💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › william-gillis-socialist-programs.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:43:40. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Socialist Programs Author: William Gillis Date: 13th November 2009 Language: en Topics: anti-state, anti-statism, libertarian socialism Source: http://humaniterations.net/2009/11/13/socialist-programs/
Now, obviously, as an anarchist I oppose affirmative action, welfare,
public education and the like because they’re statist programs and, as
such, are inherently, unavoidably, grounded in violence and the
perpetuation of power structures. As statist programs they ultimately do
more bad than good. And of course given freedom we could accomplish
their stated ends far more efficiently without oppressing anyone.
But.
There’s nary an anarchist in the world that would go out of their way to
abolish such projects first.
The reason for this is strategy. The first task of a prisoner is to
escape, and with that goal in mind we’re not about to stop eating the
meals they give us. Sure those meals are poisoning us. Sure those meals
are sapping our strength and conditioning us to salivate on command by
the prison guards. But. We. Must. Stay. Alive.
In examining socialist programs it’s critical that we not sully our
analysis with instinctive allegiances but instead look only upon how
effective those programs are at sustaining us. If the warden takes away
our meals many of us will die in our cells. This makes the prison’s
“food program” a momentary necessity. If people are locked out of jobs
by the corporate monopolies that our government set up and their homes
are bulldozed by investment firms with politicians in their pockets,
those people are not going to find new lives as roving vigilantes taking
out bureaucrats and burning down office blocks. No, they’re going to end
up in even greater poverty, abject misery and alienation. Spreading the
burden throughout their social nets.
Socialist programs, we all know, toe a balance between crippling the
working class enough to keep them unable to revolt and satiating them
enough with illusions of security to make them unwilling to.
The trick–as any half-cocked fool with a big beard could tell you–lies
in exploiting the inherent friction between these two statist tactics.
In generating the sort of dynamic social instabilities that make their
analysis subject to calculation limits. Where they can’t accurately
judge which to give us where. When the carrot and the stick are
frantically applied in such a way to inflame dissent and then supply us
sufficient resources to rebel.
This is the core of our strategy with regard to their “public services.”
We embrace that which will keep us in the fight and reject everything
else. At the same time we struggle to continue leading insurrection,
building gardenboxes in the windows of our cells and preparing to retake
that which they have not allowed us to organize for ourselves.
So when I look at a socialist program like affirmative action’s
mandatory quotas or biases my first step is to recognize that, since
ends and means are interconnected, such a statist program will never
solve racism or even make inroads. The application of statist oppression
will only further inflame and ingrain the social psychoses at hand,
although they may make strides towards some superficial semblance of
material equality. The statist and hierarchical character of affirmative
action is undeniable.
That said, the second step is to investigate whether despite its long
term ill effects such a program is strategically necessary to our
current survival. And while getting into fancy colleges and jobs at a
higher rate is clearly not a matter of material survival, one can argue
that some of the ways it provides exit opportunities from inner city
“schools” to other forms of public education will allow–in some
measure–an underclass to retain access to intellectual weaponry, which
does directly pertain to the survival of resistance. Similarly, although
hate-crimes laws are a ridiculous step towards the outright
criminalization of thought itself, it’s worth remembering that anything
that stops lynchings should be tallied as keeping us alive.
The strategic and tactical distinctions we’re forced to make on such
issues are necessarily going to be complex and nuanced, but at the same
time, as anarchists, we never loose sight of the fact that these
programs are evil and that ultimately we oppose them.
Classic welfare programs, of course, are the most clearcut example.
Since my family and I owe our lives many times over to Food Stamps and
HUD, I’m not going to pretend I’m not biased. Obviously any welfare
system is deeply predicated on state violence in the form of taxation
and puts a superficial bandaid on the immediacy of capitalism’s crimes.
But if you think welfare leaves the poor a bunch of lazy queens
dependent on the system and defensive of it, you’ve never been forced to
sit and wait while your life hung on the whims of government
bureaucracy. Socialist programs that keep the poor alive are always a
good thing, strategically. They sustain the class most likely to lead
any insurrection and at the same time inspire in that class a fierce
hatred of the government as well as a lasting critique of its
inefficiency compared to self-organization.
All are reasons to momentarily avoid directly attacking such programs,
but in no means are they reasons to avoid conflict with them.
As with any statist means, socialist projects will ultimately only
further statist ends. But if by accident they give us any breathing room
we, as prisoners, are obliged to seize it. To fight tooth and nail to
build our own capacity for charity, mutual aid and self-sufficiency when
they’re not looking. The only solution to socialist programs is to make
them irrelevant.