Posts from — January 2009

“One way or another, Neo, this war is going to end. Tonight, the future of both worlds will be in your hands… or in his.” - The Oracle, Matrix Revolutions

“It is necessary, with bold spirit and in good conscience, to save civilization. The bare and barren tree can be made green again. Are we not ready?” - Antonio Gramsci

The leaders of my generation are quickly coming to a sobering realization: the actions they take within the next few years will determine whether future generations will be alive to enjoy the gift of life on earth.

I often think how special a gift it is that I’m alive. Despite the improbability of my existence, given that my life could have ended long ago; that my life might have not even begun - or that my parents might have birthed a different person; that if my parents, or grandparents, or great-parents, or any one of my ancestors had not existed, then I would not have; that human history could have went in any of an infinite directions which would have prevented my birth; that humanity might not have evolved the way it did; that just a few less or a few more mutations in our ancestral species would have meant humans would have not existed; that any removing any single species form which we evolved - all the way back to single-celled organisms - would have meant we wouldn’t be here; that we exist on a habitable planet, the only planet we thus know of on which life can be sustained; and that the universe developed in such a way that this entire process could begin; despite all of this, I am here. This several-billion year chain of events is, to say the least, quite humbling. It is that humbleness that should lead us to end global warming: to save humanity, to protect the environment, and to ensure the survivability of the only life-bearing planet we know of. This is our generational task.

Gary Bauer, the archconservative candidate for the GOP nomination for the presidency in 2000 bluntly described how he sees political struggles in the United States: “We are engaged in a social, political, and cultural war. There’s a lot of talk in America about pluralism. But the bottom line is somebody’s values will prevail. And the winner gets the right to teach our children what to believe.”

The only problem with the truth value of this statement is that it doesn’t go far enough. As the Oracle in The Matrix said, one way or another this war is going to end. We are engaged in what can only be described as a war. And the stakes are higher than they’ve ever been before. If we win, we can usher in a revolutionary democratic, participatory economic, feminist, intercommunalist, and ecologically just society. Should we lose, it will quite literally mean the deaths of millions and the displacement of billions, with increased levels of genocide, war, poverty, hunger, disease, and all manner of social ills on a yearly basis. While this dichotomy is overly-simplified, our choice is quite literally utopia or dystopia.

Which one do you want?

“The anarchist movement is filled with people who are less interested in overthrowing the existing oppressive social order than with washing their hands of it. This concern with ensuring the passage of ones soul to anarchist heaven can range from the obsessive efforts to purify ones personal habits to the sectarian refusal to join any group or organization that shows any sign of being a product of this society.” - Chris Day,The Historic Failure of Anarchism

If you call yourself an “anarchist”, or a “marxist”, or a “socialist” or a “communist” in the United States today, you will likely get some very strange looks. Many people, quite reasonably, will assume you are joking. Upon finding out that you are quite serious, all manner of unkind thoughts will come to the forefront of people’s minds: chaos, dictatorship, anarchy, terror, gulags.

Putting aside the behavior of American anarchists in particular, as epitimized in Chris Day’s quote above, the fact that few leftists have moved beyond these marginal labels, to more general ones such as “revolutionary”, signifies a profound lack of strategic thinking within the self-proclaimed “radical left”. As I’ve written about before, this very (individualistic) commitment to personal political identity over movement victory, provides strong weight to the argument that most of the people call themselves by such labels simply aren’t interested in winning. The dress, language, and habits of such individuals often only further prove the point.

Critical leftists have often pointed out that the collective sanity of a leftist group is often proportionate to the social power that that groups actually holds (their numbers, the size of their periphery, their place in the movement and society, etc…). It is far easier to value the “perfect line” on the Bolshevik or Chinese revolutions (rather than attempt to pull out strategic and useable lessons), or on the issue of “state power”, or this or that political question if your group is small compared to in the thousands and quickly growing.

And yet this purity of politics seems to be what many radicals still focus on. As one example, the Russian, German, Spanish, Nepalese, and Bolivarian revolutions have shown that the issue of state power is more complicated than anarchist or marxist theory would admit. Sometimes states are rendered irrelevant by widespread non-cooperation and the rise of popular institutions; sometimes they are taken through force; and sometimes they are taken through elections. Anarchists have dismissed potential strategies and routes to political power out of hand, as if to accept viable paths which use the state apparatus would some how make them immoral or corrupt. While they are right to be cautious over the propensity of leftist governments to slip into undesirable regimes, often ruled by a new class of coordinators, managers, planners and party bosses, they are irresponsible to believe (and especially to spread the belief), that victory is always possible without taking state power / using a state- whether through force, the creation of a new revolutionary state, or parliamentary means. Marxists on the other hand - every time they have ever gained political power - have systematically failed to focus on the need to build up the ability of the people to self-manage their own affairs, through council democracy in workers’ and consumers’ councils. Often they’ve actually done the opposite. To deny that this comes from their theory of the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, would be foolish. The history of revolutions show that commitment to purity of politics, compared to constantly challenging our assumptions, biases and dogma, will cloud our ability to successfully wage a revolutionary struggle for power.

Another example where leftists remain trapped in a dogmatic mental prison is the issue of which oppression is “central” or which is the “base” of society. Marxists, and some anarchists, say that class and economics is central, and that all other oppressions stem from this “material cause”. Many anarchists believe that relations of authority are central, and that combating authoritarianism and dismantling the state will do away with our collective problems. Likewise, radical feminists think gender is central, and revolutionary nationalists think culture and nation are central. All of these tendencies have failed to push their theories further and realize that our society is a complex totality whereby class, gender/sexuality, culture, and authority relations are all centrally important to human existence, as well as to the reproduction of oppression. Without taking all of these areas seriously - in theory and practice - we will fail to successfully win freedom.

So to end, I’d challenge all leftists, if they are committed to rebuilding the left, to abandon self-marginalizing labels and to free their minds from unuseful and uncritical dogma, both of which hold us back and limit our potential as revolutionaries. Its the only way to win.

note: also see Matthew Smucker’s “The Story of the Righteous Few“

The purpose of this piece is simple: either your main goal is to be perceived as a righteous individual or you want to help build a righteous movement that will eventually achieve power in society… you can’t have both. I’ve seen countless young revolutionaries (including myself) hold hard line positions, jump down people’s throats who disagree, and defend their positions to the bitter end, as if the loss of  an argument means the invalidation of the revolutionary’s personal identity. It is an instance of politics tied to personal (radical) identity. Arguments lost or people unmoved represent a blow to our identity as a radical.

Successful organizers, on the other hand, understand that people radicalize in a variety of ways. Just when someone seems to be shifting left on a position, they might revert to their previous position (or even a more reactionary one). People shift their positions at different paces too. Some people radicalize quickly, while others radicalize slowly. Some people are “natural radicals” in that they value critical thinking which leads them to progressive answers, while others by virtue of their socialization must be pressed issue-by-issue, until the big picture is clear in their minds and they abandon past views. One thing is certain of all these leftward shifters: getting yelled at, berated, called out, or attacked will not speed their politicalization. In many cases, this halts it (sometimes permanently).

It is logical that revolutionaries, young revolutionaries in particular, feel a deep emotional connection with their analysis of society. We’ve taken the red pill. We’ve seen the bigger picture. We’ve connected all the dots. It is vital, however, that we elevate the need to win over the need to constantly win arguments and be perceived as being “right”. Our very struggle makes us righteous. Our positions make us correct. But righteousness doesn’t necessitate victory in every argument; it necessitates victory over the systems of exploitation and oppression which make us all less than human. The latter is important, the former is essentially a means to an end.

This doesn’t mean that having a correct analysis of a given issue isn’t important or that we should retreat from the centrality of principled politics in order to maintain unity on every issue. One issue that comes to mind is Palestine. I know of some radicals who believe the issue to “too alienating” to organize around. Not only is this the pinnacle of unprincipled politics, but it is also strategically bankrupt. When we retreat from political analysis, we make it harder to make the connections with those we recruit, and, as a result, possibly slow their radicalization. With Palestine in particular, not only is such a retreat unprincipled, it is also strategically idiotic. A victory of the Palestinians against US-Israeli imperialism and genocide will be an enormous victory for humanity, providing inspiration to all those who fight against our rotten system. This is one of the main reasons why the Israeli and US governments refuse to allow the existence of a Palestinian state. Like Vietnam, Palestine represents the “threat of the good example”. If Palestine is able to extract itself from the imperialist system, like Venezuela for example, then other countries will ask “why can’t we?” This domino effect of national liberation and socialist movements, both of which are aimed at weakening US hegemony, is one of the greatest fears of US elites. From their position, better to wipe the Palestinians off the map, than provide the tiniest bit of inspiration to liberation movements.

What I’m arguing isn’t how much we organize or don’t organize around a particular issue - that’s another debate. I’m saying that the more controversial an issue (and as a result, the more we’re likely to look like lunatics if we start screaming), the more calm, cool, and collected we need to appear. We need to present principled arguments in language that people resistant to our arguments can understand and relate to. While some people radicalize quickly, we’re making a long-term investment by keeping our calm around issues they disagree with. In terms of winning power around the world, what matters most is the populations eventual allegiance to the progressive movement, not their immediate attainment of perfect analysis.

So I ask you: do you want to be right? or do you want to win?

I haven’t had the chance to sit down and do some real blogging in so long. So here are some updates…

I wanted to blog about some movies I’ve seen recently, but haven’t yet had the chance. In particular: Valkyrie, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, The Day the Earth Stood Still, and Che (I haven’t gotten a chance to see Milk yet). In case I don’t get around to blogging about them, I’d definitely recommend all of them, Valkyrie and Che in particular.

Che is a 4 hour film (it will be a two-part film when its in theaters again this year), that follows his life, first with the victorious guerilla war in Cuba, and then with the unsuccessful guerilla war in Bolivia. I saw it in a gigantic theater in New York City in December with a few hundred other people. Very powerful film!

And as I’m a sucker for love films, especially ones staring Gaspard Ulliel professing his love for another man, Paris, je t’aime (”Paris, I love you”, 2006) was quite good as well.

I’m currently reading Speaking Treason Fluently: Anti-Racist Reflections from an Angry White Male by Time Wise, and The German Revolution: 1917-1923 by Pierre Broué. I plan on doing a thorough review of the latter, but that will take me a couple of months, as its almost 1,000 pages long, and will take me a fair amount of time to do it justice. So far I’d definitely recommend it to others interested in the fascinating history of the German Revolution, and the failures that laid the groundwork for the Nazi takeover of Germany. I’ll undoubtedly be reading his The Revolution and the Civil War in Spain: 1934-1939 soon after I’m done with this one.

I’ve been reading a bunch by Darwin as well, and tons of stuff on materialism, biology, and complementary holism. I’ve already received several messages from people who can’t seem to find the usefulness of Darwin as he relates to politics. Marketeers quote Darwin to apologize for horrible atrocities and that means he’s off limits? Strange reasoning. Not going to stop me. Perhaps my words aren’t yet precise enough. If that’s the case, hopefully that will improve (evolve?) with practice.

Finally I don’t have the emotional energy to write much about it now, but my heart goes out to the Palestinians, and all those who are struggling with them. The crimes of the US-backed Israeli government must be halted as soon as possible. We much work to bring about peace by forcing our government to divest from the Israeli state and pressure it into a genuine peace process.