I just finished watching the movie The Wobblies which I really enjoyed. One of the more ironic points that I noticed was the propaganda tactics used against the IWW and how these tactics have been repeated throughout the 20th century and still haunt us today.I had to really think about the message and internal nature of the IWW to figure out what was so threatening to the status quo. It is hard to see it unless one looks at other organizations and movements that were hunted down and criminalize out of existence in the last 90 years. Two other organizations that came to mind was he Black Panthers and American Indian Movement (AIM).
Some would argue that the latter two were civil rights inspired where the IWW was a labor movement. I disagree, there were many civil rights issues in the IWW movement, including Free Speech, the Right to Assemble and demand for humane treatment both in the work place and living conditions.
What do, 5,000 Bisbee Arizona copper miners loaded into boxcars in the summer and hauled 170 miles to Columbus, New Mexico and dump in the desert and AIM have in common? I would say a whole lot! And what might Huey Newton and Bobby Seale have in common with Big Bill Haywood, Daniel De Leon, Eugene V. Debs and Mary Harris Jones "Mother Jones" other than being prosecuted, and vilified for their beliefs.
So what make these groups such a threat? The short list is this:
- Non-centralized leadership that can not be cajoled into meeting the establishment half way.
- Internal identity, where each member see the other members as an extension of him or herself.
- Internal mutual aide structures, that allows the members to sustain themselves when they are in direct confrontation with authority.
- Directly challenge the illusion that power comes from the top down and is granted by the benevolence of the establishment.
did and can they teach us about ourselves?Are we really so easy to scare into compliance or are we not at the end of our rope yet? Are we afraid of losing, and what do we convent so much that we can't see the shadows for what they really are and know that all we need to do is stand up and turn around to see the light of our own reality.
I would like to see some comments that address the issue of; what scares us into compliance or just indifference to when exposed to radical and non-establishment approved ideas?
I will start with an admission that I often fear that any revolution would only replace one establishment with a new one, faces may change but the goal for power and wealth would remain the same.
Great Blog! What scares me? I guess if anything scares me, it would be violence. While I understand the need for radical thought and challenge to the main stream, I fear the violence that is employed as a means to an end. There have been other "radicals" whom have challenge our perceptions of society through peaceful means. These pacifists have left an indelible mark on history, e.g. Ghandi, Nelson Mandella, and the student in Tiananmen Square. Undoubtedly it is difficult for the oppressed to be heard, but what I fear is the inability for the oppressed to not seek retribution against their oppressor. This is nothing more than "an eye for an eye". When radicals employ tactics that draw compassion for the status quo they are much more effective.
ReplyDeleteI fear a pathology of pacifism.
ReplyDeleteAn argument for blind, unthinking nonviolence is no less blind than then a blind, unthinking argument for violence.
So, who beyond dogmatic pacifists and those in power would have a problem with the use of tactical violence to end violence? Those in power are insatiable. They will do anything to increase their power--including lie, cheat, deceive, steal, repress, torture and murder.
Canyonfairy, I also think your assumption about what you think the "oppressed" want is off the mark. Is it retributive or restorative justice "they" seek? One should not be surprised to know that most of the interactions I've had with the extremely oppressed people of Cuba, Venezuela, and now Chiapas, Mexico never talk of retribution. Their hope is the restoration of their lives, lands, rights and liberty.
It is also not surprising that we US Americans tend to think in terms of retributive justice since that is a mark of our cultural understanding of justice. In a retributive system of justice (a pathetic one I might add) the hoped-for outcome is punishment. However, in a restorative system of justice the debt to be paid is "making it right." The focal point is the victim--not rules, property and the state!
Back to the pathology of pacifism. If the nature of the system (capitalism) in which are living is psychopathic, and you are locked into a room with it (think if Claire Starling had been locked in the room with Dr. Hannibal in the Silence of the Lambs), then the question is what are you going to do about it? Be a pacifist? Or fight like hell for your life?
If by fighting for your life you are not "being the peace you seek," then I would conclude you are doing violence to yourself. Even the Buddha tells a story of boatload of people that are stopped and then violently attacked by a pirate. A Buddhist monk jumps from his seat to slay the pirate. He saw that the most compassionate thing he could do was to kill the pirate and save the innocent men, women and children. The Buddha spoke of a middle way. This means we cannot strike out on dogmatic black and white paths that leave no room for contextual nuance. Pacifism becomes pathological behavior when one excludes the possibility of violence as a necessary tactic for achieving justice for the greater good. This does not mean that we should not seek the nonviolent path as rigorously as possible. Nonviolence and violence are tactics for an overall strategy for social and economic justice. I would even go so far as to say that nonviolent tactics should be employed in the majority of cases. However, one should never exclude violence as a tactic for ending injustice.
Derrick Jensen and Ward Churchill:
"If your candlelit vigil doesn't bring the process you're opposing to a halt, what do you do next, presuming you actually desire to have an effect? (Which is not a safe presumption-by the way, since many only say they want change). There's a whole feel-good ethic out there. It's not to affect any substantive change. It's to bear moral witness to make the person feel good, to assuage their conscience... They can then posture as good and decent people, while engaged in active complicity in the crimes they purportedly oppose. Complicity of acquiescence: that's the 'Good German Syndrome.' You move on. Rather than a vigil, you hold a rally. When that doesn't do it either, you march around, do petitions, letters, you hold alternative educational fora, you try to build bridges with people; you do whatever. None of that works. The obligation is not to be personally (morally) pure. The obligation is to affect a measurable change."
"We cannot place our self-conception of moral purity above stopping injustice. At the same time, we must not be against seeking peaceful solutions whenever possible. We need it all. We need people filing lawsuits, and we need people working at battered women's shelters, we need people working on permaculture. We need educators. We need writers. We need healers. But we also need warriors, those who are willing to fight back to achieve justice not retribution. That's the good thing about things being so fucked up: no matter where you look there is great work to be done."
You can use a hammer to build a house and you can use a hammer to tear it down. Since my future children's lives are endangered by the global capitalist system, I will use whatever means necessary to protect them from it--not unlike a grizzly bear would.
Che, in response to your comment, I believe I was asked to answer what scares "me"? However, I do believe I read the question wrong, I was answering on a personal level. I personally fear violence. Be it in a horror film, an attacking bear or a boxing match. I never said that there is no place for violence when seeking justice. My point was simply this, if the oppressed employ violent tactics as a means to an end and succeed, leaving them in power. Do they then not become the oppressors. In order to establish control, will they too employ whatever means necessary to retain their power. Is it not a vicious cycle that envelops those in power to suppress those out of power?
ReplyDeleteChe, you know me all too well and know that I'm a fighter. Obviously I would physically challenge any personal threat to myself, children, or loved ones. I think the difference between you and me at this moment is perspective. You have smelled, touched, seen and tasted the devastation that capitalism leaves on the doorstep of places like Mexico, Cuba, and Venezuela. For you, this IS a personal fight. But for people like myself, and most Americans, it is out of context. We have never stood in a village that suffers from our greed and need to consume. We do not see capitalism's effects, hence, we do not personalize it. I do not offer this as an excuse, but, as more a disease. We are so insular and content in our cozy little lives that we fail to look beyond ourselves. It is much easier for us to do feel-good actions, e.g.-Children's International, than it is for us to take up the fight of others. For us, the threat is not our own and this is a sad, sad thing. We need more Che's in the world, willing to educate and enlighten our pathetic lazy-asses to the horrors of capitalism. The more we understand, the more our perspectives change. Then, just maybe, when an act of violence occurs somewhere in the world, we will have a better understanding of why it happened and, quite possibly, be less fearful of it's existence.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCanyonfairy,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the thoughtful response. I by no means misunderstood your comment. You appropriately discussed what scared you and you alone. I too was discussing what scares me. I commend you on your admission of fearing the kind of commitment that is likely necessary to make change.
You said:
My point was simply this, if the oppressed employ violent tactics as a means to an end and succeed, leaving them in power. Do they then not become the oppressors. In order to establish control, will they too employ whatever means necessary to retain their power. Is it not a vicious cycle that envelops those in power to suppress those out of power?
My first question is why do you think the logical conclusion is that the oppressed will necessarily become oppressors? In the abstract such concepts can devolve into the ridiculous, so let's take the recent declaration of independence by the Lakota. Were they to use violent means to achieve their freedom from an oppressive US government, would they turn around and become oppressors? What about the Zapatistas? Are they oppressing anyone since their armed uprising? Even if they were to reach (which does not interest them) Mexico City and overthrow the Mexican government, would they turn around and oppress Mexico? In the Soviet Union, the soviets used violent armed struggle in their revolution to win their freedom and rights to self-determination. It was not them that became oppressive, but a betrayal on behalf of reactionary (read: right-wing) forces within the revolution that repressed the soviets and became oppressors.
So what I think you are alluding to is the historical record of reactionary tendencies to emerge as new oppressors during the upheaval of revolution. Things get out of control and people become easily weary of violence and unrest so they seek the first force that promises restoration, control, etc. This danger is real! Look at Spain in the 1930's.
So does the threat of reactionary oppression exist? Sure, as long as we remain unorganized as a society headed towards a crisis (environmental, economic, social, political, etc.) we increase the chances that reactionary/fascist forces will emerge as the new tyrants. But a well educated and well organized popular revolt does not seek power over others, but instead power over oneself! We must be prepared, because more violence is on the way. I say more violence, because who could deny that violence is not a daily reality for the vast majority of the planet? It's just that the global north can distract themselves and return to the quiet of their homes when the reality of violence becomes too intense.
One can scour the global south and see examples of autonomous movements where self-determination, genuine democracy and grassroots power is developing. These movements are all seeking to decentralize power, which directly contradicts the notion that oppressed people seek retribution and power over others. Violence as a tactic is present in all of these movements.
I do not judge you for fearing violence. I too am a big chicken when it comes to violence. I simply cannot abide by dogmatic pacifism that led to the destruction of millions of Jewish, Indian, Black, et. al. lives. I believe it is exactly the tactic oppressive state powers approve of since it does not raise the cost of conducting business as usual.
As far as evoking compassion from the status quo, I'm not sure the oppressed can afford to pander the way politicians do. The cost is already too high. The Zapatistas employed violence in the beginning of their movement and it garnered international sympathies. In fact, it has inspired oppressed peoples everywhere for the past 13 years!
I think to some degree,AIM, the Panthers and the early Wobs all suffered from a delusional belief that their actions as a "vanguard" would inspire the masses or "wake" them from their sleep and so they all used violence to soon in their struggles.
ReplyDeleteThey naively underestimated the power of capitalism to react and adjust (as well as manipulate)and failed to do the hard organizational building tasks, in theory and practice, to sustain their movements against the inevitable backlash.The bomb throwing anarchists were weak on deep analysis, as were the Indians and general mass of blacks.
As for "what scares us into indifference", I think the capitalist system has been successful in colonizing and "commodifying" the minds of the vast majority of it's subjects.We on the outside of this "colony" are fighting an epic ,uphill battle against systems of oppression which have been internalized by the oppresors as well as the oppressed, going back to slavery and the genocide of the American West.
I am one who believes "power and wealth" do not dissapear in a revolution and that great care must be maintained to see that they don't corrupt.Only true democracy can perform the function of de-mystifying and nuetralizing the violent tendency of power.We would need to invent such a democracy because it has never existed.