sophiaserpentia | say you want a revolution

Current Music: Electronic "Make It Happen"

Entry tags:

say you want a revolution

During my very productive conversation with

i don't see any way to prevent an aristocratic power-grab from happening in the absence of a population-wide regulatory structure to keep them from taking everything. That's why i'm a socialist and not an anarchist. Even then the people at the upper echelons find ways to manipulate the existing system, including government, to suit their purposes -- which is something i agree with you completely on -- but on balance i think the population as a whole are better off with welfare and regulation enforcement, however corrupt, than they are without that at all... unless someone could prove to me that the next revolution would be permanent and would not just result in yet another class stratification.

For about a year i've been looking for a way to formulate what i saw expressed quite succinctly yesterday: the Iron Law of Oligarchy, which i summarized in yesterday's post: "all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies."

I see this as a serious problem, perhaps THE serious problem: all revolutions are in their turn either suppressed, or are undermined and appropriated and become the oligarchs' key to our hearts and minds -- they cannibalize us while making us think it's in our best interest. This has happened so often and so faithfully that imperialism and kyriarchy have been seriously proposed by biosociologists as the natural tendency of our species.

So, how do we solve it? What slogans, principles, ideologies, churches, movements, chants, protests, guillotines, etc., will not eventually be turned around and used against us? We can storm the boardrooms and congress and subvert the media and march in the streets, but to what end, if a generation or so from now, we've got the same status quo all over again, but using the name of "revolution" as happened in Russia?

We need a revolution not just of people in the street (though that might be a component of it too); we need a revolution that erects an eternal fountain of compassion and loving-kindness in each person.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Ever read God Emperor of Dune?

I started to once, but it was ages ago. I should put the whole series on my reading queue.

It touches on a lot of what you talked about here. He says something at one point like, rebels just want what they see as their place in the aristocracy. He keeps the peace by allowing the smarter rebels a place higher up.

While not a solution, I see purges as an amelioration. In the US, corrupt politicians are ignored or given a slap on the wrists. If, instead, they were publicly executed and 100% of their wealth was confiscated, leaving their heirs penniless, I feel that would send a message. Do it frequently and the bad eggs do not get into power. Let the bad eggs get away with shit, and pretty soon they & their cronies are running things.

I say heads need to roll in the streets on a regular basis to get certain traits out of the gene pool.

We could do that and things would be better for this generation. I'm concerned about the future, though, too. If corruption became punishable by death, in a generation or two it would be a political tool used against dissidents and from which the oligarchs shielded one another. The rebels, now in power, would keep their influence by continuing to execute "threats to our liberty."

I'm mindful of Thomas Jefferson's comment about periodically watering the tree of liberty with blood, and i understand what he's saying, but i don't think even the deepest purge could go deep enough to root out the problem. The Khmer Rouge bring to mind the logical outcome of that frame of mind.

Thinking more about the idea of purges, here's my main issue with the idea.

Political awareness does not usually arise spontaneously in people, it usually comes after considerable agitation. The agitators, then, possess power; and whether they speak from a podium, a pulpit, or a bullhorn, there is little difference between them if they choose to wield their power in the form of 'legitimated' homicide, 'legitimated' here meaning "condoned by society."

The problem in the past is that people are kept from political awareness by the powers that rule (church and/or state) and purges are done by the powers that rule. There needs to be a separation of education and state, and education and church, as well as church and state. And purges need to not be directed by the state, but by some new process not entrenched in power.

No, that is not an answer. It is a hint at the problem. I am not a theoretician in this area. One of the problems is that tendencies of amplifying one's Homo sapiens tendencies get squashed by powers that rule which want people to regurgitate facts they learned from the powers that rule, rather than actually think for themselves. In all human cultures, it seems that one advcances further by learning the rules and following the patterns set down for one, rather than thinking for oneself. And that, imo, is both fucked up and at the root of the problem. Until this pattern gets replaced, the cenralization and ossification of power shall continue.

Well, there's no easy solution, if you're going to try and impose one.

Europe lives off the blood of South East Asia.
And the entire world lives off the blood of the Middle East.

Actually, that is one easy quick-step - liberate the worst, first - it even makes a nice bumper sticker.

The other big "elephant in the middle of the room" is the financial system.

But all of these things can exist because of lies. More and more I am seeing the lies as the seeds that allow violence to take root.
If people knew what was really going on, then they would be in a position to either honestly decide "well fuck you guys in East Wogistan, you're going to have to be our slaves" or not...
And if they choose that, at least everyone's on the same page when the revolution starts.
If they choose otherwise, then AND ONLY THEN can things evolve.

And I'm also starting to think that the biggest lies are the meta-lies, the lie that there is no lie. That conventional wisdom is basically true.

The other big "elephant in the middle of the room" is the financial system.

Indeed. I'm wondering how "deep" it goes... does the problem lie in the existence of currency itself? Or is it in the use of currency? Much to ponder there.

But all of these things can exist because of lies. More and more I am seeing the lies as the seeds that allow violence to take root.

That would be better than violence being rooted in human nature, certainly... at least lies can be vanquished.

And I'm also starting to think that the biggest lies are the meta-lies, the lie that there is no lie. That conventional wisdom is basically true.

Yes... the lies which are implicit in the very use of language, in the existence of civilization.

yep indeed.

From some of the anthropological studies I've read of barter economies, I would guess currency is not the issue. What's at issue is the ability (or lack thereof) to empathize with your fellow human.

An example: Enron. If the CEO of Enron felt even the faintest shred of real empathy for his employees, he couldn't have destroyed their pension plan. But he didn't feel that empathy, which allowed him to lie to them without remorse -- because he didn't know them. He possibly didn't even really think of them as other people, with feelings and fears and desires just like he has.

This is why, I think, the real issue is the limitations of the human mind. Past about 150 to 200 people, we can't remember folks well enough to know their names and histories, and thus they're no longer as "real" to us. We feel no internal obligation to treat them decently, as we'd like to be treated by those who know us personally. There's no sense of responsibility or maintaining one's reputation with strangers, the way there is with family and close friends. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is also about the size that a tribe tends to splinter into two smaller tribes, rather than one big one.

What do you think? Sound feasible?

Keeping in mind that I have some serious reservations with some of his ideas, and there's a squick factor in some of the behaviors he advocates, are you familiar with Hakim Bey's Temporary Autonomous Zone? However I feel about the rest of his work, the premise is an interesting and IMHO productive one:

There probably will never be a big-R Revolution, and if there is, it'll probably be co-opted and become oppressive. This may be be an inherent and irresolvable matter of human psychology, information science, or even spirituality; on a basic level, the rules of the game might just be written against us.

Since authoritarianism may be the way of the world -- and in 2005, it definitely feels like so many people prefer to be controlled, that it's not worth trying to change -- Bey proposes that we focus instead on creating niches for those who can't and won't thrive under authority. We can't permanently overthrow the structures that create oppression, but can create spaces between the cracks of those structures where their influence can be escaped.

Such spaces are inevitably tracked down and destroyed... but we'll be all right as long as we accept this and keep creating new ones. And since, by definition, the refuseniks will have the advantage in creativity and flexibility, we can make sure our countercultural traditions are preserved indefinitely.

And similar to what you said, the key is not seizure of temporal political power, but the enacting what some would call spiritual change: the radical psychological transformation of primate consumer units back into thinking, feeling, loving humans. Such people are really hard to govern, and really hard to induct into oppressive schemes.

Wow, thanks for putting that so much more clearly than I could've.

I haven't read Bey, but i've seen the idea before.

Let me use that to illustrate what i perceive as the problem here. Suppose we start a movement to promote the creation of temporary autonomous zones. Suppose the movement becomes so big, despite attempts to suppress it, that it begins to threaten the cultural-reality of "legitimate authority" that allows governments to do what they want with popular support. Eventually the TAZ's become so big that they start to form, over time, ways for people to deal with one another; these become traditions; and eventually, whatever authority structures began to exist within the TAZ's become the authority structure accepted within society at large. YET, they still call the edifice they've constructed a "TAZ" even though it is now nothing of the sort.

This generation's revolution is the next generation's edifice, because the words and concepts and images are co-opted and appropriated by the formers of authority, and it confuses people so that they do not see that their words and images have been stolen and now represent the exact opposite of what they were created to oppose.

To put it another way: the struggle here is between what the Discordians call the Eristic and the Aneristic Principles.

It's called revolution for a reason. It will always go in circles. You cannot freeze the cycle, no matter how much you would like to. Because freezing the cycle itself would become a form of oppression.

I say lets kill the R and focus on evolution.

we need a revolution that erects an eternal fountain of compassion and loving-kindness in each person.

...And I also agree with the person who wrote the above. But that's where I probably part company with most of the people on this list. Most of them are probably concerned primarily with preserving "republican democracy" in the United States. I'm not. After my decade of living outside this debauched, ersatz republic, in the 3rd World, I am genuinely concerned about what we and our disgusting "life style" are doing to the planet--not just the environment, but the more civilized, more humane traditional cultures and arts of people whose lives are more "organic," more "natural" than ours. THEY are the real custodians and legatees of the spiritual SOURCES of that "fountain" from whence comes the wisdom regarding the cultivation of "compassion" and "loving kindness" mentioned above. And I'm NOT talking about institutionalised religion, as we think of it in post-modern societies.

The very few beneficiaries of that wisdom left in our society are those folks whom Jefferson called "natural aristocrats." To preserve what's worth preserving on this planet, those folks have GOT to come to rule here in the United States. It was long predictable--almost a matter of popular wisdom among American intellectuals--that whatever "revolution" would come to America would come from the Right. Well, I'm ready for it, so long as it comes from that element of the Right which is cultivated and which is sufficiently refined to be "nationalistic" in a positive sense--meaning willing to return America to its first principles--meaning the VIRTUES of republican democracy, even if we can't have its forms any more, because we are too corrupted by wealth and power to discipline ourselves to the task of operating such a system.

Interestingly enough, I trust the upper echelon of the American military more than any other class in this society to be "peace-minded," restrained and realistic in terms of foreign policy goals, and respectful of the aspirations of other nations and cultures. They certainly would be more mindful of LONG TERM benefits, rather than obsessed with the blind pursuit of the short-term "bottom line," which is all that the vulgar business class cares for. I would trust the General Brent Scowcrofts and the Colin Powells of the world with keeping peace and managing the American decline from world hegemony far more than I'd trust the demagogic hyena Hillary Clinton--who, disgustingly, lusts for power more than she does for sex!

Colin Powells lied to cause the Iraqi invasion. He, like all the rest, I'd trust as far as a short length of rope would take him when the trapdoor beneath his feet opened.

I blend a need to compassion with a need to clean up the gene pool. They gotta go hand in hand.

I don't see it as about coming from the left or right. What i have in mind goes way beyond sectarian politics, because there is no political system, theory, or party that is immune to the Iron Law. The only succesful revolution will come from within.

I do agree with you that culture will play a role, though. The "culture" of the United States is utterly ridden-through with imperialist sense-of-entitlement.

So the fundamental question seems to be: how do we overthrow oppressive structure and replace it with a structure that doesn't inherently seem to trend toward oppression?

No can do.

I think Sting got it right, "'men' go crazy in congregations. They only get better one by one."

It's the nature of human structure (whether religious, financial, political, and so on) itself that's the problem. Any human structure based on anything more than pure love (which is the only structure -- generally small-scale -- that I've seen work) tends toward oppression and repression and then toward revolution. Only through individual expression, individual exploration, individual Will, and love of the individual as a whole do we see spiritual growth. And it's that spiritual growth that grows love, compassion, tolerance, and acceptance within us -- therefore allowing us to love others.

Maybe someday this will lead us to a Global family of love. Individuals choosing that path because their souls sing to choose it. And then we will see new kinds of "structures" from love created from that. But we collectively (and myself as an individual) have a long long way to go.

Until then we have to just keep fighting the good fight. Trying to fight the "bad guys" without becoming bad guys ourselves. Changing ourselves one painful step at a time all the while, knowing that each change within, is a change for the whole, for the better.

I think Dire Straits put it best: The Right become the wrong, the Left become the Right.

Those who have power, try to keep it.
Those who do not have power, desire it.
Only those who do not desire power, can be trusted with it.

Most people want to live their lives, they are busy either earning the means to live comfortably or they are busy enjoying the fruits of their labours. Few people are motivated to be politically aware and this is the problem with representative democracy. Elections are decided by money and tactics, not issues.

Every form of government will unevenly distribute power. Power will then congregate in the hands of a select group of people and they will direct the government in a way that benefits their interests.

This is inevitable. It is inevitable and natural for people to place their concerns, their desires, their needs ahead of those of others. There are a few who do not appear to do so, and fewer still that actually do not.

The comments about Enron, I doubt the President of Enron felt no empathy with his employees. Instead I imagine he felt his need to look good as President was more important than making sure the pension plan wouldn't fail. He took risks he shouldn't have taken and everything collapsed.

The only sustainable long term government is one which has either a clear long term goal to achieve or one that manages to ensure that the welfare of it's people is directly tied to the welfare of it's political elite.

Representative democracy has created a breed of politicians who are only good at one thing: getting elected. Not all politicians belong to this breed but most do.

You can't remove self-interest and ambition from people, if you do you will kill the drives for creation, invention, and revolution as well. Creation, invention and revolution will inevitably create conflict because each redistributes power.

Life is a constant struggle between the order of the status quo and the chaos of change. The trick is in finding the best path between the two extremes.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

say you want a revolution

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

I Agree With YOU...

Re: I Agree With YOU...

"The kingdom of God is within you"

no subject

no subject

no subject