October 28, 2009
This new book from AK Press, Mythmakers and Lawbreakers: Anarchist Writers On Fiction combines two of our favorite topics. I’ll definitely have to check that one out. I may even check out Red Planets: Marxism and Science Fiction while I’m at it.
Speaking of @ and sci-fi, Bruce Sterling’s recent post on sci-fi and anarchism brought these two resources to our attention:
June 25, 2009
This piece by Cindy Milstein provides a nice overview of modern anarchist currents while identifying anarchism’s key placement as a idea that can really challenge capitalism and frame the debate as we head towards a postcapitalist future.
Nevertheless, this libertarian form of socialism may well have been ahead of its day in advocating a world of transnational and multidimensional identities, in struggling for a qualitative humanism based on cooperation and differentiation. It is only in the context of globalization that anarchism may finally be able to speak to the times and thus peoples’ hopes. Whether it can fulfill its own aspirations remains to be seen.
June 23, 2009
BoingBoing and Tachyon Publications recently offered up the opportunity for people to ask questions that legendary sci-fi/fantasy author Michael Moorcock would answer. I was an avid reader of Moorcock’s books when I was a kid, and I took an even greater interest in him when I found out he was an anarchist. He wrote an interesting piece on radical politics and sci-fi called Starship Stormtroopers that I recommend to radical sci-fi types. Pebrhaps ironically, one of my favorite quotes also comes from Moorcock: “Heroes betray us. By having them, in real life, we betray ourselves.”
In any case, I pitched a question to Moorcock, and he answered it. I was a bit disappointed to see that he’s not into transhumanist sci-fi at all (hrm, maybe I need to revisit that quote of his again), but it’s good to see he’s still waving the black flag. Here’s my question (and one posed by another) and his responses:
Moorcock has been critical of authoritarian tendencies in science fiction in the past and I’m curious what he thinks about the state of modern sci-fi and if there are any authors he thinks excel or fail here. In particular I’m curious what his take is on the transhumanist genre of science fiction (Ken Macleod, Alistair Reynolds, Iain Banks, Richard Morgan, etc.) and their take on technology and politics. Also, does Moorcock still consider himself an anarchist and how does he view the prospects for a horizontal, non-hierarchical, egalitarian society actually emerging?
I’m not entirely sure about transhumanist fiction. It holds no attractions for me. Assuming I really know what it is. I’ve only really ever been interested in ‘humanist’ fiction. That is, fiction about people. As I’ve said, I don’t read sf for pleasure and very little of it for review, so I’m no expert. I think I’m probably sympathetic to the writers you mention, but personally believe political fiction should be set in at least some version of the here and now. When I want to tackle a political theme I’ll do either a Jerry Cornelius story or something like a Pyat story, making it clear to the reader what I’m doing. To abstract a theme — that is, to put it in the future — seems to move it away from relevance. Even Mieville’s Iron Council would have been more satisfying to me if he had set the story in, say, South America or Central Africa. This was always my argument about sf — that generally, by abstracting it, putting it in some ‘other place’, you lost some of the relevance. That said, I haven’t been vastly interested in technological advance since I was young. I have every sympathy with Banks, Mcleod et al, but to be honest I’ve been no more able to read more than a page of their stuff than I have Heinlein’s or Asimov’s. The moment a spaceship turns up, you’ve lost me. I tried to watch 2001 (the first time in the company of Arthur Clarke) three times and fell asleep all three times. I’ve said this many times, but the moment that big, long spaceship starts to move across the screen, I’m heading for Planet Zzzz. Can’t help it. Have nothing against people who enjoy it, but I really don’t. In fact, in some ways, I’m answering your questions under false pretences in that my preferred default reading for the past fifty years has been mostly fiction about the here and now. My favourite fantasy writers are Jonathan Carroll, Jeff VanderMeer, Jeffrey Ford and China Mieville. I still love Disch, Ballard and Bayley! ‘Light’ reading includes, as said, Wodehouse, Allingham. My favourite relatively recent 20th century literary writers are Aldous Huxley (never read Brave New World, though), Elizabeth Bowen (though I haven’t read her horror fiction!) followed by Elizabeth Taylor, Angus Wilson, Albert Camus, Blaise Cendrars, Colette, Peake I also enjoy Wells, Bennett and Pett Ridge. Favourite contemporaries include Iain Sinclair, Walter Mosley (in all his variety), Don DeLillo, Michael Chabon, Thomas Pynchon. Favourite moderns include Ford Madox Ford, Conrad, Mann, Woolf, Proust. Favourite ‘classics’ include Scott, Dumas, Balzac, Dickens, In other words, there are very few fantastic writers there, although almost all had a fantastic turn of mind.
I’ve often wondered why I had such a facility for writing fantasy, but clearly I did! So I guess I’m saying I’m not the best person to ask about transhumanist science fiction! I answer the anarchist part of the question below.
I remember in the foreword to one of your novels you said you are an optimist. I was wondering, in view of your anarchist sentiments and the current insidious morphing of England (and elsewhere) into a police state, if you still feel optimism and if so, what do you think will improve?
I remain a great optimist, though I have few theories how we’re going to get out of our present predicaments. I remain a Kropotkinist anarchist, which many people will see as unrealistic, but, if I’m unrealistic, so be it. I see my anarchism as a moral position, in that it’s scarcely a realistic political one! But from that position I can very quickly determine what action to take.
I am of course concerned about the erosion of civil liberties in our democracies. There was a wonderful period in the 60s and 70s when many of the basic liberties we now take for granted were established in the UK and US. Since around 1980 a variety of politicians under a variety of political flags have been trying to take those liberties away from us. I’m not as worried about CCTV cameras as the symbol of that erosion since they seem to have been as useful in catching crooks and crooked cops as anything else, at least so far. I am more worried about any extension of police powers, erosion of civil liberties in general and rationales allowing ‘authorities’ further unchecked, unsupervised behaviour. It’s up to us to remain vigilant and aggressively vocal wherever we can be heard. I believe we also have to extend our civil liberties, building on the gains made in that 60s/70s decade. I think we can do it, and that we have to keep a clear eye on what’s happening. Moreover we have to extend other civil rights, including the right to improve healthcare, education and the legal system according to our needs. We can do this by increasing our power at a local level and extending it up to national level. We don’t serve such ambitions by being nostalgic about a past that never really was. Politicians have always been pretty corrupt and need a good press to keep an eye on them. It’s up to us to demand the highest standards from our press and to adapt to every change in the nature of that press so that we’re clear about what’s going on. We need sturdy laws and good law-makers to ensure that we’re as far ahead of the corrupt guys as possible. If we have to take to the streets, flood our politicians’ mailboxes, make it harder for them not to hear us than to hear us and so on, then we must be prepared to spend the time doing it. We can’t afford to be lazy and there’s no point in just sitting around talking and making ourselves feel virtuous. We must feel virtuous from the actions we take not the fingers we wag at others. My argument against ‘liberal’ sf has always been that it can easily be a substitute for real action. And by action I don’t mean sentimental exhortations to our politicians to be nicer, sweeter people. We need sturdy laws and real rights. We have to let the bastards know that not only are they not above the law but that the law demands MORE of them because they have been elected to maintain it, they need to be better than the average person, not worse.
I have to say that I completely disagree with his assertion that once you place a political issue within a future setting you remove it from relevance. To me science fiction has always been about examining modern issues, and taking advantage of those future settings to explore possibilities that the here-and-now modern simply doesn’t allow.
On a side note, sci-fi author and radical Ken Macleod also took note of the question and response.
May 1, 2009
The local (Chicago) group I am involved with, Four Star Anarchist Organization, recently celebrated its one-year anniversary by publishing its guiding Statement of Principles. This is meant to be a short and accessible overview of our politics and goals, without going into detail on strategy or specific ideological points (we’ll address those, as they arise, in other published statements). It’s rather difficult to collectively write political statements –especially short ones — that aren’t laden with jargon or anarchist in-group terminology, but I think we did a decent job. We also made an effort to talk more about what we want, rather than just throwing out a laundry list of things we opposed. Feedback is, of course, appreciated.
Here is the statement in full:
The Four Star Anarchist Organization believes all people must have control over the basic conditions of their lives. Core values of cooperation, equality, and direct democracy guide our struggle toward a free society that transforms our relationships with our neighborhoods, workplaces, culture, the world in which we live, and each other.
- In our families, women, children, and all members must have equality and freedom from violence. We must be free to develop healthy, supportive relationships of our choosing as opposed to living conditions and arrangements resulting from economic, religious, cultural, or government coercion.
- In our neighborhoods, community and economic development must be freely decided by all. All people are entitled to quality housing, safe communities, healthcare, education, and other necessities of life.
- In our workplaces, we must have direct democratic control over the conditions of our labor and effort. Bosses must be replaced by the cooperative decisions and actions of those who work in homes, stores, offices, hospitals, schools, factories, and all other workplaces. This work must be based on fulfilling real needs rather than creating profits for the wealthy.
- In our communities, people must be free to develop and maintain culture–art, music, sport, and food–that reflects the best part of daily life in our society. Justice, respect, and passion can only thrive in a world where our popular culture is both social and cooperative.
- In our world as a whole, we must engage scientific principles and appropriate technologies to ensure a thriving and sustainable planet for all. Most people are experts on their own needs and we are able to solve even the biggest problems when we work together.
Four Star is committed to struggling against the lethal combination of oppression and domination that characterizes life in our society: capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy, environmental devastation, and the state. Our vision is to help develop affinity and empower people by providing direct support to groups, communities, and individuals who are identifying solutions in their lives. To make this happen, we involve ourselves with social movements and promote anarchism, direct democracy, and militant direct action.
April 17, 2009
One of my recurring critiques of the anarchist movement is that it is focused too much in the past, whether that means adhering to the philosophies of thinkers who died a century ago or glorifying and seeking to replicate ad nauseum more recent victories like the Battle of Seattle. In relation to transhumanism, the anarchist movement is certainly either blind — or worse, reactionary, like the primitivists — when it comes to envisioning some of the practical and liberatory uses of technology to create the society we envision. When you factor in that anarchists hope to establish a future horizontalist social system, you would think there would be more effort placed into strategically planning how we go from here to there.
When it comes to the current economic crisis, there’s been a lot of effort to simply explain what’s going on and what the causes were. Even though there’s general acceptance that capitalism is going to be transformed once again, there’s hasn’t been much done to forecast what the outcomes might be. This is important for developing an anarchist strategy to this crisis, as the organizing to take advantage of an economic collapse is going to be quite different from organizing in anticipation of a more repressive yet social democratic state.
Guessing the future is never easy. Most futurists get it wrong, sometimes drastically so. Transformative black swans such as personal computing or the internet are often overlooked entirely. The point of playing the forecasting game isn’t too predict with absolute accuracy, however. Futurists typically assemble different scenarios that represent likely, or at least possible, outcomes, and then use these as a way to think about what *might* occur. This scenario-based approach lets people think about and prepare for the future with some flexibility, and also allows us to identify what some of the common themes are that appear in multiple scenarios and so identify those as (perhaps) more likely, or at least worthy of extra consideration.
With that in mind, I think it’d be a good exercise for anarchists to start writing up different scenarios for how this global economic crisis might play out. Perhaps there are already some scenarios out there that I haven’t stumbled across yet. I don’t have the time to write up a bunch of scenarios in detail myself, but I can at least get the ball rolling by providing some potential scenario seeds. So here are a few short blurbs on what I think some potentials outcomes might be:
Scenario #1) Business As Usual
Obama & Co. work hard to save the system and let the financial sector continue on as is. Rather than nationalization, however, the private sector gets bailed out and remains autonomous while the public takes the losses. This system is not easily sustained, however, so for an indefinite period we see increased economic hardship as the bankers continue to take risks that everyone else pays for, increased military action as the US seeks to dominate and open up new markets, and increased repression as the the state puts down those who get fed up enough to fight back.
The Quiet Coup spells out this scenario a bit:
The first involves complicated bank-by-bank deals and a continual drumbeat of (repeated) bailouts, like the ones we saw in February with Citigroup and AIG. The administration will try to muddle through, and confusion will reign.
Boris Fyodorov, the late finance minister of Russia, struggled for much of the past 20 years against oligarchs, corruption, and abuse of authority in all its forms. He liked to say that confusion and chaos were very much in the interests of the powerful—letting them take things, legally and illegally, with impunity. When inflation is high, who can say what a piece of property is really worth? When the credit system is supported by byzantine government arrangements and backroom deals, how do you know that you aren’t being fleeced?
Our future could be one in which continued tumult feeds the looting of the financial system, and we talk more and more about exactly how our oligarchs became bandits and how the economy just can’t seem to get into gear.
Scenario #2) Economic Collapse
Despite the best efforts of the financial capitalists to save their system, the crisis has already progressed too far, and the house of cards finally comes tumbling down.
Again, The Quiet Coup spelled out how this might look:
The second scenario begins more bleakly, and might end that way too. But it does provide at least some hope that we’ll be shaken out of our torpor. It goes like this: the global economy continues to deteriorate, the banking system in east-central Europe collapses, and—because eastern Europe’s banks are mostly owned by western European banks—justifiable fears of government insolvency spread throughout the Continent. Creditors take further hits and confidence falls further. The Asian economies that export manufactured goods are devastated, and the commodity producers in Latin America and Africa are not much better off. A dramatic worsening of the global environment forces the U.S. economy, already staggering, down onto both knees. The baseline growth rates used in the administration’s current budget are increasingly seen as unrealistic, and the rosy “stress scenario” that the U.S. Treasury is currently using to evaluate banks’ balance sheets becomes a source of great embarrassment.
Under this kind of pressure, and faced with the prospect of a national and global collapse, minds may become more concentrated.
The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump “cannot be as bad as the Great Depression.” This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse than the Great Depression—because the world is now so much more interconnected and because the banking sector is now so big. We face a synchronized downturn in almost all countries, a weakening of confidence among individuals and firms, and major problems for government finances. If our leadership wakes up to the potential consequences, we may yet see dramatic action on the banking system and a breaking of the old elite. Let us hope it is not then too late.
Of course, what happens in the wake of such a collapse is a big question. It might propel us towards a regrouping of capitalism, perhaps steering towards one of the scenarios below. It could create an opening and an awakening that spurs mass action to instill a new, more egalitarian and horizontal system. It could also create an opening for a resurgent fascism (see below). Or it could be Mad Max, who knows.
Scenario #3) Neo “New Deal” Capitalism
Many people are looking back at the New Deal for methods to restore the economy. These usually incorporate initiatives like major public building projects, job and relief programs, nationalizing banks, and increased entitlement. This Alternet article spells out such a plan in detail. While it doesn’t seem that Obama’s current plan is likely to steer this way, there’s a small chance that popular pressure might force some of this into being (and this outcome is possibly preferable to the ruling financial interests than many of the other options).
Scenario #4) Reformed/Social Capitalism
Bowing to public pressure, and pressure from non-risk-taking capitalists, capitalism is forced to re-invent itself, taking on more of a social-democratic/socialist aspect. There’s already a sizable portion of the US population that is amenable to non-revolutionary forms of socialism, such as those found in many western European countries.
This scenario is spelled out a bit in Jump! You Fuckers!:
The choice is not simply between state control and private capitalism, whatever the empire-builders in the state and corporate bureaucracies would like to tell us. The structure of companies has an important, a crucial, bearing on the opportunities for financial speculation. Employee ownership reduces them to zero. A system revised at the level of transnational capital flows must also be reformed at the level of the enterprise. State bailouts should be followed by employee buyouts as a matter of course. It is only a kind of intellectual exhaustion to insist that once the economy has been nursed back to health it should be returned to the supervision of its tormentors.
As Richard Wolff points out, employee ownership and control, with oversight of management being seen as normal part of working life, will make a reformed global financial system more durable, by giving knowledge and economic power to those with an interest in defending it. Financial engineering gives way to, well, to engineering, and other materially productive activities, since owners who are also workers and future pensioners will have little interest in accelerating the balance sheet by selling assets and loading up on debt.
Employee ownership ensures a more even distribution of wealth within companies and in the wider society. And, by offering workers an alternative, it forces companies that remain privately held to pay their employees better. Trade unions need to be given enhanced powers to ensure that workers are able to secure a greater share of the wealth that they, after all, create. They can also play an important role in balancing the inevitable asymmetries of information and expertise that exist between management and the bulk of the workforce.
Kim Stanley Robinson also lists a number of suggestions for pushing things in a pro-science and pro-ecological direction. Global Guerrillas also notes a list of ways to make the capitalist system more resilient (none of which will ever fly).
Scenario #5) Transitional Economy/Servant Capitalism
In this version of the future, the social pressures brought on by new technologies (as we transhumanists are familiar with discussing) will reform capitalism into incorporating more cooperative and eco-friendly elements. This is quite similar to Scenario #4, except that new technologies are the catalysts for change that really push things along (you didn’t think I was going to leave transhumanism out of this discussion, did you?). On a longer scale, this could perhaps be looked at as a transitional phase from current capitalism to the potentials of post-scarcity opened up by nanofabrication and other abundance technologies. Key factors here include increased digital networking and connectivity (bypassing information barriers and mixing cultures), the rise of open source and other challenges to copyright like creative commons, sousveillance (universal surveillance of all by all) and the participatory panopticon, minifacturing and RepRap models, roboticization and artificial intelligence, unlocking proprietary knowledge, and so on.
From After Capitalism:
To find insights into how the current crisis might connect to these longer-term trends we need to look not to Marx, Keynes or Hayek but to the work of Carlota Perez, a Venezuelan economist whose writings are attracting growing attention.
Perez is a scholar of the long-term patterns of technological change. In Perez’s account economic cycles begin with the emergence of new technologies and infrastructures that promise great wealth; these then fuel frenzies of speculative investment, with dramatic rises in stock and other prices. During these phases finance is in the ascendant and laissez faire policies become the norm. The booms are then followed by dramatic crashes, whether in 1797, 1847, 1893, 1929 or 2008. After these crashes, and periods of turmoil, the potential of the new technologies and infrastructures is eventually realised, but only once new institutions come into being which are better aligned with the characteristics of the new economy. Once that has happened, economies then go through surges of growth as well as social progress, like the belle époque or the postwar miracle.
Before the great depression the elements of a new economy and a new society were already available—and encouraged the speculative bubbles of the 1920s. But they were neither understood by the people in power, nor were they embedded in institutions. Then, during the 1930s, the economy transformed, in Perez’s words, from one based on “steel, heavy electrical equipment, great engineering works and heavy chemistry… into a mass production system catering to consumers and the massive defence markets. Radical demand management and income redistribution innovations had to be made, of which the directly economic role of the state is perhaps the most important.” What resulted was the rise of mass consumerism, and an economy supported by new infrastructures for electricity, roads and telecommunications. During the 1930s it wasn’t clear which institutional innovations would be most successful (fascism, communism and corporatism were all contenders), but after the second world war a new model of state regulated capitalism emerged characterised by suburbs and motorways, welfare states and macroeconomic management, which underpinned postwar growth.
Seen in this light the great depression was both a disaster and an accelerator of reform. It helped to usher in new economic and welfare policies in countries like New Zealand and Sweden that later became the mainstream across the developed world. In the US it led to banking reform, the New Deal and the GI Bill of Rights. In Britain depression, as much as war, led to the creation of the welfare state and the NHS.
One implication of Perez’s work, and of Joseph Schumpeter’s before her, is that some of the old has to be swept away before the new can find its most successful forms. Propping up failing industries is in this light a risky policy. Perez suggests that we may be on the verge of another great period of institutional innovation and experiment that will lead to new compromises between the claims of capital and the claims of society and of nature. In retrospect these periodic accommodations are as integral to capitalism as financial crises—indeed it’s only through crisis and institutional reform that capitalism adapts to a changing environment and rediscovers the moral compass that is so vital for markets to work well. The late 19th century accommodation came in response to fear of revolution and gave us state pensions, universal schooling, trade unions and universal suffrage, putting paid to the ideals of 19th-century liberalism. A second accommodation came 50 years later out of depression and war, and made variants of social and Christian democracy the norm in every rich country, pushing up states’ share of GDP and introducing visible hands to guide the markets’ invisible one.***
If another great accommodation is on its way, this one will be shaped by the triple pressures of ecology, globalisation and demographics. Forecasting in detail how these might play out is pointless and, as always, there are as many malign possibilities as benign ones, from revived militarism and autarchy to stigmatisation of minorities and accelerated ecological collapse. But the new technologies—from high speed networks to new energy systems, low carbon factories to open source software and genetic medicine—have a connecting theme: each potentially remakes capitalism more clearly as a servant rather than a master, whether in the world of money, work, everyday life or the state.
Scenario #6) Global Government/Social Democracy
Thanks to globalization, capitalism no longer has borders and the world’s various state economies are increasingly intertwined. At the same time, communications and travel technologies have broken down cultural barriers and barriers to information exchange like never before (arguably spurring Islam’s current war against Western modernism). In this model, the threat of a world-wide economic collapse spurs a coalition of nation states to install a set of new, more empowered, global regulatory bodies, replacing the UN and structures of the past with the framework for a new gloval government. Over time, as this institution becomes more adept at responding to an increasingly globalized world population, it accumulates powers and responsibilities, superceding nation states in relevance. While a One world Government has generally been consigned to libertarian conspiracy theories in the past, the current situation does make it a possibility more than ever before.
From After Capitalism
Capitalism’s crisis is, of course, a global one, and has shown up the limitations of the global institutions that took shape half a century ago. China is set to become a dominant player in a strengthened IMF and World Bank, followed by India and Brazil. The G20 is edging out the G8 as the club that matters. And waiting in the wings are possible new institutions to police and manage carbon, to handle everything from global migration to the regulation of biotechnology, alongside less formal institutions to help the world’s public to engage, from e-parliaments to global campaigning platforms like Awaaz, an online newspaper.
What a global social democracy is most likely to be about, of course, is serving as a sort of “collective capitalist” force.Don Hamerquist sums this one up nicely in a response on the Three-Way Fight blog:
This is where Global Social Democracy enters the scene. The general capitalist class interest in stability and order is undermined by competing requirements for achieving it in certain national economies. This cannot be resolved by some laissez faire process any more than any other of the current issues of political economy can. It requires a state intervention, but one that will incorporate concession as well as repression. Who will decide which squeaky wheels are to get the grease? Will it be the Greek students threatening to ignite the spirit of ’68, or the bedraggled autoworkers of Michigan? An EU response will go in one direction, an U.S response will go in another direction, but ultimately there is far too little flexibility to grease everything.
This is going to be approached by some kind of global social democracy designed to materially buttress capitalist hegemony at points of stress. The material side is quite straightforward, even if it is currently difficult to see what instrumentalities will make it work. There is a less obvious ideological side that I can see working, not by distributing benefits, but by presenting a posture of willingness to do so that is being obstructed by social forces operating out of narrow self interest. This, then, will constitute the mythical ‘good’ capitalism which the metropolitan left has traditionally supported in its benighted way as an alternative to presenting its own plan of revolutionary reconstruction.
Scenario #7) Resurgent Fascism
Lest we forget that this is not just a struggle between capitalism and a more egalitarian and horizontal society, we must acknowledge the possibility of a renewed fascism. Many of the original forms of fascism grew out of the economic crises that gripped the world in the 1920s and 30s, as angered proletarians sought scapegoats and change and were seduced by appeals to populism, nationalism, and authoritarianism. We are likely to see quite a few angry prole sin the years to come, and it is likely than many of them will be seduced by the extreme right. Navigating the Storm offers one framework for this kind of resurgent fascism could play out. We’ve already seen a growing fracture in the Republican Party in recent months as party leaders first scorned and tried to distance themselves from extreme ideologues in their movement like Rush Limbaugh, but were then forced to apologize and and make amends when their large reactionary and racist mass base erupted in response.
These scenario seeds are just a start. It would be nice to see some of them fleshed out in more detail, if anyone feels up to the task. These scenarios are not, of course, even mutually exclusive — one outcome could easily lead to another. Hopefully these will at least be in some use for radicals who are seeking to strategize about what our response to this crisis may be. Preparing for an economic collapse in the near future, for example, is going to require a much different orientation than settling in for a long, protracted death-ride of neoliberal capitalism over the next few decades and a subsequent transition to social capitalism. We can’t predict which way things will go, but we can choose the strategies and tactics that will serve us best no matter which of these outcomes (or something else entirely) come to pass.
April 3, 2009
Antisocialite and I haven’t been very good lately in producing original content for this blog, but I intend to change that in the near future. Partly it’s because I have a lot of stuff floating around in my head that I’d like to crystalize and organize. Also, given both the global economic crisis and the growing relevance of transhumanism, more than ever we need to be thinking about where the future is going to take us.
A couple of weekends ago, the Four Star Anarchist Organization in Chicago helped put together a day long summit on the global economic crisis and how anarchists should address it. The nature of the economic games capitalists play make it difficult for everyday folks to grasp what’s going on, much less figure out how to respond to it. But what we’re looking at here is a crisis in capitalism that is still playing out — the sort of crisis that radicals like us dream of taking advantage of, to exploit and overturn things and establish a more egalitarian society. With no developed alternative infrastructure, however, we are not in a good position to seize on this weakness … but that doesn’t mean we should sit placidly along for the ride. So I plan on posting some notes here both to clarify my own understanding of the situation and to work out some ideas for effectively responding.
Also on my agenda is to clarify some stances and positions that I think anarcho-transhumanists should be making. The transhumanist movement has seen some interesting developments recently, and I think it’s both prudent and necessary to start establishing a left-anarchist pole within that movement to distinguish from both the right-wing/libertarian/corporate elements and the pro-state technoprogressives. This will hopefully be an ongoing project that will draw in some more libertarian socialist types and create some dialogue.
November 7, 2008
Not sure who wrote this message below, but I found it on an anti-racist activist list. It matches a lot of my own thoughts, so I’m posting it in full.
Yes, We Can and No, He Can’t:
Why I Cannot Rejoice at Obama’s Victory
Words can scarcely express the way it feels to see an African-American elected President. For a member of a group that has been marginalized and oppressed throughout the entire history of this country to suddenly emerge in its highest office is a powerful image, one that reverberates with waves of emotion. It is a feeling of awe, of deliverance, and of triumph. Today, those who voted for this man — many themselves members of disenfranchised minorities — are feeling something else as well: the feeling of being powerful, a feeling being experienced by many of them for the first time in their lives.
At the same time, people of color, students, workers, immigrants, and others whose votes proved decisive in this election, comprise the majority of this country’s population. Among them, most perform functions without which the infrastructure of the United States would undergo immediate and total collapse. There is not a force in this country, nor in the world, that could stop them from achieving their objectives were they to band together. This is real power, and it is power that exists with or without Barack Obama.
There is a reason that the essential message of the Obama campaign has resonated with this electorate unlike any other. This message — that it is the struggling masses, rather than the self-appointed elites of this country, who bear the ultimate control over its destiny – rings true. But for too long, this control has been willingly surrendered.
Barack Obama wants the masses to feel powerful, to feel that our voices are heard and acted upon. But he wants us to place our ultimate faith not in ourselves, but in the institutions of the state, the very institutions that have brought us more than two centuries of war, exploitation, bigotry, colonialism, and an ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor. Doing so would allow our hopes and dreams for a brighter future to be blunted, deflected, and diverted through channels that reduce their potential threat to the established order to the barest minimum.
The election of Barack Obama will not stop the next innocent black man from being gunned down by police in cold blood. It will not make it more likely that a black man will go to college than to prison. It will not put an end to wars of economic conquest. It will not stop the wealthy CEOs responsible for the country’s financial collapse from being rewarded for their recklessness while the rest of us bear the tragic consequences. These phenomena are caused by the very structure, by the very foundations of American power itself. These are forces that Barack Obama is powerless to stop.
Throughout history, elites have sought to mute resistance and dissent by ruling subject populations through proxies drawn from their own ranks. These have included the caciques of colonial Latin America, the maharajas and nawabs of the British Raj in India, and arguably, the current government of Iraq. Such proxy rulers, while frequently motivated by power and material gain, have sometimes acted, as they have seen it, in furtherance of a different agenda: a genuine desire to improve the lives of their constituents by assuming limited control over the mechanisms of their own oppression. That such motivations did occasionally exist is illustrated by the example of Tupac Amaru II, an Incan cacique of colonial Peru who abandoned the trappings of limited rule as a proxy of the Spanish governor to ignite a massive indigenous uprising in 1780, ultimately paying with his life.
While the true motivations of Barack Obama may never be known with certainty, his impact upon the popular imagination, and in turn, upon social movements guided by that imagination, is obvious. The overwhelming majority of progressive-minded individuals and organizations in the United States, whose ranks had been swelled and momentum profoundly enhanced by eight years of repressive rule by the increasingly unpopular George W. Bush, have granted their unqualified support to Obama. This unprecedented level of emotional investment in presidential politics on the part of progressives has come at the expense of a declining interest in other programs of the left, such as activism in opposition to the Iraq war. Under the Obama administration, there is a very real danger that the proactive efforts of social justice movements to bring about real and lasting change – the kind that governments cannot and will not deliver – will all but grind to a halt.
Further, while the election of the first African-American to the presidency will undoubtedly bolster the self-esteem of people of color, consistently eroded by four centuries of oppression, this benefit comes at the risk of reinforcing the dangerous myth of an American meritocracy. The vast disparities of income, of access to essential services, and indeed, of access to the means to achieve social mobility, remain firmly in place. Obama’s election will even be used by some to argue that race has ceased to be an issue in this country, throwing up new barriers to the civil rights movement that is every bit as necessary today as it was in the 1960s.
Among the factors paving the way for Obama’s meteoric rise were the deep psychological need for most Americans to elect a candidate as nearly opposite George W. Bush as possible, and the fact that John McCain clearly represented a continuation of the same disastrous policies. Scholars will debate the exact combination of deciding factors for years to come, but most will agree that this was the first election in American history in which there was even a remote possibility that a black man could win the presidency.
Notably, much of Obama’s support has come from affluent whites. With a nation clamoring for change with increasing fervor, ruling class elites have found their dominance serious threatened for the first time since the 1960s. The old order could not ensure its long-term survival without presenting the public with the appearance of change. The more dramatic this apparent change, the more dissent would be quelled and the teeming masses pacified. The more new and different a face the ruling elite could present to the world, the more the energy of its opposition could be redirected through channels that leave the fundamental structures of an unjust system wholly intact. Utilization of such state-sanctioned avenues for voicing dissent results in mere token reforms which deceive the masses with the illusion of genuine progress. At this unique historical moment, nothing could better serve the long-term interests of the white ruling class elite than the election of a black man to the presidency. Willingly or not, Barack Obama has become the new face of the very system he claims to oppose.
For countless African-Americans, to see Obama elected is to possess, for the first time, the feeling that their country’s chief executive — despite being, like most other candidates past and present, an Ivy League-educated millionaire — can actually relate to their unique experience as a constituency that arrived here in chains, and for whom, four centuries later, true equality remains elusive. There is an underlying assumption that this shared experience will play a major role in the President’s forthcoming policy decisions, that as a black man, he would do everything in his power to finally end the ongoing systematic oppression of other African-Americans. For many of his non-black supporters, the implication is similar: that as a man who, by virtue of his skin color, is personally subject to the most longstanding and pervasive form of bigotry in this country, he will be inclined to not only seek justice for his own, but for all the marginalized people of the country. Supporters of all races likewise tend to assume that this benevolence will extend to the foreign sphere, despite many sharp indicators to the contrary. There will be no administration in American history of which progressives will be more forgiving.
As Condoleeza Rice demonstrated by publicly shopping for thousand-dollar-plus shoes while bodies were still floating in New Orleans’ Lower Ninth Ward, a shared experience is no guarantee of solidarity. Like Tupac Amaru II, we must recognize that no form of participation in a system that is explicitly designed to perpetuate social, political, and economic inequality can ever be an instrument for meaningful change. These institutions cannot be reformed from without or from within; they can only be constructed anew, with justice, equality, and direct democracy as their cornerstones. It was only a mass civil rights movement that opened the doors to the limited penetration of African-Americans into the ruling class and institutions of power in this country, and it will require another mass movement, even more powerful than the last, to fundamentally alter the dynamics of power for the betterment of all people.
Barack Obama is not the embodiment of our hopes and dreams. He is a man who, irrespective of his intentions, will serve only to present the same injustices to the world, at home and abroad, with a smiling new face. We cannot allow our new President and his administration, nor any other, to serve as the vehicle for our pursuit of justice, regardless of what breadcrumbs of justice they may deliver to us. We must not allow our righteous anger to be diverted through channels that leave the institutions of our oppression intact, and those who profit from it unaccountable. We must not relent in our struggle.
Barack Obama is right about one thing: Yes, we can. We can change this country, and we can change this world. This change will not be ushered in through the ballot box, and it will not come from superimposing a new face on the old order. It is time to stop celebrating, and start organizing. Barack Obama will not bring change for us; we must bring it for ourselves. Yes, we can.
November 4, 2008
July 29, 2008
From Anarchist Studies Volume 16, Number 1 2008 – By CHARLES THORPE AND IAN WELSH
The authoritarian and ecologically destructive juggernaut of state-supported big science and technology in the twentieth century understandably fostered a deep pessimism and suspicion towards science and technology among many in the green, anarchist, and libertarian left milieu. This reaction has been crystallized in the “anti-civilization” primitivist anarchism of John Zerzan. In opposition to this drift towards primitivism, this paper argues that a vision of a liberatory and participative science and technology was an essential element of classical anarchism and that this vision remains vital to the development of liberatory political theory and praxis today. The paper suggests that an anarchist model of science and technology is implicit in the knowledge-producing and organizing activities of new social movements and is exemplified in recent developments in world, regional, and local social forums.
This article develops an anarchist political theory of science and technology that highlights the latent forms of anarchist praxis present within a diverse range of social movement engagements with contemporary techno-science. We argue that there is a marked congruence between contemporary social movement engagement and the key concepts and principles underpinning anarchist writing on science and technology from the nineteenth century onwards.
By exploring the tensions and ambivalences in established anarchist approaches towards science (cf. Restivo 1994) we demonstrate that classical nineteenth-century anarchism emphasised the centrality of socially accountable science within libertarian thinking. Elements of this tradition are discernible in the emphasis on liberatory technics by twentieth-century writers such as Lewis Mumford, Murray Bookchin, and Paul Goodman. This later work on liberatory technics developed during a period dominated by state-sponsored big science. The twenty-first century, however, is dominated by neo-liberal ascendancy characterised by the early transfer of “near market” science to the private sector. This transition to a neo-liberal era requires clarification of, and debate on, the relationship of anarchism to science. Further, such debate must address the global movement milieu in which traditionally conceived social movements combine with network movement actors to form an antagonistic and proactive social force emphasising autonomy.
Important features of this movement milieu are unqualified opposition to: the alignment of capitalist and state forces through global institutions such as the World Bank and IMF; the military sequestration of public corporate scientific research and development (R&D) budgets; the imposition of “market solutions” across all areas of “public provision” and the pursuit of modernisation agendas which simultaneously degrade ecological and human integrity. Global social movements also challenge the prevailing cognitive order by defining key knowledge stakes regarded as vital to “the other worlds that are possible”. The recognition and respect for difference is a central part of these linked political and epistemological objectives raising significant challenges for conceptions of science based on universal laws. Key questions explored here are what does the philosophical and political tradition of anarchism have to contribute to such contemporary challenges to dominant social-epistemic orders and is there a theory of science embedded in anarchist political thought that is relevant and applicable to contemporary struggles?
Given the continuing importance of science to modern states and the neo-liberal “global knowledge economy”, a critical anarchist theory of science and technology needs to overcome the limitations within various forms of “primitivism” exemplified by the writings of John Zerzan (1996). Zerzan’s criticisms of alienation in modern life and of the nihilism of contemporary technological culture are trenchant. But, from this critique, Zerzan leads his readers to a quasi-religious ideal of a return to a wild Eden (cf. Aufheben, 1995). Primitiism neglects the anarchist intellectual tradition examined here.
Rather than a return to simpler technics, we argue that the ideas and the epistemic practices of contemporary social movements constitute the basis for non-totalising forms of scientific knowledge and scientific practices resonating with anarchist emphases on decentralisation, horizontal structures, and diversity. This emergent anarchist or proto-anarchist politics of science and technology is necessary to transcend the limits of contemporary state-corporate science which has reached a “plateau” (Mumford 1934/1972) encountering “paradigm limits”, which can only be transcended through alternative epistemic practices consistent with the autonomous self-organization of society.
We deliberately re-emphasise the potential for the socially shaped and negotiated “democratic technics” advanced by Mumford (1964). As Bookchin argued, resistance to authoritarian science and technology makes the formulation of an alternative liberatory conceptualization of science a critical political task. Indeed, whilst many contemporary social struggles are perceived as against established science, they also contain liberatory promise and alternative epistemic practices and priorities. Such struggles hold out the promise of a liberatory science with an affinity toward anarchist modes of self-organization as an increasingly diverse range of citizens learn to combine observational, recording, and analytical capacities constituting a potential for proactive grassroots initiatives. An anarchistic organization of science requires such decentralized, network-ordered and bottom-up cognitive and material structures consistent with the political of anarchist(ic) social freedom.
Read the rest of this entry »
July 23, 2008
THE PREFIGURATIVE ORGANIZATION
A Presentation by Norwegian Anarchist Kim Keyser
WHEN: Saturday, July 26th at 8:00PM
WHERE: UE & IWW Union Hall
37 S. Ashland Ave.
Chicago, IL 60607
Kim Keyser is an activist from the emerging anarchist movement in Norway, the so-called “social democratic paradise.” He will address the question “How can we reflect the future we want in our present work?” The presentation will touch upon subjects such as direct democracy, direct action, workers councils, anarchist organizing, and involvement in social movements.
For more information, please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
This event is co-sponsored by the Four Star Anarchist Organization and Chicago IWW.