Mapping from ‘Students Storm Tory HQ’ to ‘Inclusionality’

In participating in dialogues on the anarchistnews.org network (in this case, in a post concerning  UK students storming Tory HQ, it has become clear to me that there are two rationales for avoiding ‘inclusionality’, … two rationales which seem to be unlikely ‘bed-partners’ and these are (Ayn Randian) ‘objectivism’ (anthropocentrism) and ‘altruism’ (faith).

[No-one in the anarchist forums believe that the student protest is simply about ‘tuition fees’.  It is instead seen as deriving from the feeling of being a pawn of a runaway authoritarian system that is becoming more and more oppressive and class-conflict producing]

Ayn Rand, whose ‘objectivist’ philosophy is pitted AGAINST ‘altruism’ or any form of ‘self-sacrifice’, discusses the perception, in 1961, of weaknesses in the philosophical foundations of conservatives’ support for capitalism, drawing it from ‘faith’ and ‘tradition’ rather than from ‘objectivism’ (Ayn Rand’s philosophy).  See youtube video (5 min.)  at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTf6NK0wsiA which has been revived with the current rise of the Tea Party movement.   For a good overview of Rand’s philosophy, see the three-part youtube video of her Mike Wallace interview (1959) .

At the common core of anarchism is the vision of  “a classless, stateless, ecologically-balanced, decentralized, and self-managed world”, and there are many very different views of how to approach ‘bringing this about’.   For example, there is the non-violent Amerindian ‘decolonization’ initiative, one of the philosophers/spokespersons of which is Taiaiake Alfred, Professor of Indigenous Governance at the University of Victoria, whose views have considerable resonance with me.  His views would also tie Howard Zinn’s (A People’s History of the United States).

My interest is in trying to understand why it never ‘comes out’ of such discussions on transforming our society, as go on in the anarchist forums, that the non-inclusional view is what we must overcome (i.e. ‘inclusionality’ is where we need to be).   The way I think of this ‘inclusionality’ is in the Machian terms “The dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants at the same time as the dynamics of the inhabitants are condition the dynamics of the habitat.”, … but my point is not to get ‘particular’ about ‘inclusionality’ here, but rather to explore why discussions in forums on bringing about radical change in our social organizing schema don’t end up with those in the ‘debate’ getting the message of ‘inclusionality’ (a philosophy that acknowledges the participation of space in physical phenomena) in some shape or form.

It seems to me that there is an answer here in the following discussion that was triggered by a report concerning the ‘students’ storming of Tory headquarters in London’, the comments turning quickly to ‘what does it take to bring about change?’, and to a series on ‘revolution’ written by Kalle Lasn of Adbusters which inspired one of the commenters, ‘Ex NihiLo’ to make a video and to use the spoken narrative of the kalle lasn text.

[[Kalle Lasn is the driving intellectual force behind the anti-corporate Adbusters Media Foundation. The filmmaker was born in Estonia in 1942. He spent his childhood in a German refugee camp and in Australia. In the 1960s, he founded a market research company in Toyko, and in 1970, moved to Vancouver, Canada. For twenty years, he produced documentaries for PBS and Canada’s National Film Board.]]

My (emile’s) first comment tries to subtly broach the notion that our dysfunction is deriving from ‘confusing idealization for reality’ (I use the term ‘natural’ (for reality) which implies that ‘idealization’ is ‘unnatural’).    What I am trying to ‘share’ in the dialogue is that we are not just talking about bringing down one ‘system’ and replacing it with ‘another’ but that we are trying to restore ‘realism’ to a natural precedence over ‘idealism’ as the organizing orchestrator and shaper of social order.

This is not an easy point to share because the popular view is that all of these choices of approach for organizing ourselves are all ‘real systems’; i.e. ‘capitalism’, ‘communism’, ‘anarchism’ (“a classless, stateless, ecologically-balanced, decentralized, and self-managed world”)

That is, what I am trying to infuse in the discussion is that a social organizing scheme built on the notion that ‘the earth belongs to man’ is ‘idealization’ and that the reality is that ‘man belongs to the earth’.

I consider this to be the equivalent of infusing ‘inclusionality’ into the discussion.  If it were ever successful, then the notion of revolution in the standard sense would no longer make sense.  What would make sense, instead, would be to realize that ‘the earth belongs to man’ is a fiction that we mustn’t confuse for ‘reality’.  Instead of changing out the system, then, we would change out our manner of understanding and responding to the dynamics of space we are included in.

The ‘new understanding’ for me, in this dialogue (and some interlaced threads), is in seeing how atheists with an ‘objectivist’ orientation can blame the religious folks for the sorry state of politics (e.g. Dawkin’s ‘The God Delusion’) while the religious folks can blame the atheists for it, leading to a situation wherein the advocates of change find plenty of scope for assuming that they can take down the old system and replace it with something far better, …….EVEN THOUGH BOTH OF THESE PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS, OBJECTIVISM AND ALTRUISM, ARE COMMONLY IN THE SAME, U N – N A T U R A L,  ‘THE EARTH BELONGS TO MAN’, IDEALIZATION PARADIGM.

So, here is a ‘mapping’ from ‘Students Storming Tory Headquarters’ to ‘Inclusionality’

Cheers,

Ted

p.s. don’t forget to click on ‘revolution’ and get the Kalle Lasn blurb on ‘revolution’ that sets us this discussion.

[Lead story concerns Students storming Tory HQ and is by a student that is fully in support]

The media is always playing

Submitted by Ex NihiLo on Sun, 2010-11-14 07:13.

The media is always playing psy-ops games with the public. Any effective form of protest is ignored while they placate the viewer’s need to join the protest and speak out.
Speak out, just not so loudly or you might spark a revolution

»

the video link is weak. the

Submitted by anon on Sun, 2010-11-14 10:03.

the video link is weak. the examples cited (rosa parks, etc) did not lead to revolutions. revolutions are violent, mass movements that displace the economic and political ruling classes as in france 1789, china 1940’s, russia, 1917, cuba, 1959. all the instances mentioned were symbolically effective and courageous but led to reforms.

leave it to adbusters to whitewash history and substitute reform for revolutionary acts.

moreover, revolutions require quite a bit more than just a few courageous souls taking effective actions. they require the right conditions, guerilla armies, urban terrorists, political infrastructure and a rival ideology to the existing false consciousness (sorry for the term, but it is accurate as far as it goes).

shit is getting sick today in an increasingly sick culture. let’s at least have some honesty about revolution.

»

Thank you, When I read the

Submitted by Ex NihiLo on Sun, 2010-11-14 11:22.

Thank you,
When I read the piece in Adbusters, my first take on it was that it was overly simplistic and idealistic. I rarely agree with any of Adbusters articles lately. I do think I detect a hint at a macro viewpoint when it comes to revolution in the piece though. The notion of a “mindshift” takes the concept of revolutionary action away from the traditional approach of the violent overthrow that you describe. And I also draw a distinction between movements and true revolutions. The piece seems to take the view that an effective and historically valid revolution would have the most effect on our consciousness.

Urban terrorists, Political infrastructure and especially rival ideologies do not form the basis of true revolutionary change, they form the basis of an effective movement and shift in the balance of power within the same, or similar system….as in Soviet Russia after 1917. I think that a true revolutionary shift would have created a more stable Soviet Union without the need for re-invented modes of state power, Bureaucracy, etc. And this shift would have spread throughout the world, changing the way people think…as in a Meme (a word I think Adbusters has been over-using and stretching beyond recognition).

I appreciate you viewing my video, and I really appreciate your comments as I felt very much the same way when reading the piece. I haven’t really decided how I feel about the piece and the video was not meant to promote it, simply to expand on the ideas expressed in it and to make a decent video.
I feel like I’ve done that.

»

the standard terms for

Submitted by emile on Sun, 2010-11-14 22:10.

the standard terms for ‘changing the system’ such as ‘revolution’ and ‘reform’ refer to ‘changing the political leadership’ or ‘changing the policies’ of the ‘party in power’ within a particular state. the adbusters ‘history of revolution’ is therefore NOT talking about the emergence of a new, anti-authoritarian organizing paradigm. one would be hard pressed to come up with a ‘historical example’.

around the globe, there are 195 points of central authority that stand like guard towers each looking down over ‘their own respective pens’. if the walls on the yard floor between the pens are breached and the ‘yard’ becomes one coherently flowing change-ready collective, then the towers will come down, or at least they will become secondary to and supportive of the yard-floor based local/global network that will become the primary source of organization.

there are no ‘case histories’ for the type of transformation that many are looking for. adbusters ‘blows it’ where they say;

“It’s hard to see our current system as simply one stage of a never-ending cycle that sooner or later will fall and be succeeded – but this process of creative destruction is exactly how the world works.”

the natural world does not divide itself up into 195 imaginary-line-bounded secularized theological concepts called ‘sovereign states’ (ignored by all but humans) which insanely declare themselves to be ‘independent’ while sharing inclusion in an obviously interdependent common living space, fomenting class wars within these people-pens where ‘freedom’ is redefined in terms of privilege granted to those who obey the commands of the central authority (which support divisive class structures based on the premise that ‘the earth belongs to man’), and where the 195 compete amongst themselves to get more than their fair share of the resources of the commons they all share inclusion in. no, kalle, the ‘creative destruction’ that has been going on in this secularized-theological mess is NOT how the (‘natural’) world works, it is how a screwed up civilization has been working and we need something transcendently better.

emile

»

so if i read you both right,

Submitted by anon on Mon, 2010-11-15 08:00.

so if i read you both right, then what you are saying is you want a revolution–in the intelligible sense of the word, i.e., a violent, mass uprising that displaces the ruling economic and political class(es)–but you want its ideology to be anti-authoritarian. so, you want an anarchist revolution.

guess, that’s why we’re all here and, increasingly, everywhere. so, let’s stop using the language that confuses reform, change in party in power, new technologies, etc. as “revolutionary.” i mean, fuck the beatles, right?

»

Hell yeah, Fuck the beatles

Submitted by Ex NihiLo on Mon, 2010-11-15 09:23.

Hell yeah,
Fuck the beatles indeed. I still think that for an HONEST revolution (anarchistic or otherwise) to be realized, we may have to re-evaluate the use of violence. I’m not against violence, but the idea of purges like what happened in Cuba and Soviet Russia does not exactly sit well with me. Yes, force has a valid place in any discussion regarding effective revolution, but let’s not advocate terrorizing the very population that we are working to liberate.

and Emile, good points.
I still agree with Kalle’s statement that the process of creation and destruction is exactly how the world works. You say that:

“the natural world does not divide itself up into 195 imaginary-line-bounded secularized theological concepts called ‘sovereign states’ (ignored by all but humans) which insanely declare themselves to be ‘independent’ while sharing inclusion in an obviously interdependent common living space…”

But we humans do, and we are part of the world. We act according to our nature. We are part of the natural process of this planet. It is folly to think that just because we are self aware that we are somehow removed form natural processes. Our social systems are naturally evolving as we are. I find the pace of it very frustrating, and I feel like there are many of us who “get it” more than others, and that frustrates me, but I do believe that it is part of a natural process.

»

i’m not glorifying violence;

Submitted by anon on Mon, 2010-11-15 16:09.

i’m not glorifying violence; i hate it. but no power elite in history, each one of which organized massive violence to ensure its dominance, ever willingly yielded its monopoly on power and wealth. it is inconceivable that there could be a revolution without violence.

still, i agree that every attempt must be made to minimize it and disperse political power during and after a revolution so that the centralizing tendency of power can be done away with.

»

You say; “Our social

Submitted by emile on Mon, 2010-11-15 22:36.

You say;

“Our social systems are naturally evolving as we are. …. I do believe that it is part of a natural process.”

And kalle also speaks of ‘our system’;

“It’s hard to see our current system as simply one stage of a never-ending cycle that sooner or later will fall and be succeeded – but this process of creative destruction is exactly how the world works.”

is this Chris Columbus speaking? i.e. is this talk of systems just the white man’s system? the indigenous peoples of the earth are busy trying to unite on a global basis using ‘de-colonized’ approaches to organization (non-central authority based). so we have at least two different approaches to organization ongoing in the same space at the same time, the respective mantras of which are;

1. ‘the earth belongs to man’

2. ‘man belongs to the earth’.

when you and kalle speak of ‘social system’, which one of these is it? if the transformation is from capitalism to communism, it is within 1.

my interest is to get out of 1. the history of which is signalled by statements such as;

“God said to them, … Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” — Genesis 1:28

and also by thoughts such as (atheist) Ayn Rand’s following comment, and i am not referring to the issue of her view of ‘indians’ per se, but the anthropocentric notion that he who can best exploit the land for man’s benefit deserves to own the land;

”They [the indians] had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country. And you are a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn’t know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. . . .Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it’s great that some of them did.

so, when we speak of ‘our social systems’ and ‘their natural evolution’, there is ambiguity as to whether we are thinking of them in terms of ‘the earth belongs to man’(1.) or ‘man belongs to the earth’(2). the Ayn Randian individual is ready to anthropocentrically exploit the fruits of the earth, spit out the shell and move on to colonize some other planet.

for me, if i use the word ‘natural process’, as you have, it implies 2. that man is included in nature. i am sure there are others, perhaps kalle? who use ‘NATURAL process of creative destruction’ to mean something purely anthropocentric as in the rise and fall of various strains of class (1.) organizational schemes where man [believes that he] answers to no-one but God or himself.

since God is claimed to be a supernatural omnipotentum, i would not use the term ‘natural’ for ‘evolutionary’ turnovers of various strains of class (1.) social organizing schemes, since pure anthropocentrism and sovereigntism both put man above nature (supra-nature).

that’s what i mean when i say; “the NATURAL world does not divide itself up into 195 imaginary-line-bounded secularized theological concepts called ‘sovereign states’ … ”

so, this word ‘natural’ is not something i would apply to the evolutionary process undergone by social organizational schemas that imply, for example, that man “has dominion over every living thing that moves upon the earth” as is implicit in anthropocentrism and sovereigntism.

the architecture and evolution of such SUPRA-NATURE inspired ‘social systems’ are not shaped by NATURAL processes, hence i do not agree with your statement;

“Our social systems are naturally evolving as we are. …. I do believe that it is part of a natural process.”

my view is that we are a culture that habitually confuses ‘idealization’ (supra-natural) for (natural) ‘reality’ but i do think we are on the brink of suspending that habit, and that, to me is the essence of the approaching ‘transformation’.

emile

* * *

FOOTNOTE: (for the inclusional-research post of this note) …  – non-inclusional world views are ‘idealization’ or SUPRA-NATURAL views that are, in our culture, popularly confused for ‘natural’ views.  ‘inclusionality’ is a natural view.   Inclusionalists accept that the dynamics of space that they are each uniquely situationally included in orchestrate and organize their behaviour and that this is the ‘primary reality’ while the idealization of ‘the earth belongs to man’ as in anthropocentrism and sovereigntism is recognized as a ‘useful Fiktion’ (Nietzsche).

Leave a Reply

Go to Top