Posts from — December 2008

Social revolutionaries would be wise to learn from the most thoroughly tested system of praxis that has ever existed: biological evolution by means of natural selection.

The most advanced segments of the revolutionary movement - in the U.S., this is largely the non-communist, and non-anarchist (revolutionary) Left (admittedly a very small segment) - should take a hint from the several billion year old process of natural-selection-based, evolutionary-development of life on Earth: in particular that those forces which cannot compete for power, become irrelevant or, to be more blunt, die out. These new advanced-guard leaders, who hail from a sort of third camp of visionaries, strategists, and organization builders, must begin to synthesize the best of the past, and move forward with a bold new evolutionary development in program, message, vision, and organization.

A suggestion to relevant revolutionaries: watch an introductory film to evolutionary biology, read some Darwin, or get your hands on a genetics book. Read metaphorically, the demand for innovation in our movement could not be clearer; the need for bold new solutions and a comprehensive break from the past could not be more urgent.

I find it quite disheartening how quickly the “Left” manages to bring people in, alienate them enough with its complete incompetence, and have them running for the door. There is a particular pattern among some of the smartest young people that should be noted. Many young people are attracted to socialist groups, and then, after experiencing them, turn to anarchist groups for better answers. An similar group of young people are attracted to anarchist groups, and then, after experiencing them, leave and turn to socialist groups. Many end up quitting the Left all together after these experiences. Whether they started with the anarchists (whom at face value seem more democratic) or with the socialists (whom at face value seem more organized and disciplined), many either become overly dogmatic in order to justify their participation in ineffective groups or quit the Left all together.

The people who actually participated in both ideological groups should be commended for going through that synthesis (however unsophisticated or unintentional) all on their own. Some leave anarchist groups in search of discipline and organization; others leave socialist groups in search of empowerment and democracy. In the end, few find either, and as a result, leave the movement all together.

And who can blame them? With no third revolutionary camp in the United States- one which is empowering and democratic as well as disciplined and organized - such a journey could lead anyone to believe the creation of a highly-organized, highly-disciplined, thoroughly-empowering, pro-democracy movement is sadly just an impossibility. After much attempts at committing  themselves to revolution, many resign themselves to carving out a decent human existence in an rotten world.

A new left will undoubtedly rise from the ashes of the old, but that doesn’t make it any less saddening that the components of a new revolutionary Left just aren’t here yet.

Suppose what one cared about most was reforms. Suppose even that one called one’s self a reformist, embracing the term much the way someone who seeks total human emancipation from this rotten system might call themselves a revolutionary. Suppose that the main goal of all of our struggles were to win reforms, to make life more tolerable, to save just a few lives, if saving all were not possible. If that were one’s vision, one’s program, and one’s aim. What would be one’s most effective strategy.

Ironically, the failure of social democracy rests in an inherent flaw in its ideological outlook. To win the type of reforms that would matter: real universal healthcare, an end to war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine; a withdrawal of military bases), universal higher education, etc… one must be a revolutionary. If one is only a social democrat, then one cannot possibly pose enough of a threat to win such strong reforms. This is true for at least two major reasons…

1. Reforms are won through raising the social costs for elites so much, that continuing unjust policies would do more harm for their wealth and power than continuing them would. During the Vietnam war, when professionals and rich people turned against the war they held a press conference, as they thought they were so important of people. What was their reason for turning against the war? Was it because millions were dying and they could no longer morally support the war? Nope. Was it because the U.S. was spending billions of dollars while people suffered at home for lack of social welfare programs? Of course not. The reason given was that we were “losing the next generation”. By that they meant that our streets were in turmoil. Our campuses were being turned upside down. Our military was in revolt. Youth in American were no longer just “antiwar”: they were anti-capitalist; they were feminists; they were anti-racists; they were queer liberationists; they saw their work as in solidarity with revolutions in Vietnam, Cuba, Africa, and elsewhere. By “losing the next generation” they meant that a revolutionary movement so powerful as to threaten the entire elite power structure in of the world capitalist system was rising and gaining in roads in all areas of society. They turned against the Vietnam war because youth were REVOLUTIONARIES, not merely because they demanded reforms or social democracy.

2. People aren’t idiots. They won’t join a movement that seeks to merely reform the status quo - or at least they won’t stay in one for long. People in this country, especially members of our generation, have zero faith in politicians, corporate America, or any of the values or institutions of our nation. They are cynical and reasonably disillusioned about everything they see around them. They want a comprehensive, positive, and hopeful vision of the future. They want to know what life beyond our authoritarian world could look like. Only revolutionaries, armed with a positive vision of a world beyond capitalism, patriarchy, heterosexism, white supremacy, political authoritarianism, and ecological devastation can possibly motivate the youth of this generation to act in large enough numbers and for such an extended period of time so as to get us the long-lasting reforms that are needed. You want to motivate people? Become a revolutionary. You can win your reforms and much more too!

Social democracy has failed over and over again. Those are just a few of the many reasons to call yourself a revolutionary and win others to the movement for total human liberation. So, my question is, if you’d like the entire world, why demand just the table scraps?