Breaking The Spell: Modern Revolutionary Theory
In representative democracy people abdicate their power to elected officials. The candidates’ stated policies are limited to a few vague generalities, and once they are elected there is little control over their actual decisions on hundreds of issues – apart from the feeble threat of changing one’s vote, a few years later, to some equally uncontrollable rival politician. Representatives are dependent on the wealthy for bribes and campaign contributions; they are subordinate to the owners of the mass media, who decide which issues get the publicity; and they are almost as ignorant and powerless as the general public regarding many important matters that are determined by unelected bureaucrats and independent agencies. Overt dictators may sometimes be overthrown, but the real rulers in “democratic” regimes, the tiny minority who own or control virtually everything, are never voted in and never voted out. Most people don’t even know who they are.
In the name of realism, reformists limit themselves to pursuing “winnable” objectives, yet even when they win some little adjustment in the system it is usually offset by some other development at another level. This doesn’t mean that reforms are irrelevant, merely that they are insufficient. We have to keep resisting particular evils, but we also have to recognize that the system will keep generating new ones until we put an end to it. To suppose that a series of reforms will eventually add up to a qualitative change is like thinking we can get across a ten-foot chasm by a series of one-foot hops.
We know that antiquated styles of protest-marches, hand held signs, and gatherings are now powerless to effect real change because they have become such a predictable part of the status quo. We know that post-Marxist jargon is off-putting because it really is a language of mere academic dispute, not a weapon capable of undermining systems of control. We know that all the infighting, splinter groups and endless quarrels over ephemeral theories can never effect any real change in the world we experience from day to day. We know that no matter who is in office, what laws are on the books, what “ism”s the intellectuals march under, the content of our lives will remain the same. And our boredom is proof that these “politics” are not the key to any real transformation of life.
However, in truth there is nothing more important than politics. NOT the politics of American “democracy” and law, of who is elected state legislator to sign the same bills and perpetuate the same system. Not the politics of the “I got involved with the radical left because I enjoy quibbling over trivial details and writing rhetorically about an unreachable utopia” anarchists. Not the politics of any leader or ideology that demands that we make sacrifices for “the cause.” But the politics of our everyday lives. When we separate politics from the immediate, everyday experiences of individual men and women, it becomes completely irrelevant. Indeed, it becomes the private domain of wealthy, comfortable intellectuals, who can trouble themselves with such dreary, theoretical things. When we involve ourselves in politics out of a sense of obligation, and make political action into a dull responsibility rather than an exciting game that is worthwhile for its own sake, we scare away people whose lives are already far too dull for any more tedium. When we make politics into a lifeless thing, a joyless thing, a dreadful responsibility, it becomes just another weight upon people, rather than a means to lift weight from people. And thus we ruin the idea of politics for the people to whom it should be most important. For everyone has a stake in considering their lives, in asking themselves what they want out of life and how they can get it. But politics often look to us like a miserable, self-referential, pointless middle class/bohemian game, a game with no relevance to the real lives we are living out.
What should be political? Whether we enjoy what we do to get food and shelter. Whether we feel like our daily interactions with our friends, neighbors, and coworkers are fulfilling. Whether we have the opportunity to live each day the way we desire to. And “politics” should consist not of merely discussing these questions, but of acting directly to improve our lives in the immediate present. Acting in a way that is itself entertaining, exciting, joyous – because political action that is tedious, tiresome, and oppressive can only perpetuate tedium, fatigue, and oppression in our lives. No more time should be wasted debating over issues that will be irrelevant when we must go to work again the next day. No more predictable ritual protests that the authorities know all too well how to deal with; clearly, those won’t get us anywhere. Never again shall we “sacrifice ourselves for the cause.” For happiness in our own lives and the lives of our fellows, must be our cause!
Duration : 0:8:45
Tags: 1999, Anarchist, Anarchy, politics, Radical, Revolution, Seattle, Situationist, WTO Posted in
January 12th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
The problem is, …
The problem is, that once you recognize the informational role of prices it becomes apparent that there is nothing else that has been proposed that can do as good a job. Hayek showed that even computer technology cannot solve the problem of resource allocation for the central planner.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Most property is …
Most property is respected and maintained by voluntary agreement. Or at least by habit, and the intervention of the state is rarely required, and even more rarely beneficial to protecting, recovering or punishing violators of property. The problem is that not everyone agrees. Usually this is a temporary condition among the young, the desperately poor and mentally retarded.
I have no wish to defend the sate nor the corporation. The free market might be better without them.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
I’m not disagreeing …
I’m not disagreeing with you that they serve that particular function in that context. But when I say they are arbitrary I mean advocating them as a way of managing resources in general, not just in a market context.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
I see your point. …
I see your point. But my insistence of voluntary labour had more to do with the freedom related with how you do your work, who you choose to work with, when you choose to work, etc. rather than merely being instructed and having minimal input. This really isn’t my main argument though. My main argument is that state protection of private property actually suppresses with individual freedom.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Prices aren’t …
Prices aren’t arbitrary. They are determined by factors such as the cost of production, scarcity, entry into markets, usefulness of substitutes, supply and demand. Prices and the problems they solve or cause are not subject to whim alone. They have an unintended use as signals about relative value and scarcity. This relates again to Hayek’s insight about the need for a mechanism that allows distributed knowledge to be used in economic calculation in order to rationally allocate scarce resources.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
I was arguing …
I was arguing against your statement “People shouldn’t have to work unless they do so voluntarily.” This is a moral claim, which it you seem to think shows some flaw in capitalism.
I think it weakens your critique to point out that the fact that labor is necessary is a brute fact of nature that will be true in any economic or political situation.
The choice not to work is, in a physical sense, the choice to live poorly, or not at all.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Not sure what …
Not sure what you’re arguing here. Of course I’m not opposed to labour. It wouldn’t be in anyone’s self interest not to work at all. I’m opposed to wage labour, not voluntary labour.
What I’m arguing against is the state’s protection of property which promotes disparity in the way resources are allocated.
“Even arbitrarily held property is better stewarded and allocated by prices. ”
Prices themselves are an arbitrary measure to maximize personal profit, not necessarily general utility.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
“I don’t think that …
“I don’t think that someone simply having a large amount of wealth is proof that it was ill-gotten”
It means the police have done a good job protecting their exploitation of workers and stealing of resources.
“You seem ready to condemn all property.”
I’m condemning how it is defended.
“Obvious nonsense when it comes to your toothbrush? ”
I trust that no one I know wants to steal my toothbrush.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
“I do take it as …
“I do take it as given that there is such a thing as justly held property. ”
Not property that must be enforced by the state. Use and entitlement of property should be maintained by voluntary agreements, not force.
“it follows that determining whether any wealth is unjustly gotten or unjustly protected becomes something to be decided on a case by case basis.”
I agree, but perhaps we may disagree on what defines unjustly gotten property.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
POWER TO THE PEOPLE …
POWER TO THE PEOPLE ¡¡¡¡
January 12th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
People by nature …
People by nature require food and fuel to cook it or for heat. Rare are the places these aren’t naturally scarce and thus require labor. It is futile to use shouldn’t, as if this were a moral argument against such facts of nature. Labor produces usable resources from their raw potential in nature. The means of supporting large populations and giving some leisure and luxury even to the poor is driven by the profit motive. Even arbitrarily held property is better stewarded and allocated by prices.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Well I didn’t …
Well I didn’t assume anything, I stated everything outright. But yes.
I do take it as given that there is such a thing as justly held property. From that I think it follows that determining whether any wealth is unjustly gotten or unjustly protected becomes something to be decided on a case by case basis. I don’t think that someone simply having a large amount of wealth is proof that it was ill-gotten. You seem ready to condemn all property. Obvious nonsense when it comes to your toothbrush?
January 12th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
People shouldn’t …
People shouldn’t have to work unless they do so voluntarily. The reason I don’t consider work in a capitalist society to be voluntary is because most people are forced to work in order to have access to a limited amount of resources (that were arbitrarily owned) in order to live.
They aren’t deciding on what work they should do because they feel it’s important, but only end up wasting their lives to give an abstraction a profit.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
“If violence is bad …
“If violence is bad than the attempt to use it to appropriate the justly gotten property of another is also bad. ”
That depends on whether the latter property was actually gotten justly.
“In my original response to you I asked, how you imagined that capitalism necessarily presupposes violence?”
Capitalism requires violence to hold a monopoly over the usage of some resources for the purposes of profit. This is not violence for self defense, but for exploitation, and it is therefore unjust.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
The necessity of …
The necessity of pricing is only relevant in a market economy, which is a direct consequence of private property, which I am opposed to.
And your assertion that it is necessary to prevent wasting scarce resources is questionable, considering the overabundance of useless products, increasing scarcity of vital resources like oil, and the number of people who seem to lack some essentials like food and housing in capitalist societies.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
The squirrel and …
The squirrel and lion make use of the food or land they have and invest in, they don’t arbitrarily own it. A lion doesn’t own land miles away from her home. Neither species has a government which enforces property rights either. You are conflating use of property with private property, and the former wasn’t what I meant when I referred to property in my original comment.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
1) this video is a …
1) this video is a look at what the world would look like without any real authority
2) prices are a tool of allocating reasources, hence those that earn money earn the right to what they buy (their choice)
3) the government, or those with the guns become the tools of allocation in systems without discrete prices, hence in anarchy those with the biggest guns allocate the resources (not our choice) sounds a of a lot more violent then now…
January 12th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
If violence is bad …
If violence is bad than the attempt to use it to appropriate the justly gotten property of another is also bad.
In my original response to you I asked, how you imagined that capitalism necessarily presupposes violence? What economic system do you imagine by contrast does not?
I’m still puzzled as I wait for an answer, because without coercion, I do not see how people will allow the product of their labor to be used by those who have given them nothing they value in exchange. Even apes trade.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
The problem of …
The problem of economic calculation, and the necessity of pricing as a signal of the relative value of a resource is obviously something that you are simply unaware of. It does not apply only to a capitalist society, it is necessary to any attempt to allocate resources, all of which are finite and likely to become scarce if not rationally valued. Go read an F. A. Hayek book and quit asserting as fact what you are simply ignorant about.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
A squirrel trades …
A squirrel trades time now, for something he doesn’t need now, nuts to get him through the winter. A central American mouse gathers grass for hay. Bees collect pollen and with extra effort tun it into honey. Leaf cutter ants likewise gather resources that they use to farm and store food. But we might forget that investment, though natural is beside the point that property is necessary for life. In our case, we need in 20 years to accumulate what will sustain one for 30 to 90 years more.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
“My squirrel …
“My squirrel example already refutes your lion response.”
No, my response applies to both.
“Just because you are not aware of the economic calculation problem doesn’t mean it isn’t a serious problem.”
They are only relevant in a capitaist society.
“Disparity isn’t oppression.”
Disparity enforced by violence is.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
My squirrel example …
My squirrel example already refutes your lion response. Just because you are not aware of the economic calculation problem doesn’t mean it isn’t a serious problem. Without such a mechanism excessive production is just an assumption. History shows that more wealth is created by competitive capitalism than otherwise. Even the poor are better off in these rich countries. Disparity isn’t oppression.
A forum with a 500 character limit is no place for serious debate. Care to take this elsewhere?
January 12th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
“Differences in …
“Differences in wealth do not by themselves signal or lead to exploitation.”
Being part of a market economy, it does. Those with nothing have to sell their lives away.
“Many of the worlds richest have risen from poverty proving property alone doesn’t determine opportunity. ”
Most don’t become successful. There is always a loser in capitalism due to its competitive nature.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
“Lions claim …
“Lions claim territory and squirrels gather and hoard nuts. ”
They defend the resources they use for themselves. They don’t defend arbitrary “investments”.
“The lack of price signals is a problem anti-capitalists have never solved.”
Not a problem anti-capitalists need to worry about.
“This also alone leads to stewardship and the best possible allocation of scarce resources. ”
The best allocation of scarce resources isn’t excessive production and consumption.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Property is natural …
Property is natural. Lions claim territory and squirrels gather and hoard nuts. Resources that you alone can use are fundamentally vital to survival. This also alone leads to stewardship and the best possible allocation of scarce resources. The lack of price signals is a problem anti-capitalists have never solved. Differences in wealth do not by themselves signal or lead to exploitation. Many of the worlds richest have risen from poverty proving property alone doesn’t determine opportunity.