💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anonymous-withdrawal.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:50:39. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Withdrawal Author: M.B. Lawrence Language: en Topics: anti-politics, anti-civilisation, North America Source: Scanned from original
Pick a side. Any side. You live in “the land of the free.” Vote. If you
don’t vote, don’t complain. Buy more bumper stickers. Join a party. Go
to meetings. Have an opinion. Try to convince others. Write about it on
paper and in digital forums. Go to protests. Hold a sign. Chant. Read
books. Write about the books you’ve read. Just don’t DO anything.
Our society prides itself on our freedoms, of speech, of religion, of
press. We view ourselves as the greatest nation on the planet because of
these freedoms, but fail to see that our chains are just a bit longer
than everyone else’s. We are given these freedoms not because our rulers
want to hear our opinions, but because they provide a safe outlet for
dissent. As long as ideas stay on paper, and do not morph into action,
anything is permissible. Because of this trend towards the ideological,
we have come to confuse opinion with action.
Activists hide behind slogans. Politicians hide in plain sight. Neither
group really does anything, but they do need the support of people at
times...usually when they need money or votes. In return, the people
receive empty promises, and the feeling that they participated in, and
made an impact on the system. Democracy and organizations that place
themselves in the democratic process exist to alienate people from
themselves. Instead of directly acting on our own lives, we are told to
vote for someone who will act for us. An entire layer of abstraction has
been laid over our lives.
There are many voices in this layer, from Republican to Communist. None
speak of removing the abstraction, because to do so would make their
existence irrelevant. At best, they claim to want to change the system,
so that it favors “the people.” Everything is done “for the people.”
From Soviet state capitalism, to the European welfare state, the story
is the same. Ideas are imposed upon people, by promises, propaganda, or
force. The entity claiming to act in the name of its populace gives way
to the truth. The organization’s first goal is always self-preservation,
and keeping people in the realm of ideas, and out of action, is the
first step to ensuring that people will believe that organizations are
necessary. While parties and unions are one part of this, the real issue
lies in people’s willingness to conform to the rigid identities put out
by political ideologies. The very act of claiming to belong to a certain
sect of ideas solidifies the need to seek out those who claim to belong
to the same sect. Libertarians will seek out and form groups with other
Libertarians, just as Trotskyists will find other Trotskyists. By
following a particular “-ism”, each person becomes less of an individual
with their own ideas, and more of an extension of a preexisting set of
ideas. Ideology kills the individual.
Today we hear slogans of the “99%” and “1%”. About 150 years ago they
were preempted by the “proletariat” and “bourgeoisie”. Long before that
there was Christ, differentiating between “saved” and “unsaved.” Even
longer before that there was Zarathustra, speaking of the “light” of
Ahura Mazda, and the “dark” of Ahriman. This “us vs them” mentality has
existed in popular movements from the beginnings of civilization, and
has been the driving force in almost all of history’s struggles against
rulers and society. It has also been their greatest flaw, and the reason
all these movements were eventually co-opted and destroyed or disfigured
beyond all recognition.
Zarathustra’s teachings were used to build the largest empire the world
had yet seen. Christ’s followers went from an underground cult of
resistance against the Roman Empire, to the official religion of the
same empire. Marx’s proletarian revolution led to a deformed bureaucracy
in Russia, and unabashed capitalism in China. All of these movements
started off as legitimate actions of “normal” people, and ended up in
the hands of those with nothing but a thirst for power. How does this
happen? As Hakim Bey asks, “How is it that ‘the world turned
upside-down’ always manages to Right itself? Why does reaction always
follow revolution, like seasons in Hell?“
The answer lies in the nature of these “us vs them” ideas. Ostensibly,
these sort of ideologies draw a line in the sand, clearly
differentiating between friend and foe. In reality, they are but
quantitative approaches, seeking nothing but to draw greater numbers
into their ranks. Many Christians will agree that even the most
blasphemous heathen can be saved, just as most Marxists ambiguously
pinpoint the difference between working and ruling classes at their
relation to the means of production (something most are even willing to
stretch, as in the case of Engels). Many modern day Marxists will even
argue that millionaires such as professional athletes, or pop
superstars, are part of the working class. Today’s Occupy movement is
obviously no exception to this trend, as they are willing to embrace 99%
of the population as potential allies, while pointing out the enemy to
be an unseen 1%. While spouting rhetoric involving a struggle against
invisible forces, these movements are actually trying to gather and
include as many people as they can get to listen to them.
This lowest common denominator approach will always be destined to fail.
Ignoring a potential enemy is always a bad strategy; Inviting them into
your ranks is even worse. This is not an instance of “keep your friends
close, and enemies closer.” It is a complete failure to recognize
enemies in order to cast the widest net possible. The Emperor and his
buddies eventually became the upper levels of Christianity, and began
campaigns to destroy Christian communities that they didn’t agree with.
The Marxist intellectuals eventually became Party functionaries, and
began campaigns to keep workers slaving away in factories, crushing them
when necessary. The Emperor should not have been allowed anywhere near a
movement born in opposition of his empire, just as those who had never
done a real day’s work should not have been allowed anywhere near
proletarian revolution.
So, do we need deeper lines in the sand? Sharper divides? Truly
embracing the mantra of “us vs them” is not the answer, either. The
truth is, there is no “us”, and certainly no “them”. The age of classes
is over. The springs and wheels which once animated the Leviathan are
rusted and decayed into mere atoms. Our system has decomposed to the
point that its machinations...unions, corporations, parties...are
irrelevant reminders of the past. From the bored kid who throws a brick
through a bank window, to the sociopath who runs a billion dollar
pyramid scheme, the fate of Capital is beginning to rest more and more
in the hands of the individual. The actions of organized groups are
beginning to matter less than the actions of individuals and groups of
individuals.
The working and ruling classes have collapsed into each other in a
tangled heap. The children of the former ruling class go to universities
and grow to hate the system once they learn how horrible it is. The
children of the former working class get indoctrinated into the system
at an early age, and go on under the impression that becoming police, or
joining the army, will actually help their community. The days of black
and white are over, if they ever existed. Even the poorest soul can be a
friend of Capital, and even the wealthiest an enemy. Is the Wall Street
trader who embezzles millions, and causes many to lose their blind faith
in the system, an ally? Is the poor Cambodian who sells his labor to
drug cartels, despoiling some of the last untouched rainforests in the
world for raw materials to make designer drugs, an enemy? Is the
reporter recording video of a demonstration, which leads to people being
identified and arrested, a friend? The answer to none of these questions
can be found in class politics.
Social movements across the globe are falling into the same traps that
have plagued every popular current throughout history. Although it may,
at times, look like a period of global uprising, we are simply
witnessing the latest in a series of movements that are revolutionary
only in name and rhetoric. The Arab Spring ended with the sodomy of
Gaddafi, and the establishment of military rule in Egypt. Occupy has
died the slow death of reformism and liberalism. Social revolution
across the globe has failed...demands have failed...occupation has
failed. To occupy implies delving deeper into something, a strategy
which has failed since the beginnings of civilization. The answer is not
occupation...but withdrawal.