Water,Water, Water:
The August 25th edition of Science Magazine, the journal of the AAAS (see links on the left). focuses on 'Freshwater Resources'. There is a special section containing articles on the question of freshwater availability and safety in an increasingly thirsty world. The titles in this section are:
a)A Thirsty World
b)Global Hydrological Cycles and World Water Resources
c)The Challenge of Micropollutants in Aquatic Systems
d)Waterborne Infectious Diseases-Could They Be Consigned to History ?
e)Seeking sustainability:Israel's Evolving Water Management Strategy
f)Running Out of Water- and Time
g)Desalination freshens Up.
In addition other sections of the magazine contain articles on hydrological megaprojects in China and India. There is also an article on the freshwater cycle in arctic regions and a book review of 'When The Rivers Run Dry:Water- The Defining Crisis Of The Twenty-First Century, by F. Pearce; reviewed by S.L. Postel. The later contains not just the usual doom and gloom but also success stories such as, "In India, a vibrant grassroots movement to capture rainwater is replenishing aquifers. Water tables have risen so much in Rajasthan, Pearce writes, That five ancient rivers have returned to the map"
If this movement is indeed as grassroots as the reviewer says it bears looking into as a decentralized alternative to the governmental megaprojects that either upset water balance or attempt to improve it.
The editors of Science devote their editorial statement in this issue to the water question. More later-Molly
Friday, September 08, 2006
I've just finished reading the September edition of 'Scientific American'. It's a special edition (one subject for various articles) entitled 'Energy's Future:Beyond Carbon' and the subject is technological change necessary to reduce carbon emissions. After the Introduction there is an overview that divides this task up into "wedges" of different technological and policy changes that have to be undertaken to avoid catastrophic global warming. Seven articles on various aspects of these changes follow. They are about:
1)Transportation
2)Efficiency
3)Coal
4)Nuclear Power
5)Renewable Energy
6)Hydrogen
7)Various more "fanciful" options
More on this issue later.
1)Transportation
2)Efficiency
3)Coal
4)Nuclear Power
5)Renewable Energy
6)Hydrogen
7)Various more "fanciful" options
More on this issue later.
More On Words:
Pretty well everybody misuses language as rhetoric. Here's a recent local example.
Over the past few months there have been several clashes between the local Critical Mass cyclists and the Winnipeg City Police. The CMs have been vilified by local politicians and the media as "possibly" blocking emergency service vehicles. Several CMers have been roughed up during arrests. It has become a rather hot issue in the letter pages of the local papers.
Predictably other more "law abiding" cycle enthusiasts have organized a rally as an alternative to Critical Mass. The ride was held two days ago and attracted about 600 people- NOT a tremendously higher number than the most popular CM rides have attracted. This fact should be noted. All the usual left wing suspects who "seemed" to be giving support to Critical Mass were prominent at this rally, including the trendy lefty mayoralty candidate whom the organizers saw important enough to choose to address the crowd.
All this is fine and dandy and basically politics as usual. What is interesting is the rhetorical description that the organizers of this rally chose to use in describing its difference from the Critical Mass rides that don't ask for permits. The term chosen was "Ghandi-like". That whirling sound in the background is the Mahatma spinning like a drill in his grave (yeah, I know he was cremated). What Ghandi did in his actions was very often NOT "direct action" (though sometimes it was) but rather symbolic action as a different form of "petition". Yet,yet,yet, yet to imagine that Ghandi saw his actions as characterized by scrupulous conformation to the written law is to pretty well lie about almost everything he did.
The rhetoric here is obvious. Critical Mass IS a non-violent form of action. The participants may not be as clear and disciplined as Ghandi and his disciples, but their chosen form of action is much closer to the actions of the Mahatma than the alternative rally was. The rhetoric is deliberately chosen. Ghandi is considered as an "almighty good thing", and it is great to cover your actions with his mantle- even if you have to lie outrageously to do it.
Pretty well everybody misuses language as rhetoric. Here's a recent local example.
Over the past few months there have been several clashes between the local Critical Mass cyclists and the Winnipeg City Police. The CMs have been vilified by local politicians and the media as "possibly" blocking emergency service vehicles. Several CMers have been roughed up during arrests. It has become a rather hot issue in the letter pages of the local papers.
Predictably other more "law abiding" cycle enthusiasts have organized a rally as an alternative to Critical Mass. The ride was held two days ago and attracted about 600 people- NOT a tremendously higher number than the most popular CM rides have attracted. This fact should be noted. All the usual left wing suspects who "seemed" to be giving support to Critical Mass were prominent at this rally, including the trendy lefty mayoralty candidate whom the organizers saw important enough to choose to address the crowd.
All this is fine and dandy and basically politics as usual. What is interesting is the rhetorical description that the organizers of this rally chose to use in describing its difference from the Critical Mass rides that don't ask for permits. The term chosen was "Ghandi-like". That whirling sound in the background is the Mahatma spinning like a drill in his grave (yeah, I know he was cremated). What Ghandi did in his actions was very often NOT "direct action" (though sometimes it was) but rather symbolic action as a different form of "petition". Yet,yet,yet, yet to imagine that Ghandi saw his actions as characterized by scrupulous conformation to the written law is to pretty well lie about almost everything he did.
The rhetoric here is obvious. Critical Mass IS a non-violent form of action. The participants may not be as clear and disciplined as Ghandi and his disciples, but their chosen form of action is much closer to the actions of the Mahatma than the alternative rally was. The rhetoric is deliberately chosen. Ghandi is considered as an "almighty good thing", and it is great to cover your actions with his mantle- even if you have to lie outrageously to do it.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
A New Link:
I've recently added Pierre Ducasse's blog 'Ecodema' to the links list. Ducasse, as one time candidate for the NDP leadership, is far from being an "anarchist", but his interests in industrial and community democracy parallel those of realistic anarchists. His blog is a great source of information for anyone interested in these matters.
Just like the NDP can often "take pride" in "having their ideas stolen by the Liberals", it might be a worthy goal of those who wish to see anarchism as an important political movement to be important enough that our ideas would be routinely "stolen" by good people such as Ducasse.
Molly
I've recently added Pierre Ducasse's blog 'Ecodema' to the links list. Ducasse, as one time candidate for the NDP leadership, is far from being an "anarchist", but his interests in industrial and community democracy parallel those of realistic anarchists. His blog is a great source of information for anyone interested in these matters.
Just like the NDP can often "take pride" in "having their ideas stolen by the Liberals", it might be a worthy goal of those who wish to see anarchism as an important political movement to be important enough that our ideas would be routinely "stolen" by good people such as Ducasse.
Molly
Words as treacherous reptiles ie chameleons:
To clarify what I said about the original meaning of "direct action" in anarchist parlance I present the following quote from the piece entitled 'Direct Action' by Voltairine De Cleyre. She says,
"Every person who ever had a plan to do anything, and went and did it, or who laid his plan before others, and won their co-operation to do it with him, without going to external authorities to please do the thing for them, was a direct actionist. All cooperative experiments are essentially direct action. "
This says it very clearly. Most of the peaceable actions that anarchists have been involved in during the last century and a half, whether building unions, cooperatives, free schools, intentional communities, credit unions, cultural organizations, community organizations and so much more were direct action in this original sense. Where anarchism has gone "off the rails" and engaged in terrorism as in the days of 'propaganda by the deed' or in modern terms of hero worshipping Maoist thugs or play-acting at "tinker-toy terrorism" it is NOT "direct action". It is, at the high of hubris, the idea that one can terrorize ruling groups into giving up their power. With things that are really pinpricks in the social scale of things. This sort of nonsense has never worked, and it has been tried thousands of times by various actors-most of them non-anarchist. When something doesn't work once you can't say anything. When it fails 5 times in a row there is definitely a trend. When it fails 20 times in a row (such as Communist regimes) there is some sort of "law" involved- to the 95% confidence level. When, like terrorism, it has failed thousands or tens of thousands of times it is no longer a statistical law. It takes on the character of a "law of nature".
At a lower level of self delusion it is the idea that "exemplary actions" will inspire "the masses" (substitute your own word for other people here if you like) to rise up of the shining example given by the audacious revolutionaries. This was actually quite a common idea of "anarchism in its infancy". It might have had some superficial attraction in the days of the Bakuninist International in France and Italy. It lingered on for a longer time in the practice of the Spanish anarchists, but even there it ran aground on the hard shore of reality. It never worked even in peasant societies where the ground had been prepared by decades of educational activity. Let's say that again- it NEVER worked.
This delusion that all it takes is a spark has pretty much been abandoned by the mature anarchist movement of today. It lives on in the theory of "insurrectionalists" in countries such as Greece and Italy and in their anglosphere hero worshipers. Though I must say that backing this particular football team for North Americans doesn't begin to approach the mindlessness and moral turpitude of always being on the lookout for nationalist and Leninist teams to back. The present theory and practice of "insurrectionism" lacks the peasant society that made this strategy even moderately convincing in the 19th century and the early years of the 20th in countries such as Spain.
Then, of course, you come to the bottom of the barrel. Those who glorify plotting riots in which they always,always,always,always,always lose in the end under the delusion that you can influence not "the people/masses,majority,etc" but some vague "movement" that needs to be "radicalized". Or, to probe BELOW the bottom of the barrel, that the results simply don't matter, that getting the crap kicked out of you is either an absolute moral imperative or somehow really "fun and liberating" and "creates new ways of living". At this point we have left the domain of politics and entered some of the more strange demiworlds of religious cultism.
But to come back to the title of this little complaint. Words can be slippery things at the best of times, and they often change their meanings over time. The word "communism" is instructive. It originally meant nothing more than a social situation where the means of production were owned socially, not individually. The mechanism of this ownership was usually seen as a local group of residents, "the Commune". It took on an utopian dimension with the ideological triumph of Marxism and its left of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" from the more creative so-called "utopian socialists". The fantasy of an Hegelian end-goal of history, fueled by the totalitarian power of pseudo-explanation afforded by this dream became very popular and essentially obliterated the earlier vision which retained more than a slight "hint" of "punishing defectors". The ordinary people who incubated the earlier vision knew that they couldn't trust "their own" to not cheat, let alone the declasse intellectuals who came to seize power in Marxist Parties. But this bastard child of the German academy was able to exert a religious appeal that simple popular wisdom could never have.
Later even this utopian vision was overwhelmed by yet another meaning. In the time of Leninist success "communism" came to mean nothing more than whatever the ruling classes of communist states said it was- this week. Being as this "communism" involved mass murder on a scale that dwarfed even the Nazis, "communism" acquired an odious connotation that 90% of the world's population finds detestable.
The attempt by some to revive the term under such headings as "anarchist communism" or "anarcho-communism" may be understandable, but it runs up against the logic of history. The term "communism" no longer means what anarcho-communists want it to mean in either its original or utopian formulations. I know what it means, and I consider it one (but NOT the only one) of ways in which an anarchist society could order its economy. To be less utopian I also consider it ONE of the ways that anarchists could work towards reform of advanced industrial societies. It is part of an intelligent strategy for an anarchism that realizes its limitations. NOT the "whole pig", but an essential part. Some enterprise should be run by democratic vote of local residents- with due checks and balances such that such power was not absolute. Some enterprises are much better managed in different ways.
Incisive thinkers such as Murray Bookchin recognized that this historical debris existed. hence his desire to rename the essential ideas of anarchist communism as "Communalism". Even the term "anarchism" itself has very often distressed more than a few convinced anarchists. The reason is the same. It is something that has acquired meanings not just different from the original but often in direct contradiction to same. I've often felt the urge to describe what I believe as "libertarian socialism", but this is rather restrictive in that it fails to take into account an emphasis on individual liberty (here in the civilized world outside of the USA where "libertarian" is either a synonym for anarchism or a "whazzat" word). Most anarchists have responded by adding adjectives to their anarchism. Any Time Now calls itself "for social anarchism" or "a journal of social anarchism" just like "social ecology" did before its more pronounced split with anarchism. Fred Woodworth calls his opinions "ethical anarchism". Groups such as NEFAC and other platformists call what they believe "communist anarchism".
To the initiated this means that there are those who call themselves "anarchist" who are not "communist", let alone "social" nor "ethical". Anarchism has NOT been a religious cult such as Marxism that demands uniformity of belief, and its stance of rebellion has attracted not just some of the best over the years but also some of the worst. Their is a need for clearly distinguishing oneself in this whirlpool of ideas.
The term "direct action" is very much like words such as "communism" or "anarchism" It can easily come to mean nothing more than posturing at militancy rather than what it meant to the historical anarchist movement at its best. In such a case-"bugger the word". If it comes to mean something very much the opposite of its original it would be time to find new terms to describe achieving a goal by ones own efforts; not by pleading with authority OR by childishly trying to bully authority. Especially !!! not anything more than bragging about one's "militancy".
To clarify what I said about the original meaning of "direct action" in anarchist parlance I present the following quote from the piece entitled 'Direct Action' by Voltairine De Cleyre. She says,
"Every person who ever had a plan to do anything, and went and did it, or who laid his plan before others, and won their co-operation to do it with him, without going to external authorities to please do the thing for them, was a direct actionist. All cooperative experiments are essentially direct action. "
This says it very clearly. Most of the peaceable actions that anarchists have been involved in during the last century and a half, whether building unions, cooperatives, free schools, intentional communities, credit unions, cultural organizations, community organizations and so much more were direct action in this original sense. Where anarchism has gone "off the rails" and engaged in terrorism as in the days of 'propaganda by the deed' or in modern terms of hero worshipping Maoist thugs or play-acting at "tinker-toy terrorism" it is NOT "direct action". It is, at the high of hubris, the idea that one can terrorize ruling groups into giving up their power. With things that are really pinpricks in the social scale of things. This sort of nonsense has never worked, and it has been tried thousands of times by various actors-most of them non-anarchist. When something doesn't work once you can't say anything. When it fails 5 times in a row there is definitely a trend. When it fails 20 times in a row (such as Communist regimes) there is some sort of "law" involved- to the 95% confidence level. When, like terrorism, it has failed thousands or tens of thousands of times it is no longer a statistical law. It takes on the character of a "law of nature".
At a lower level of self delusion it is the idea that "exemplary actions" will inspire "the masses" (substitute your own word for other people here if you like) to rise up of the shining example given by the audacious revolutionaries. This was actually quite a common idea of "anarchism in its infancy". It might have had some superficial attraction in the days of the Bakuninist International in France and Italy. It lingered on for a longer time in the practice of the Spanish anarchists, but even there it ran aground on the hard shore of reality. It never worked even in peasant societies where the ground had been prepared by decades of educational activity. Let's say that again- it NEVER worked.
This delusion that all it takes is a spark has pretty much been abandoned by the mature anarchist movement of today. It lives on in the theory of "insurrectionalists" in countries such as Greece and Italy and in their anglosphere hero worshipers. Though I must say that backing this particular football team for North Americans doesn't begin to approach the mindlessness and moral turpitude of always being on the lookout for nationalist and Leninist teams to back. The present theory and practice of "insurrectionism" lacks the peasant society that made this strategy even moderately convincing in the 19th century and the early years of the 20th in countries such as Spain.
Then, of course, you come to the bottom of the barrel. Those who glorify plotting riots in which they always,always,always,always,always lose in the end under the delusion that you can influence not "the people/masses,majority,etc" but some vague "movement" that needs to be "radicalized". Or, to probe BELOW the bottom of the barrel, that the results simply don't matter, that getting the crap kicked out of you is either an absolute moral imperative or somehow really "fun and liberating" and "creates new ways of living". At this point we have left the domain of politics and entered some of the more strange demiworlds of religious cultism.
But to come back to the title of this little complaint. Words can be slippery things at the best of times, and they often change their meanings over time. The word "communism" is instructive. It originally meant nothing more than a social situation where the means of production were owned socially, not individually. The mechanism of this ownership was usually seen as a local group of residents, "the Commune". It took on an utopian dimension with the ideological triumph of Marxism and its left of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" from the more creative so-called "utopian socialists". The fantasy of an Hegelian end-goal of history, fueled by the totalitarian power of pseudo-explanation afforded by this dream became very popular and essentially obliterated the earlier vision which retained more than a slight "hint" of "punishing defectors". The ordinary people who incubated the earlier vision knew that they couldn't trust "their own" to not cheat, let alone the declasse intellectuals who came to seize power in Marxist Parties. But this bastard child of the German academy was able to exert a religious appeal that simple popular wisdom could never have.
Later even this utopian vision was overwhelmed by yet another meaning. In the time of Leninist success "communism" came to mean nothing more than whatever the ruling classes of communist states said it was- this week. Being as this "communism" involved mass murder on a scale that dwarfed even the Nazis, "communism" acquired an odious connotation that 90% of the world's population finds detestable.
The attempt by some to revive the term under such headings as "anarchist communism" or "anarcho-communism" may be understandable, but it runs up against the logic of history. The term "communism" no longer means what anarcho-communists want it to mean in either its original or utopian formulations. I know what it means, and I consider it one (but NOT the only one) of ways in which an anarchist society could order its economy. To be less utopian I also consider it ONE of the ways that anarchists could work towards reform of advanced industrial societies. It is part of an intelligent strategy for an anarchism that realizes its limitations. NOT the "whole pig", but an essential part. Some enterprise should be run by democratic vote of local residents- with due checks and balances such that such power was not absolute. Some enterprises are much better managed in different ways.
Incisive thinkers such as Murray Bookchin recognized that this historical debris existed. hence his desire to rename the essential ideas of anarchist communism as "Communalism". Even the term "anarchism" itself has very often distressed more than a few convinced anarchists. The reason is the same. It is something that has acquired meanings not just different from the original but often in direct contradiction to same. I've often felt the urge to describe what I believe as "libertarian socialism", but this is rather restrictive in that it fails to take into account an emphasis on individual liberty (here in the civilized world outside of the USA where "libertarian" is either a synonym for anarchism or a "whazzat" word). Most anarchists have responded by adding adjectives to their anarchism. Any Time Now calls itself "for social anarchism" or "a journal of social anarchism" just like "social ecology" did before its more pronounced split with anarchism. Fred Woodworth calls his opinions "ethical anarchism". Groups such as NEFAC and other platformists call what they believe "communist anarchism".
To the initiated this means that there are those who call themselves "anarchist" who are not "communist", let alone "social" nor "ethical". Anarchism has NOT been a religious cult such as Marxism that demands uniformity of belief, and its stance of rebellion has attracted not just some of the best over the years but also some of the worst. Their is a need for clearly distinguishing oneself in this whirlpool of ideas.
The term "direct action" is very much like words such as "communism" or "anarchism" It can easily come to mean nothing more than posturing at militancy rather than what it meant to the historical anarchist movement at its best. In such a case-"bugger the word". If it comes to mean something very much the opposite of its original it would be time to find new terms to describe achieving a goal by ones own efforts; not by pleading with authority OR by childishly trying to bully authority. Especially !!! not anything more than bragging about one's "militancy".
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Practical Anarchism:
There's an interesting article in the July 29th edition of 'Freedom'. Freedom is a biweekly produced in London England, and has claim to being the oldest anarchist periodical in the world as it was founded by Kropotkin and friends in the 1880s. The article, by Martyn Everett, is entitled 'Practical Anarchism', and it describes the work of the 'University of the Third Age' in Great Britain.
The 'U3A' is basically a network for self education for people over 45. The network was set up in the early 1980s and now has 574 local groups. Membership as of Feb., 2006 stood at 153,000 people. This network differs from formal education in that there is no process of marking; there are no 'certificates' granted; and the roles of "teacher and pupil" are not rigidly set. There is no faculty in this University. Often classes have no teacher whatsoever, and teachers in one class pass on to become students in another. There are no formal "campuses". Classes often meet in private homes.
The author shows how this sort of structure is exactly the sort of thing described by Kropotkin in his writings on anarchist society. he goes on to argue that experience in such non-hierarchical groups might be generalized by the participants into other forms of social organization such as "credit unions, housing co-ops and communal allotments". My own prejudices would argue that one should add a lot of other items to this list.
It should be noted that there has always been an undercurrent of this sort of meliorist thinking in the anarchist tradition. The most thorough going modern exponent has been Colin Ward, but much of Mutualism and Syndicalism has understood that the creation of everyday alternatives in a piecemeal fashion is "direct action" in the true and proper sense. In the USA Paul Goodman was very much in this tradition. In fact it would be as hard to find any deus ex-machina of 'revolution' in Goodman's works as it would in Ward's writings.
Two things should be noted about this whole matter. One is the insufficient understanding of what the term "direct action" actually means. In its original syndicalist formulation it meant action on the job that directly changed the working conditions without resort to any sort of "petitioning" of the bosses, either passively and legally through grievance procedures or even in a militant fashion through the most determined or even violent of strike action. The concept of sabotage would only qualify as "direct action" if its immediate effect was the desired result- such a slowdown of the work process. Direct action also had the connotation of not relying on politicians to gain desired reforms but directly struggling for them at the workplace. Given the reality of union organizing this meant that 95 to 99% of this direct action struggle was not the flashy actions of strikes but rather the day to day building of links of solidarity. It was as useless to vote for politicians- to petition them by ballots- as it was to except to influence them by riots- to petition by bricks and bullets. The syndicalists, whether of the European "anarcho" variety or the "non-political" North American variety embodied in the IWW or the OBU understood very plainly that their militant actions were usually just skirmishes and holding actions unless they demonstrated the effectiveness of the building of links of solidarity- the real work of direct action which would make true victory possible.
The second thing to note is that the direct action of building such alternative ways of acting and often using them to further one's ends either in conflict with rulers or by ignoring them is what should truly be meant by a "revolution of everyday life". These are actions that affect one's prospects and desires, and those of one's peers far more than what passes for the self declared heirs of "the revolution of everyday life" and what they propose, assuming they propose anything.
In most countries outside of North America there has been a revival of this "practical anarchism", whether it be in the new syndicalism or in community based struggle. There is a certain imperial strain in the anarchism of the USA that is very much opposed to this concept of practical anarchism and wishes to impose its own vision of impractical anarchism where practicality becomes sly hints about better ways to carry out petty vandalism. This imperial anarchism reduces the everyday concept of changing one's life to a memorization of turgid dogma and competition as to who can appear the most militant.
The idea of "direct action" being action tailored to directly achieve a goal is totally lost in this dreamworld. Ordinary people actually care about achieving something, at least now and then. Imperial Anarchism finds the whole concept irrelevant. Consistent 100% defeat in the set piece operas of demonstrations around this or that international conference of the ruling class simply don't register in this mindset. You can't notice that police who deploy perhaps 1% of the lethal force of which they are capable always and every time win in that they control the streets at the end of the day even if they hold well back from "maximum force". You can't notice this if you don't care because winning is actually unimportant and the spectacle of opposition is everything. To the exclusion of the building the ties of everyday living that true anarchism actually consists of.
Direct action and the revolution of everyday life are two great concepts of practical anarchism. But they can never be applied until there is a clear understanding of what they mean.
There's an interesting article in the July 29th edition of 'Freedom'. Freedom is a biweekly produced in London England, and has claim to being the oldest anarchist periodical in the world as it was founded by Kropotkin and friends in the 1880s. The article, by Martyn Everett, is entitled 'Practical Anarchism', and it describes the work of the 'University of the Third Age' in Great Britain.
The 'U3A' is basically a network for self education for people over 45. The network was set up in the early 1980s and now has 574 local groups. Membership as of Feb., 2006 stood at 153,000 people. This network differs from formal education in that there is no process of marking; there are no 'certificates' granted; and the roles of "teacher and pupil" are not rigidly set. There is no faculty in this University. Often classes have no teacher whatsoever, and teachers in one class pass on to become students in another. There are no formal "campuses". Classes often meet in private homes.
The author shows how this sort of structure is exactly the sort of thing described by Kropotkin in his writings on anarchist society. he goes on to argue that experience in such non-hierarchical groups might be generalized by the participants into other forms of social organization such as "credit unions, housing co-ops and communal allotments". My own prejudices would argue that one should add a lot of other items to this list.
It should be noted that there has always been an undercurrent of this sort of meliorist thinking in the anarchist tradition. The most thorough going modern exponent has been Colin Ward, but much of Mutualism and Syndicalism has understood that the creation of everyday alternatives in a piecemeal fashion is "direct action" in the true and proper sense. In the USA Paul Goodman was very much in this tradition. In fact it would be as hard to find any deus ex-machina of 'revolution' in Goodman's works as it would in Ward's writings.
Two things should be noted about this whole matter. One is the insufficient understanding of what the term "direct action" actually means. In its original syndicalist formulation it meant action on the job that directly changed the working conditions without resort to any sort of "petitioning" of the bosses, either passively and legally through grievance procedures or even in a militant fashion through the most determined or even violent of strike action. The concept of sabotage would only qualify as "direct action" if its immediate effect was the desired result- such a slowdown of the work process. Direct action also had the connotation of not relying on politicians to gain desired reforms but directly struggling for them at the workplace. Given the reality of union organizing this meant that 95 to 99% of this direct action struggle was not the flashy actions of strikes but rather the day to day building of links of solidarity. It was as useless to vote for politicians- to petition them by ballots- as it was to except to influence them by riots- to petition by bricks and bullets. The syndicalists, whether of the European "anarcho" variety or the "non-political" North American variety embodied in the IWW or the OBU understood very plainly that their militant actions were usually just skirmishes and holding actions unless they demonstrated the effectiveness of the building of links of solidarity- the real work of direct action which would make true victory possible.
The second thing to note is that the direct action of building such alternative ways of acting and often using them to further one's ends either in conflict with rulers or by ignoring them is what should truly be meant by a "revolution of everyday life". These are actions that affect one's prospects and desires, and those of one's peers far more than what passes for the self declared heirs of "the revolution of everyday life" and what they propose, assuming they propose anything.
In most countries outside of North America there has been a revival of this "practical anarchism", whether it be in the new syndicalism or in community based struggle. There is a certain imperial strain in the anarchism of the USA that is very much opposed to this concept of practical anarchism and wishes to impose its own vision of impractical anarchism where practicality becomes sly hints about better ways to carry out petty vandalism. This imperial anarchism reduces the everyday concept of changing one's life to a memorization of turgid dogma and competition as to who can appear the most militant.
The idea of "direct action" being action tailored to directly achieve a goal is totally lost in this dreamworld. Ordinary people actually care about achieving something, at least now and then. Imperial Anarchism finds the whole concept irrelevant. Consistent 100% defeat in the set piece operas of demonstrations around this or that international conference of the ruling class simply don't register in this mindset. You can't notice that police who deploy perhaps 1% of the lethal force of which they are capable always and every time win in that they control the streets at the end of the day even if they hold well back from "maximum force". You can't notice this if you don't care because winning is actually unimportant and the spectacle of opposition is everything. To the exclusion of the building the ties of everyday living that true anarchism actually consists of.
Direct action and the revolution of everyday life are two great concepts of practical anarchism. But they can never be applied until there is a clear understanding of what they mean.
Latest Match Now Out:
Issue # 104 of 'The Match !", North America's longest running specifically anarchist publication is now out. Copies can be ordered from:
The Match
Box 3012
Tucson, Arizona
85702
USA.
Unlike some other long running anarchist publications the Match began with the label of anarchist and remained committed to it over the course of decades. Never one to bow to fashion or fad, the editor Fred Woodworth has made his common-sense version of anarchism a standard by which other, more ideological, efforts can be judged. Fred is heavy on the atheism side of historical anarchism, and not an issue passes by without at least two or three anti-religious articles.
Always interesting, whether you agree with all that Fred says or not. One of the few anarchist publications likely to inspire cover to cover reading.
Issue # 104 of 'The Match !", North America's longest running specifically anarchist publication is now out. Copies can be ordered from:
The Match
Box 3012
Tucson, Arizona
85702
USA.
Unlike some other long running anarchist publications the Match began with the label of anarchist and remained committed to it over the course of decades. Never one to bow to fashion or fad, the editor Fred Woodworth has made his common-sense version of anarchism a standard by which other, more ideological, efforts can be judged. Fred is heavy on the atheism side of historical anarchism, and not an issue passes by without at least two or three anti-religious articles.
Always interesting, whether you agree with all that Fred says or not. One of the few anarchist publications likely to inspire cover to cover reading.
Monday, September 04, 2006
More on 'Breaking the Spell'
Dennett has an interesting stylistic quirk in this book. He ends each chapter with a summary of the chapter and a preview of the next one. The summary and preview for each chapter are often quite different. The preview for Chapter 2, 'Some Questions About Science' reads as follows,
"There are obstacles confronting the scientific study of religion, and there are misgivings that need to be addressed. A preliminary exploration shows that it is both possible and advisable for us to turn our strongest exploratory lights on religion."
The first subchapter is entitled 'Can Science Study Religion?' . The author tries to answer various objections to this question such as the "non-overlapping magisteria" of Stephen Jay Gould that are true in their own restricted sense but still leave much about religion that is a matter of legitimate scientific study. The author makes a telling point is his sentences,
"One of the surprising discoveries of modern psychology is how easy it is to be ignorant of your own ignorance. You are normally unaware of your own blind spot, and people are typically amazed to discover that we don't see colours in our peripheral vision....you can prove (it) to yourself by wiggling coloured cards at the edge of your vision- you'll see motion just fine but not be able to identify the colour of the moving thing."
The author goes on to say how while there has been much study of religion in the past almost all of it has suffered from an overwhelming "observer bias" in that those who study the phenomenon are either overly sympathetic or overly critical. This means that we are still very much in ignorance of the scientific questions involved in religious belief. Worse, as he says,
"...people think they already know everything they need to know about religion, and this received wisdom is pretty bland, not provocative enough to inspire either refutation or extension."
Once more we are unaware of our blind spots.
Dennett has an interesting stylistic quirk in this book. He ends each chapter with a summary of the chapter and a preview of the next one. The summary and preview for each chapter are often quite different. The preview for Chapter 2, 'Some Questions About Science' reads as follows,
"There are obstacles confronting the scientific study of religion, and there are misgivings that need to be addressed. A preliminary exploration shows that it is both possible and advisable for us to turn our strongest exploratory lights on religion."
The first subchapter is entitled 'Can Science Study Religion?' . The author tries to answer various objections to this question such as the "non-overlapping magisteria" of Stephen Jay Gould that are true in their own restricted sense but still leave much about religion that is a matter of legitimate scientific study. The author makes a telling point is his sentences,
"One of the surprising discoveries of modern psychology is how easy it is to be ignorant of your own ignorance. You are normally unaware of your own blind spot, and people are typically amazed to discover that we don't see colours in our peripheral vision....you can prove (it) to yourself by wiggling coloured cards at the edge of your vision- you'll see motion just fine but not be able to identify the colour of the moving thing."
The author goes on to say how while there has been much study of religion in the past almost all of it has suffered from an overwhelming "observer bias" in that those who study the phenomenon are either overly sympathetic or overly critical. This means that we are still very much in ignorance of the scientific questions involved in religious belief. Worse, as he says,
"...people think they already know everything they need to know about religion, and this received wisdom is pretty bland, not provocative enough to inspire either refutation or extension."
Once more we are unaware of our blind spots.
Bush Joke:
The following was passed on from Ed Stamm on the any time now discussion board.
"Al Gore, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were in an airplane that crashed. They're in heaven, and God's sitting on the great white throne. God addresses Al first. "Al, what do you believe in?" Gore replies, "Well, I believe that I won that election, but it was your will that I did not serve. And I've come to understand that now." God thinks for a second and says, "OK, very good. Come and sit at my left." God then addresses Bill. "Bill, what do you believe in?" Clinton replies, "I believe in forgiveness. I've sinned, but I've never held a grudge against my fellow man, and I hope no grudges are held against me." God thinks for a second and says, "You are forgiven my son. Come and sit at my right."
God then addresses George. "George, what do you believe in?" Bush replies, "I believe you're sitting in my chair."
The following was passed on from Ed Stamm on the any time now discussion board.
"Al Gore, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were in an airplane that crashed. They're in heaven, and God's sitting on the great white throne. God addresses Al first. "Al, what do you believe in?" Gore replies, "Well, I believe that I won that election, but it was your will that I did not serve. And I've come to understand that now." God thinks for a second and says, "OK, very good. Come and sit at my left." God then addresses Bill. "Bill, what do you believe in?" Clinton replies, "I believe in forgiveness. I've sinned, but I've never held a grudge against my fellow man, and I hope no grudges are held against me." God thinks for a second and says, "You are forgiven my son. Come and sit at my right."
God then addresses George. "George, what do you believe in?" Bush replies, "I believe you're sitting in my chair."
A Little Advertisement
I have recently added 'The Journal of Memetics' to the list of links on the left, under 'Scientific Links'. It's a good online introduction to the sort of research that is being done under this heading. The link provides the original papers published online in this now defunct journal and is thus a good intro to the subject beyond the lay literature.
I have recently added 'The Journal of Memetics' to the list of links on the left, under 'Scientific Links'. It's a good online introduction to the sort of research that is being done under this heading. The link provides the original papers published online in this now defunct journal and is thus a good intro to the subject beyond the lay literature.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
The Invasion of the Amish
There's an interesting article in today's Sunday edition of the local paper, 'The Winnipeg Free Press' on a new Amish settlement in the Plumas, Gladstone area of Manitoba. This will be their first Canadian colony outside of southern Ontario. There are also Amish colonies in 28 American states.
The Amish are another branch of the Anabpatist movement who believe in adult rather than infant baptism. They are actually an offshoot of the Mennonites, and like them they are pacifist. Menno Simons (1496-1561) was a former Dutch Roman Catholic priest who founded the sect. The Amish split off from the Mennonites under the leadership of Swiss preacher Jacob Amman in 1693 because they felt that the parent body was too liberal for their tastes. Their first American colonies were in Pennsylvania in the early 1700s, and they are known there as the "Pennsylvanian Dutch" even though they speak a dialect of low German (like about 2/3rds of Switzerland) rather than Dutch.
They have become a big tourist draw wherever they settle as their refusal of most modern technology makes their "horse and buggy" lifestyle a matter for sightseers. The Amish are divided into two denominations, the Old Order Amish who worship in their homes, and the Old Order Mennonites who worship in churches. The Manitoba settlers are of the latter denomination. Many of the locals in the area where they have settled are enthusiastic about the new colony, not just because of the immediate economic income but because of the potential for tourism that such a colony represents.
The author of the article, Bill Redicop, goes on to make many other points about the welcome the Amish have received in the community, about their aversion to having their photographs taken, and the general theology of their religion. Despite the aversion of the Amish to having photographs taken, in which they seem to be more severe than the most orthodox of Muslims-for the same reasons, "graven images,etc" there are several photos that accompany the article. I gather these were sneaked by the reporter or one of his confederates. I do wonder about the legalities of this.
A few questions come to mind from this article. The Amish use kerosene lanterns rather than electricity for lighting. This technology was NOT available at the time of the split in 1693. Neither was the electricity they use for cooling the milk that they produce. I'm sure that like the Hutterites and Doukhobours there are many other accommodations to the modern world that they have made while still pretending to hold to "the old ways". Any sect that refused to make any and all such compromises would have sunk into extinction long ago. Yet, I must admit that these sectarians are shining examples of consistency when held up in contrast to "sects in the making" such as the pseudo-anarchist 'primitivists' who make immensely loud noises about abandoning all technology and generally abandon no technology. If the "primmies" do rediscover something like vegetable gardening that huge segments of the population have known forever they make a big hoop and holler about their own crude achievements even though they are pretty well always less competent than over 95% of the population at their theologically coloured "return to nature:.
The other question is what in the nature of the Amish and other such sects has led to their prolonged survival as communities. Most of the modern examples of political or cultural sectarianism have passed into the black hole of history. Those that still exist (such as the Rainbow Gathering) give every appearance of being ready to expire with the senility of their adherents. Those that have stabilized resemble normal Churches (a wealth of New Age cults) or political parties. Lots of people have spilt an ocean of ink on this question. Authoritarianism certainly helps survival as does an excessive pride vis-a-vis the real world. The Amish certainly cultivate "humility" amongst themselves, like leftist sects who use identity politics for interpersonal manipulation, it is doubtful that their "humility" could stand the scrutiny of an animal behaviorist used to finding patterns of hierarchy in social interactions. But the losers in this competition can be compensated by an illusion of superiority to the outsiders. There are surely many other factors, but this is not the place to even begin to explore them.
There's an interesting article in today's Sunday edition of the local paper, 'The Winnipeg Free Press' on a new Amish settlement in the Plumas, Gladstone area of Manitoba. This will be their first Canadian colony outside of southern Ontario. There are also Amish colonies in 28 American states.
The Amish are another branch of the Anabpatist movement who believe in adult rather than infant baptism. They are actually an offshoot of the Mennonites, and like them they are pacifist. Menno Simons (1496-1561) was a former Dutch Roman Catholic priest who founded the sect. The Amish split off from the Mennonites under the leadership of Swiss preacher Jacob Amman in 1693 because they felt that the parent body was too liberal for their tastes. Their first American colonies were in Pennsylvania in the early 1700s, and they are known there as the "Pennsylvanian Dutch" even though they speak a dialect of low German (like about 2/3rds of Switzerland) rather than Dutch.
They have become a big tourist draw wherever they settle as their refusal of most modern technology makes their "horse and buggy" lifestyle a matter for sightseers. The Amish are divided into two denominations, the Old Order Amish who worship in their homes, and the Old Order Mennonites who worship in churches. The Manitoba settlers are of the latter denomination. Many of the locals in the area where they have settled are enthusiastic about the new colony, not just because of the immediate economic income but because of the potential for tourism that such a colony represents.
The author of the article, Bill Redicop, goes on to make many other points about the welcome the Amish have received in the community, about their aversion to having their photographs taken, and the general theology of their religion. Despite the aversion of the Amish to having photographs taken, in which they seem to be more severe than the most orthodox of Muslims-for the same reasons, "graven images,etc" there are several photos that accompany the article. I gather these were sneaked by the reporter or one of his confederates. I do wonder about the legalities of this.
A few questions come to mind from this article. The Amish use kerosene lanterns rather than electricity for lighting. This technology was NOT available at the time of the split in 1693. Neither was the electricity they use for cooling the milk that they produce. I'm sure that like the Hutterites and Doukhobours there are many other accommodations to the modern world that they have made while still pretending to hold to "the old ways". Any sect that refused to make any and all such compromises would have sunk into extinction long ago. Yet, I must admit that these sectarians are shining examples of consistency when held up in contrast to "sects in the making" such as the pseudo-anarchist 'primitivists' who make immensely loud noises about abandoning all technology and generally abandon no technology. If the "primmies" do rediscover something like vegetable gardening that huge segments of the population have known forever they make a big hoop and holler about their own crude achievements even though they are pretty well always less competent than over 95% of the population at their theologically coloured "return to nature:.
The other question is what in the nature of the Amish and other such sects has led to their prolonged survival as communities. Most of the modern examples of political or cultural sectarianism have passed into the black hole of history. Those that still exist (such as the Rainbow Gathering) give every appearance of being ready to expire with the senility of their adherents. Those that have stabilized resemble normal Churches (a wealth of New Age cults) or political parties. Lots of people have spilt an ocean of ink on this question. Authoritarianism certainly helps survival as does an excessive pride vis-a-vis the real world. The Amish certainly cultivate "humility" amongst themselves, like leftist sects who use identity politics for interpersonal manipulation, it is doubtful that their "humility" could stand the scrutiny of an animal behaviorist used to finding patterns of hierarchy in social interactions. But the losers in this competition can be compensated by an illusion of superiority to the outsiders. There are surely many other factors, but this is not the place to even begin to explore them.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
I still find it amazing that this blog that was intended as nothing but a personal diary of my reading has gotten response. Some people must hate me deeply-good! May I assure readers that most of the posts here will be very boring posts about scientific matters. Seeing as I am five chapters behind in the latest book I am reading, let alone the journal articles which have piled up I beg your indulgence in wasting your time further...
In regards to those who believe that they can appear to be intellectual by using the word "nascent"...I actually know the meaning of the word. But despite this I looked it up in a dictionary to confirm. It means "incipient" or "newly born". Of course this is exactly !!! the opposite meaning that I ascribed it to in a description of Wayne Price's EX-Trotskyism. The proper term in such a case would be "residual". It describes a habit of thought that has carried over into anarchism that leads to some very unfortunate conclusions.
These "conclusions",however, are much less unfortunate than the habits of thought amongst post leftists who imagine that they can misuse "big words" that they don't understand to "prove" the profundity of their desired conclusions.
Yes, I think that Wayne is wrong in his application of a private morality to "prove" that one should be in "critical support" of Islamic groups. But THIS is orders of magnitude removed from "critical support" of various things that NA "post-leftists" have advocated in the past. Do child molesters, psychotic murders such as the 'Unibomber' or people that believe that "civilization should be abolished" ,etc,etc,etc ad nauseum "really" deserve any argument besides the observation that they are weird,disgusting and insane ? These sort of things are archetypes of things that can ONLY exist in a cult that has ONLY recruiting members to the cult as a goal. So-called "intellectual" (pseudo) arguments around these matters merely demonstrate how far removed their advocates are from reality and how much they have taken a PSEUDO-MORALISTIC stance ie a private morality of "appearing to be more radical than others" as a way of governing their actions.
This pseudo-morality will be enforced in the same way as real morality is enforced, by ridicule and aggression. The pseudo-morality of the left where "critical support" is afforded to undesirable real actors in the real world actually has less of fantasy involved in it than the "critical support" afforded to much more marginal thugs by those who have unrealizable dreams.
Well, I'll continue to stand against this sort of horseshit. If anarchism becomes nothing but the emotional justification for desiring a good fight, I'll try and repell the nonsense as long as I can, and when I fail I am no longer an anarchist. As any anarchist who is sane would say.
In regards to those who believe that they can appear to be intellectual by using the word "nascent"...I actually know the meaning of the word. But despite this I looked it up in a dictionary to confirm. It means "incipient" or "newly born". Of course this is exactly !!! the opposite meaning that I ascribed it to in a description of Wayne Price's EX-Trotskyism. The proper term in such a case would be "residual". It describes a habit of thought that has carried over into anarchism that leads to some very unfortunate conclusions.
These "conclusions",however, are much less unfortunate than the habits of thought amongst post leftists who imagine that they can misuse "big words" that they don't understand to "prove" the profundity of their desired conclusions.
Yes, I think that Wayne is wrong in his application of a private morality to "prove" that one should be in "critical support" of Islamic groups. But THIS is orders of magnitude removed from "critical support" of various things that NA "post-leftists" have advocated in the past. Do child molesters, psychotic murders such as the 'Unibomber' or people that believe that "civilization should be abolished" ,etc,etc,etc ad nauseum "really" deserve any argument besides the observation that they are weird,disgusting and insane ? These sort of things are archetypes of things that can ONLY exist in a cult that has ONLY recruiting members to the cult as a goal. So-called "intellectual" (pseudo) arguments around these matters merely demonstrate how far removed their advocates are from reality and how much they have taken a PSEUDO-MORALISTIC stance ie a private morality of "appearing to be more radical than others" as a way of governing their actions.
This pseudo-morality will be enforced in the same way as real morality is enforced, by ridicule and aggression. The pseudo-morality of the left where "critical support" is afforded to undesirable real actors in the real world actually has less of fantasy involved in it than the "critical support" afforded to much more marginal thugs by those who have unrealizable dreams.
Well, I'll continue to stand against this sort of horseshit. If anarchism becomes nothing but the emotional justification for desiring a good fight, I'll try and repell the nonsense as long as I can, and when I fail I am no longer an anarchist. As any anarchist who is sane would say.
There's an interesting article in the latest 'Straight Goods'- an on-line magazine of social democratic slant ( http://www.straightgoods.ca )- on the final results of the "Ippenwash Inquiry". This concerns a government inquiry into the shooting of native protester Dudley George during a police attack on a native occupation/protest almost 11 years ago in Northern Ontario. The inquiry "whitewashed" the role of the provincial government of Ontario at the time.
Lest you think that this is a "one-off" event I pull the following from memory. Many years ago an Indian was shot- THREE TIMES IN THE BACK- in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. One man was convicted of "manslaughter" in the murder. He was sentenced to a very short time in prison, and actually served less than a year. The CLINCHER was that the convicted murder was an agent for CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. He said, on his release, that he would take up a career as a speaker against "racism" as his original mission was to infiltrate the neo-Nazis in Saskatchewan. Of course he disappeared into the witness protection program upon his release.
Do inquiries EVER convict the guilty. Yes, rarely. The inquiry into the above case of Dudley George couldn't reveal anything as incriminating as the inquiry into the Air-India bombing here in Canada where there was more than a slight suspicion that CSIS collaborated with the Indian Security Service to "let a terrorist event happen". Of course nothing was proven in that case so why should it be any different here. RARELY is the operative word ie ONLY in the case of situations that do not carry implications that have "political consequences. False convictions, no problem. Collaboration of politicians or security services in murder- a great gross problem.
Lest you think that this is a "one-off" event I pull the following from memory. Many years ago an Indian was shot- THREE TIMES IN THE BACK- in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. One man was convicted of "manslaughter" in the murder. He was sentenced to a very short time in prison, and actually served less than a year. The CLINCHER was that the convicted murder was an agent for CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. He said, on his release, that he would take up a career as a speaker against "racism" as his original mission was to infiltrate the neo-Nazis in Saskatchewan. Of course he disappeared into the witness protection program upon his release.
Do inquiries EVER convict the guilty. Yes, rarely. The inquiry into the above case of Dudley George couldn't reveal anything as incriminating as the inquiry into the Air-India bombing here in Canada where there was more than a slight suspicion that CSIS collaborated with the Indian Security Service to "let a terrorist event happen". Of course nothing was proven in that case so why should it be any different here. RARELY is the operative word ie ONLY in the case of situations that do not carry implications that have "political consequences. False convictions, no problem. Collaboration of politicians or security services in murder- a great gross problem.
There's an interesting article in the latest 'Straight Goods'- an on-line magazine of social democratic slant ( http://www.straightgoods.ca )- on the final results of the "Ippenwash Inquiry". This concerns a government inquiry into the shooting of native protester Dudley George during a police attack on a native occupation/protest almost 11 years ago in Northern Ontario. The inquiry "whitewashed" the role of the provincial government of Ontario at the time.
Lest you think that this is a "one-off" event I pull the following from memory. Many years ago an Indian was shot- THREE TIMES IN THE BACK- in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. One man was convicted of "manslaughter" in the murder. He was sentenced to a very short time in prison, and actually served less than a year. The CLINCHER was that the convicted murder was an agent for CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. He said, on his release, that he would take up a career as a speaker against "racism" as his original mission was to infiltrate the neo-Nazis in Saskatchewan. Of course he disappeared into the witness protection program upon his release.
Do inquiries EVER convict the guilty. Yes, rarely. The inquiry into the above case of Dudley George couldn't reveal anything as incriminating as the inquiry into the Air-India bombing here in Canada where there was more than a slight suspicion that CSIS collaborated with the Indian Security Service to "let a terrorist event happen". Of course nothing was proven in that case so why should it be any different here. RARELY is the operative word ie ONLY in the case of situations that do not carry implications that have "political consequences. False convictions, no problem. Collaboration of politicians or security services in murder- a great gross problem.
Lest you think that this is a "one-off" event I pull the following from memory. Many years ago an Indian was shot- THREE TIMES IN THE BACK- in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. One man was convicted of "manslaughter" in the murder. He was sentenced to a very short time in prison, and actually served less than a year. The CLINCHER was that the convicted murder was an agent for CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. He said, on his release, that he would take up a career as a speaker against "racism" as his original mission was to infiltrate the neo-Nazis in Saskatchewan. Of course he disappeared into the witness protection program upon his release.
Do inquiries EVER convict the guilty. Yes, rarely. The inquiry into the above case of Dudley George couldn't reveal anything as incriminating as the inquiry into the Air-India bombing here in Canada where there was more than a slight suspicion that CSIS collaborated with the Indian Security Service to "let a terrorist event happen". Of course nothing was proven in that case so why should it be any different here. RARELY is the operative word ie ONLY in the case of situations that do not carry implications that have "political consequences. False convictions, no problem. Collaboration of politicians or security services in murder- a great gross problem.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Just as a little aside, I'm still trying to learn some Czech for the trip that is coming up in less than a month. I have great difficulty concentrating, probably because I have less interest in the language than I have in other languages such as French, Spanish and Greek that I have studied. There are fewer "cognates" between a Slavic language such as Czech and English as compared to a romance language or even Greek. the names of the months are instructive. Also Czech is a particularly complex language. I probably won't get beyond the simple politeness level before we leave for Praha.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
"Lessons for the Anarchist Movement of the Israeli-Lebanese War"
The above is the title of a recent article by Wayne Price on the Anarkismo site (see links on this blog). The author takes, as is usual for anarchists, quite a moralistic tone. He speaks of a variety of left positions from "the liberals" who basically support the US and Israeli governments but "wanted them to clean up their acts" through to the so-called "radical Left" who "became a cheering squad for Hezballah, as well as Hamas, as it had for the fundamentalist-led resistance in Iraq".
The author then goes on to say that anarchists have generally recognized the "reactionary nature of both sides in the war", but he also goes on to say that "many have tended to equate the two sides, to treat them as equally bad". This is a bad thing !, or so he says. Price goes on to a discussion of various types of "non-class" issues in which anarchists come down on one side or the other and says that national liberation is one such struggle in which anarchists must "be on the side of the oppressed" while, of course, "being in political opposition to the misleaders of that people". If this reminds you of Trotskyist "critical solidarity" you are dead on. It is that very same thing, though translated into anarchist terms.
Not that this is wrong. To a large extent it may be very right, but it lacks realism. As I said it is couched in moralistic terms. What does such "solidarity" mean when outside of a few large organizations such as the Spanish CGT the attitude of anarchists, in "solidarity or otherwise" has no effect on the actual course of events ? If advocated by even a small minority of anarchists in a country under attack, such as Lebanon, it makes a lot of sense. Such people are engaged in a political struggle to propagate their ideas in their society, and publically announcing positions that look like treason to their people is like having a "malignant dogmanoma tumour". It shows that dogma has invaded the central nervous system and is replacing brain cells.
But the same could also be said of American anarchists who fixate on the evils of their country's imperialism. Very few anarchists, even ex-Trotskyists like Wayne Price, understand the whole concept of "revolutionary defeatism" as practiced by such masters as Lenin or, less skillfully, by the historical Spanish anarchist movement. Skillful practitioners of this tactic understand that there is nothing moralistic about it. They understood that it was to be useful in a situation where the suffering of the people in the country in which they operated, suffering due to foreign wars, could be translated into rebellion against the government that ordered the war.
Certainly Lenin, and to a lesser extent the Spanish anarchists, made noises about "national liberation", but neither ever considered the idea important enough to become a major focus of their propaganda. Neither did they make it a touchstone of "moral rectitude" that would determine one's commitment to the cause of either Bolshevism or anarchism.
That, unfortunately, is what Wayne Price proposes to do. He is to be commended for ending his article with the recognition that "the world is a complex place, with much interconnection and overlapping of systems of oppression" and that "we need concrete analyses of each situation". But perhaps we don't need "analysis" so much as we need intelligent planning. Wayne is an American anarchist. What does his advise consist of but to dog-tail the American left in its constant knee jerk reaction to oppose any adventure of the US government and to make excuses for the foreign opponents of these adventures.
This secret is revealed in Wayne's stunning assertion that both WW 1 and WW 2 were nothing but "wars among imperialist states"-where not choosing sides was applicable. World War Two- stop and think a minute. This says....."that all the opponents of the USA and Israel are better than the allies in WW2, that Nazi victory is preferable in all cases to any American victory anywhere and at any time.
It means a lot of such things, and I'd bet that Wayne wouldn't believe them in his better moments. What it does mean, however, is that Wayne, like too many anarchists, has chosen his audience from amongst the debris of "the Left". Not the general American population !
Only "the left" believes that have a "sophisticated analysis" of each and every event in politics is cosmically important, and that thinking out such an "analysis" and publishing it in obscure websites and journals- or yelling its slogans during two hours of a small demonstration- is action, in solidarity or otherwise. I would like to suggest that ceasing to act like American leftists is a key part of actually beginning to address normal people.
It is NOT remiss of an anarchist organization to NOT have a convoluted position on each and every war or other events. . Should a anarchist organization be "in solidarity" with an "oppressed people" it is far more effective for them to send one single quarter to an aid group that is unaffiliated with any political organization in the country that has been attacked than to spend hundreds of hours in debating and thinking and thousands of dollars propagating the "correct line" that evolves from this. Let the outsiders keep on guessing about "which side you are on". In too many cases all that you prove is that you are on the side of domestic opponents (such as the American left) who have thoroughly discredited themselves by a constant assumption that they are morally and intellectually superior to the ordinary person.
This puts you in the strange position of assuming that Nazis are better than the American government and that one should be neutral towards them but always opposed to any action of the government that most Americans still see as their own.
This fantasy is a moralistic one in that it tries to stake out a moral position of being seen to be on the side of the angels, no matter how that side is defined rather than assessing the practical possibilities of the time and place. Revolutionary defeatism is of use if it can conceivably lead to a revolt against the rulers of one's own country. Otherwise it is useless posturing to an audience- the left- that will never appreciate you anyways.
The above is the title of a recent article by Wayne Price on the Anarkismo site (see links on this blog). The author takes, as is usual for anarchists, quite a moralistic tone. He speaks of a variety of left positions from "the liberals" who basically support the US and Israeli governments but "wanted them to clean up their acts" through to the so-called "radical Left" who "became a cheering squad for Hezballah, as well as Hamas, as it had for the fundamentalist-led resistance in Iraq".
The author then goes on to say that anarchists have generally recognized the "reactionary nature of both sides in the war", but he also goes on to say that "many have tended to equate the two sides, to treat them as equally bad". This is a bad thing !, or so he says. Price goes on to a discussion of various types of "non-class" issues in which anarchists come down on one side or the other and says that national liberation is one such struggle in which anarchists must "be on the side of the oppressed" while, of course, "being in political opposition to the misleaders of that people". If this reminds you of Trotskyist "critical solidarity" you are dead on. It is that very same thing, though translated into anarchist terms.
Not that this is wrong. To a large extent it may be very right, but it lacks realism. As I said it is couched in moralistic terms. What does such "solidarity" mean when outside of a few large organizations such as the Spanish CGT the attitude of anarchists, in "solidarity or otherwise" has no effect on the actual course of events ? If advocated by even a small minority of anarchists in a country under attack, such as Lebanon, it makes a lot of sense. Such people are engaged in a political struggle to propagate their ideas in their society, and publically announcing positions that look like treason to their people is like having a "malignant dogmanoma tumour". It shows that dogma has invaded the central nervous system and is replacing brain cells.
But the same could also be said of American anarchists who fixate on the evils of their country's imperialism. Very few anarchists, even ex-Trotskyists like Wayne Price, understand the whole concept of "revolutionary defeatism" as practiced by such masters as Lenin or, less skillfully, by the historical Spanish anarchist movement. Skillful practitioners of this tactic understand that there is nothing moralistic about it. They understood that it was to be useful in a situation where the suffering of the people in the country in which they operated, suffering due to foreign wars, could be translated into rebellion against the government that ordered the war.
Certainly Lenin, and to a lesser extent the Spanish anarchists, made noises about "national liberation", but neither ever considered the idea important enough to become a major focus of their propaganda. Neither did they make it a touchstone of "moral rectitude" that would determine one's commitment to the cause of either Bolshevism or anarchism.
That, unfortunately, is what Wayne Price proposes to do. He is to be commended for ending his article with the recognition that "the world is a complex place, with much interconnection and overlapping of systems of oppression" and that "we need concrete analyses of each situation". But perhaps we don't need "analysis" so much as we need intelligent planning. Wayne is an American anarchist. What does his advise consist of but to dog-tail the American left in its constant knee jerk reaction to oppose any adventure of the US government and to make excuses for the foreign opponents of these adventures.
This secret is revealed in Wayne's stunning assertion that both WW 1 and WW 2 were nothing but "wars among imperialist states"-where not choosing sides was applicable. World War Two- stop and think a minute. This says....."that all the opponents of the USA and Israel are better than the allies in WW2, that Nazi victory is preferable in all cases to any American victory anywhere and at any time.
It means a lot of such things, and I'd bet that Wayne wouldn't believe them in his better moments. What it does mean, however, is that Wayne, like too many anarchists, has chosen his audience from amongst the debris of "the Left". Not the general American population !
Only "the left" believes that have a "sophisticated analysis" of each and every event in politics is cosmically important, and that thinking out such an "analysis" and publishing it in obscure websites and journals- or yelling its slogans during two hours of a small demonstration- is action, in solidarity or otherwise. I would like to suggest that ceasing to act like American leftists is a key part of actually beginning to address normal people.
It is NOT remiss of an anarchist organization to NOT have a convoluted position on each and every war or other events. . Should a anarchist organization be "in solidarity" with an "oppressed people" it is far more effective for them to send one single quarter to an aid group that is unaffiliated with any political organization in the country that has been attacked than to spend hundreds of hours in debating and thinking and thousands of dollars propagating the "correct line" that evolves from this. Let the outsiders keep on guessing about "which side you are on". In too many cases all that you prove is that you are on the side of domestic opponents (such as the American left) who have thoroughly discredited themselves by a constant assumption that they are morally and intellectually superior to the ordinary person.
This puts you in the strange position of assuming that Nazis are better than the American government and that one should be neutral towards them but always opposed to any action of the government that most Americans still see as their own.
This fantasy is a moralistic one in that it tries to stake out a moral position of being seen to be on the side of the angels, no matter how that side is defined rather than assessing the practical possibilities of the time and place. Revolutionary defeatism is of use if it can conceivably lead to a revolt against the rulers of one's own country. Otherwise it is useless posturing to an audience- the left- that will never appreciate you anyways.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Matters From The Latest 'Industrial Worker'
The 'Industrial Worker' is the house organ of the IWW (http://www.iww.org , Box 23085, Cincinnati, OH 45223, USA).
The latest issue contains a few interesting matters. The first is an article by Eric Lee entitled 'War, Wobs and the Web'. Lee has a regular column in the IW, and he is also the webmaster for a labour solidarity site that I personally subscribe to. Seems that the IWW website linked to his personal webpage, but that some matters contained there were offensive to other Wobblies. No, it isn't what you think. FW Lee has been a member of the Socialist Party of the USA, a rather decent outfit, and his writings in this article and others make it very plain that he still holds a certain sympathy for their views. The problem was NOT "anarchist purism". The problem was that he also, horror of horrors, has sympathy for the people of Israel and, therefore, is less gung-ho to jump on the so-called "anti-imperialist" bandwagon of the American left in giving unconditional support to whatever is opposed to Israel.
Lee goes on the argue that there are disagreements in the IWW about such matters as Cuba or Iraq. He mentions these as examples of where an "agree to disagree" attitude holds sway because of the more important matter of "a different kind of trade unionism" which is actually what unites the IWW. There was a campaign waged against Lee from within the IWW, though you can bet that it gathered people who were not just non-members of the IWW but who oppose the organization. The campaign ignored Lee's work in raising solidarity funds for unionists in Lebanon because the American left DEMANDS total agreement with its goal of "politically correct" dogma. Lee mentions that he is probably in a minority within the IWW, even though his position is "up for debate" in England where he presently lives, "elsewhere in Europe" and in Australia. He even adds, perhaps as a slight, "perhaps even in the USA". I would express it in much stronger terms. The left in the USA is the most juvenile left in the world outside of a totalitarian regime. It always attempts to impose uniformity of opinion within its ranks with an arsenal of insult terms and with hysterical campaigns and conspiracies against any dissidence whatsoever. To make matters worse, despite its crude ideology of "anti-imperialism" it is always willing to try and impose its views on the left in other countries.
The American left is just as mindlessly convinced of its "righteousness" as the American right. When not cheerleading for restrictions of freedom within their own country or arguing for special privileges that almost always translate as not "uplifting the poor" but rather as schemes for getting money for those who "work product" could be defined as "social control"- if they have any product at all- the American left looks at those of us on the left outside of the USA as either benighted savages who have to be educated in the latest "ism" or, worse, as benighted savages whose abstract situation can be used for the furtherance of their own projects.
Lee ends his column with an argument for tolerance within the IWW of views that differ in matters that are NOT related to the goals of the IWW. I suspect that he is realistic enough to know that this will not end the campaign against him.
Also in the latest IW:
There's a report of an IWW gathering in the American Midwest entitled 'Midwest Wobfest". Besides being an encouraging sign of the revival of the IWW, something that real anarchists can be nothing but pleased by it has the very pleasing (to me) note that the gathering finished off "with a barbecue and more socializing". The reason I find this heartening is that you can bet bottom dollar that the barbecue didn't involve "tofu on a stick". One of the reasons why the IWW is worthwhile is that it attempts to go beyond the cultural ghetto of present day anarchism and engage ordinary people-most of whom yes do eat meat and commit dozens of other daily offenses against the political correctness that is fashionable but which has NOTHING to do with anarchism.
To be gross, you will know that anarchism has "arrived" when a hot dog salesman at an anarchist gathering can call out, "get your fried primmies, get your fried primmies here". At that point the primitivists will come to serve a useful purpose.
The 'Industrial Worker' is the house organ of the IWW (http://www.iww.org , Box 23085, Cincinnati, OH 45223, USA).
The latest issue contains a few interesting matters. The first is an article by Eric Lee entitled 'War, Wobs and the Web'. Lee has a regular column in the IW, and he is also the webmaster for a labour solidarity site that I personally subscribe to. Seems that the IWW website linked to his personal webpage, but that some matters contained there were offensive to other Wobblies. No, it isn't what you think. FW Lee has been a member of the Socialist Party of the USA, a rather decent outfit, and his writings in this article and others make it very plain that he still holds a certain sympathy for their views. The problem was NOT "anarchist purism". The problem was that he also, horror of horrors, has sympathy for the people of Israel and, therefore, is less gung-ho to jump on the so-called "anti-imperialist" bandwagon of the American left in giving unconditional support to whatever is opposed to Israel.
Lee goes on the argue that there are disagreements in the IWW about such matters as Cuba or Iraq. He mentions these as examples of where an "agree to disagree" attitude holds sway because of the more important matter of "a different kind of trade unionism" which is actually what unites the IWW. There was a campaign waged against Lee from within the IWW, though you can bet that it gathered people who were not just non-members of the IWW but who oppose the organization. The campaign ignored Lee's work in raising solidarity funds for unionists in Lebanon because the American left DEMANDS total agreement with its goal of "politically correct" dogma. Lee mentions that he is probably in a minority within the IWW, even though his position is "up for debate" in England where he presently lives, "elsewhere in Europe" and in Australia. He even adds, perhaps as a slight, "perhaps even in the USA". I would express it in much stronger terms. The left in the USA is the most juvenile left in the world outside of a totalitarian regime. It always attempts to impose uniformity of opinion within its ranks with an arsenal of insult terms and with hysterical campaigns and conspiracies against any dissidence whatsoever. To make matters worse, despite its crude ideology of "anti-imperialism" it is always willing to try and impose its views on the left in other countries.
The American left is just as mindlessly convinced of its "righteousness" as the American right. When not cheerleading for restrictions of freedom within their own country or arguing for special privileges that almost always translate as not "uplifting the poor" but rather as schemes for getting money for those who "work product" could be defined as "social control"- if they have any product at all- the American left looks at those of us on the left outside of the USA as either benighted savages who have to be educated in the latest "ism" or, worse, as benighted savages whose abstract situation can be used for the furtherance of their own projects.
Lee ends his column with an argument for tolerance within the IWW of views that differ in matters that are NOT related to the goals of the IWW. I suspect that he is realistic enough to know that this will not end the campaign against him.
Also in the latest IW:
There's a report of an IWW gathering in the American Midwest entitled 'Midwest Wobfest". Besides being an encouraging sign of the revival of the IWW, something that real anarchists can be nothing but pleased by it has the very pleasing (to me) note that the gathering finished off "with a barbecue and more socializing". The reason I find this heartening is that you can bet bottom dollar that the barbecue didn't involve "tofu on a stick". One of the reasons why the IWW is worthwhile is that it attempts to go beyond the cultural ghetto of present day anarchism and engage ordinary people-most of whom yes do eat meat and commit dozens of other daily offenses against the political correctness that is fashionable but which has NOTHING to do with anarchism.
To be gross, you will know that anarchism has "arrived" when a hot dog salesman at an anarchist gathering can call out, "get your fried primmies, get your fried primmies here". At that point the primitivists will come to serve a useful purpose.
Friday, August 25, 2006
More on 'Breaking the Spell'
The author of this book finishes Chapter 1 'Breaking Which Spell?' with a section entitled 'Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, is which he basically lays out the goals/synopsis of the book. Like a good philosopher he goes through a series of meanings of the word natural, and the best that can be said for this is that it shows philosophy at its best in not taking a word or phrase at face value. "Natural" is a very misused word in (especially) North American society today.
A few good quotes from this section:
"Miracle-hunters must be scrupulous scientists or else they are wasting their time- a point long recognized by the Roman Catholic Church, which at least goes through the motions of subjecting the claims of miracles made on behalf of candidates for sainthood to objective scientific investigation"
I think the operative phrase here is "the motions" as standards of the miraculous are often bent for "political reasons" in the process of beatification and canonization. Some saints have a harder time getting recognized that others.
Also, concerning arguments for or against the existence of God, he says,
"I decided some time ago that diminishing returns had set in on the arguments about God's existence, and I doubt that any breakthroughs are in the offing, from either side".
He concludes by saying,
"What is this phenomenon or set of phenomena that means so much to so many people, and why-and how- does it command allegiance and shape so many lives so strongly ?"
This will be the focus of his book. The "why" and "how" of religion rather than its truth or falsity.
Thus ends chapter one.
The author of this book finishes Chapter 1 'Breaking Which Spell?' with a section entitled 'Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, is which he basically lays out the goals/synopsis of the book. Like a good philosopher he goes through a series of meanings of the word natural, and the best that can be said for this is that it shows philosophy at its best in not taking a word or phrase at face value. "Natural" is a very misused word in (especially) North American society today.
A few good quotes from this section:
"Miracle-hunters must be scrupulous scientists or else they are wasting their time- a point long recognized by the Roman Catholic Church, which at least goes through the motions of subjecting the claims of miracles made on behalf of candidates for sainthood to objective scientific investigation"
I think the operative phrase here is "the motions" as standards of the miraculous are often bent for "political reasons" in the process of beatification and canonization. Some saints have a harder time getting recognized that others.
Also, concerning arguments for or against the existence of God, he says,
"I decided some time ago that diminishing returns had set in on the arguments about God's existence, and I doubt that any breakthroughs are in the offing, from either side".
He concludes by saying,
"What is this phenomenon or set of phenomena that means so much to so many people, and why-and how- does it command allegiance and shape so many lives so strongly ?"
This will be the focus of his book. The "why" and "how" of religion rather than its truth or falsity.
Thus ends chapter one.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
The Value of The Amateur:
Ancient ages ago there was a campaign against Dimitri Rousoupoulos of 'Black Rose Books' (who at that time also published 'Our Generation'). The accusation was that he was basically a "parasite" who "lived off the movement". Personal differences in Rousopoulos' circle in Montreal gave this accusation credibility. This dispute is long gone, but I find it interesting that nobody raises the same accusation today against some people who OBVIUOSLY "live off the movement" such as "Chucky-Poo" of Infoshop or "Crimeth(INC-TM) who have found a way to extract money from the gullible and avoid work. Both these people and others had personal connections to some of those in the USA who were Dimitri's greatest detractors. There were others such as Jason McQuinn who probably didn't live as a parasite off of their anarchist efforts but who OBVIOUSLY had an independent source of income that allowed them to publish a glossy magazine that would always lose money. Anarchy Magazine could even survive turning the treasury over to a drug addict who robbed them and keep on publishing as if nothing had happened. The NOTHING is what McQuinn wanted to convey as he covered his ass across a continent without ever sinking to rationality and common sense in saying that criminal behavior is wrong- except in his privileged case. God, these people make me sick to my stomach.
But to return to the "value of the Amateur". There is an argument to be made on anarchist principles-ie those principles that "post-leftists" borrow from while denigrating as "obsolete"- that an anarchist propaganda effort should be susceptible of immediate reproduction by those who agree with it. Unlike the glossy magazine of 'Anarchy'. Unlike the complex website of 'Infoshop'. May I say that the latter two are "money-making enterprises" while publications such as ATN which can be reproduced by anybody with a printer are "anarchistic" in a way that the arrogance of "post leftist commercialism" could never be.
Ancient ages ago there was a campaign against Dimitri Rousoupoulos of 'Black Rose Books' (who at that time also published 'Our Generation'). The accusation was that he was basically a "parasite" who "lived off the movement". Personal differences in Rousopoulos' circle in Montreal gave this accusation credibility. This dispute is long gone, but I find it interesting that nobody raises the same accusation today against some people who OBVIUOSLY "live off the movement" such as "Chucky-Poo" of Infoshop or "Crimeth(INC-TM) who have found a way to extract money from the gullible and avoid work. Both these people and others had personal connections to some of those in the USA who were Dimitri's greatest detractors. There were others such as Jason McQuinn who probably didn't live as a parasite off of their anarchist efforts but who OBVIOUSLY had an independent source of income that allowed them to publish a glossy magazine that would always lose money. Anarchy Magazine could even survive turning the treasury over to a drug addict who robbed them and keep on publishing as if nothing had happened. The NOTHING is what McQuinn wanted to convey as he covered his ass across a continent without ever sinking to rationality and common sense in saying that criminal behavior is wrong- except in his privileged case. God, these people make me sick to my stomach.
But to return to the "value of the Amateur". There is an argument to be made on anarchist principles-ie those principles that "post-leftists" borrow from while denigrating as "obsolete"- that an anarchist propaganda effort should be susceptible of immediate reproduction by those who agree with it. Unlike the glossy magazine of 'Anarchy'. Unlike the complex website of 'Infoshop'. May I say that the latter two are "money-making enterprises" while publications such as ATN which can be reproduced by anybody with a printer are "anarchistic" in a way that the arrogance of "post leftist commercialism" could never be.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
I'm way behind on my notes on 'Breaking the Spell'. In chapter One the author attempts to refine his definition of "religion", as any good philosopher would. He hedges his definition by putting "belief" in quotation marks. He says that,
"To put it provocatively, religious belief isn't always belief".
His private definitions await elucidation. The author spends most of the remainder of Chapter One justifying his enterprise of subjecting religion to scientific inquiry, and one could be forgiven for seeing the author as being more than slightly arrogant in his assumption that HIS book is so important that it can not only influence the debate in a significant way but can actually "hurt" religious belief. Seems a little overplayed to me.
On page 16 the author contrasts the "belief" of religious people who think that the path to "peace" lies through religion, theirs' in particular but also some sort of synthesis of the major religions of the world (sort of a presumed intelligent application of fashionable New Age fuzziness) with the FACT that nobody knows if such a "path" would deliver any such thing. He also states that atheists share the same sort of unfounded optimism, though he notes that they are more than willing to see their beliefs "examined" (to the point that it "can become quite tedious", as the author says. This contrasts with the usual religious response to resist vigorously any examination of whether their beliefs actually produce good results.
More later...
"To put it provocatively, religious belief isn't always belief".
His private definitions await elucidation. The author spends most of the remainder of Chapter One justifying his enterprise of subjecting religion to scientific inquiry, and one could be forgiven for seeing the author as being more than slightly arrogant in his assumption that HIS book is so important that it can not only influence the debate in a significant way but can actually "hurt" religious belief. Seems a little overplayed to me.
On page 16 the author contrasts the "belief" of religious people who think that the path to "peace" lies through religion, theirs' in particular but also some sort of synthesis of the major religions of the world (sort of a presumed intelligent application of fashionable New Age fuzziness) with the FACT that nobody knows if such a "path" would deliver any such thing. He also states that atheists share the same sort of unfounded optimism, though he notes that they are more than willing to see their beliefs "examined" (to the point that it "can become quite tedious", as the author says. This contrasts with the usual religious response to resist vigorously any examination of whether their beliefs actually produce good results.
More later...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)