commitment to change that is rippling across the region. Revolution is truly needed at this point. However, I just hope that energy can be harnassed and transformed into a global struggle to demolish the pillars of capitalist, neocolonial domination.
If the revolts remain relatively localized struggles to replace heads of state and other government officials, I fear that nothing will change in the end.
What does this mean for MENA? Will these revolts truly end in a flowering of democracy in the Middle East?
Probably not. The root of the problem in that region is not dictatorship, per se. It is a history of colonialism and continued capitalist exploitation that has resulted in the destitution of a vast majority of the population. (Subject of part 3.)
The problem, as I see it, is that the revolts are not being directed at the real locus of oppression: capitalist imperialism. I am truly excited by the energy and commitment to change that is rippling across the region. Revolution is truly needed at this point. However, I just hope that energy can be harnassed and transformed into a global struggle to demolish the pillars of capitalist, neocolonial domination.
If the revolts remain relatively localized struggles to replace heads of state and other government officials, I fear that nothing will change in the end.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Myths About Marx
In my first post, I listed some common misconceptions about Marx, Marxism, and communism... sort of as a teaser. Now that I have sketched a rough outline of my Marxist perspective, I thought it might be a good time to revisit that list of myths and explain (briefly) why these beliefs are unfounded. Hopefully I will have time in future posts to expand on some of these a bit more. (The last two on the list I have already touched on to some extent, so I will postpone, for now, discussing them further.)
1. Marx advocated the expansion of state power.
Marx believed that the state was only a tool of ruling class interests. Rather than wanting to expand state power, Marx looked toward a future without any state.
2. Marx called for the obliteration of any forms individuality, and the imposition of complete and absolute equality in all aspects of life, most particularly with wages.
Marx did not advocate total and absolute equality. He never criticized individual expression. The thing that he opposed was exploitation and the thing that he supported was production that was oriented toward fulfilling actual needs (rather than creating needs... and waste) and making the most of human creative and intellectual potential. In his communist utopia there certainly could have been room for inequality and diversity in different aspects of life. However, production in general would not be based on relations of exploitation, labor would be fulfilling rather than grueling and inhumane, and production would be communally guided to satisfy real needs.
Furthermore, Marx did not focus that much on his vision for the future evolution of society, and much of it remains sketchy. Most of his work was occupied with historical and economic analysis, which is unparalleled in its detail and explanatory value, and still hugely influential to this day.
3. Marx advised the working class to rise up and rule over the other classes, effectively reversing the class hierarchy.
Once again, Marx opposed exploitation of any kind. Although there is some mention in his writing of possible "transitional states," this is even more sketchy than his communist utopia.
4. Marx did not find any value in capitalism.
Marx thought that capitalism was a necessary and valuable step in the evolutionary process that would eventually lead to communism. Primarily, it was valuable in that it promoted technological innovation on such an unprecedented scale. One of the conditions of the transition to communism was that technological development would reach such a level that human beings would be freed from the drudgery of mindless physical labor: machines would be able to do all the jobs that were degrading or alienating to the human intellect and spirit.
5. Marx favored violence and insurrection.
Marx was never trying to precipitate class warfare. He never advocated violence. He thought that conflict was the inevitable, natural result of exploitation. (If you piss someone off enough, they will retaliate eventually.) Thus, he said that revolution was going to occur, organically, he didn't say he wanted to make it occur.
6. Communism, as it has existed historically, is an accurate reflection of Marx's vision.
There are many reasons why the communism of the USSR and its satellites does not reflect the writings of Marx... probably because it bears absolutely no resemblance to Marx's communism. I will only point out a couple of glaring differences here, because this could easily turn into an essay of its own.
1. Marx advocated the expansion of state power.
Marx believed that the state was only a tool of ruling class interests. Rather than wanting to expand state power, Marx looked toward a future without any state.
2. Marx called for the obliteration of any forms individuality, and the imposition of complete and absolute equality in all aspects of life, most particularly with wages.
Marx did not advocate total and absolute equality. He never criticized individual expression. The thing that he opposed was exploitation and the thing that he supported was production that was oriented toward fulfilling actual needs (rather than creating needs... and waste) and making the most of human creative and intellectual potential. In his communist utopia there certainly could have been room for inequality and diversity in different aspects of life. However, production in general would not be based on relations of exploitation, labor would be fulfilling rather than grueling and inhumane, and production would be communally guided to satisfy real needs.
Furthermore, Marx did not focus that much on his vision for the future evolution of society, and much of it remains sketchy. Most of his work was occupied with historical and economic analysis, which is unparalleled in its detail and explanatory value, and still hugely influential to this day.
3. Marx advised the working class to rise up and rule over the other classes, effectively reversing the class hierarchy.
Once again, Marx opposed exploitation of any kind. Although there is some mention in his writing of possible "transitional states," this is even more sketchy than his communist utopia.
4. Marx did not find any value in capitalism.
Marx thought that capitalism was a necessary and valuable step in the evolutionary process that would eventually lead to communism. Primarily, it was valuable in that it promoted technological innovation on such an unprecedented scale. One of the conditions of the transition to communism was that technological development would reach such a level that human beings would be freed from the drudgery of mindless physical labor: machines would be able to do all the jobs that were degrading or alienating to the human intellect and spirit.
5. Marx favored violence and insurrection.
Marx was never trying to precipitate class warfare. He never advocated violence. He thought that conflict was the inevitable, natural result of exploitation. (If you piss someone off enough, they will retaliate eventually.) Thus, he said that revolution was going to occur, organically, he didn't say he wanted to make it occur.
6. Communism, as it has existed historically, is an accurate reflection of Marx's vision.
There are many reasons why the communism of the USSR and its satellites does not reflect the writings of Marx... probably because it bears absolutely no resemblance to Marx's communism. I will only point out a couple of glaring differences here, because this could easily turn into an essay of its own.
- Marx argued that the communist revolution could only occur after attaining a certain level of technological development and globalization, which had certainly not been reached by 1917, nor even now.
- Marx was very clear that true a communist revolution had to be a global movement. It could not occur in one country or one region of the world alone.
- Marx's utopia was stateless... it was not a ruthless, genocidal dictatorship/empire.
- The revolution in Russia turned into a movement toward industrialization, which, I have already argued, made it more capitalist. For Marx, the communist revolution was a movement from industrial society to something different.
I should definitely do a post about this one, because I could keep going on and on and on....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)