💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › peter-lamborn-wilson-escapism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:25:48. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Escapism Author: Peter Lamborn Wilson Date: 2005 Language: en Topics: Second Vermont Republic, secession, Fifth Estate Source: Retrieved on 6th October 2021 from https://www.fifthestate.org/archive/368-369-spring-summer-2005/escapism/ Notes: Published in Fifth Estate #368–369, Spring-Summer, 2005
“Is the enemy strong? One avoids him.”
— Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, People’s War, People’s Army
Sun Tzu, Von Clausewitz, and Napoleon all agree. When the battle’s over
and one has lost and they have triumphed again, one must run
away–especially if one hopes to fight another day. Napoleon points out
that a good tactical retreat is not a rout and shambles but an orderly
withdrawal toward sources of logistical reinforcement, complete with
rear-guard guerrilla and political action.
A sufi once mentioned to me that mystics are accused of “escapism”–but
when there’s a tiger chasing you, he said, doesn’t escapism make perfect
sense? To evade repression by vanishing–to wriggle out from encirclement
and siege–to fade into the underbrush or maquis (whether natural or
social)–to “drop out” (as Generalissimo T. Leary put it) and head for
the hills and no-go zones (whether actual or metaphorical): wouldn’t
this constitute the best strategem we can hope for under present
circumstances?
In fact, given “the will to power as disappearance,” wouldn’t a
successful escape provide good cause to congratulate ourselves on a
touch of strategic brilliance?–almost turning a defeat into victory?
Escapism as a political/military movement recognizes amongst its great
precursors Houdini and the Count of Monte Cristo.
In my fictional mini-utopia (published in the last issue of Fifth
Estate), “Pastoral Letter from Sion County,” I explored tactics for
dropping out clandestinely through benign crime and social camouflage,
on the scale of a small rural political unit infiltrated by pot-growing
anarchists and neo-luddites. A number of readers have asked if such a
place really exists. Unfortunately the answer is “well, sort of,” since
the piece was inspired by some real-life examples–but not really, since
none of them have achieved the de facto independence of “Sion County.”
Sorry–no tickets to Erewhon.
In the course of my research, I wrote to activist/historian Kirkpatrick
Sale (who certainly qualifies for the title “Gen. Ludd”) to ask if he
knew of any secular luddite communities anywhere in the world. His sad
answer was “no.” But he did turn me on to some interesting sources.
The first was a book. I’m embarrassed to say I’d never even heard of it:
The Breakdown of Nations (1957) by Leopold Kohr. The simple and
beautifully-argued thesis of this work is that Small is Beautiful.
(Actually I think this slogan was coined by Kohr’s better-known
disciple, EF Schumacher.) The English Fourth World Journal, which
carries on Kohr’s work, summarizes the message as “For Small
Nations–Small Communities–Small Farms–Small Industries–Small
Fisheries–and the Inalienable Sovereignty of the Human Spirit.”
When Kohr wrote Breakdown, world power was divided between two enormous
political units, the USA and USSR. When he asked himself whether he
expected his idea would ever be realized in history, he answered himself
with a whole chapter consisting of a single word: “No.” The notion of
secession seemed very dim in the 1950s. But Kohr himself never gave up
revolutionary hope and in fact ended his career working for the
independence of Wales from the UK. In those days who could’ve predicted
the breakdown of the USSR?–or the UK, for that matter?
Kohr’s book seems quite relevant now, and certainly it deserves to be
brought back in print–along with another neglected masterpiece on
“minarchy” and mutualism, Proudhon’s Federalism. Secessionism has always
appealed to some anarchists, not as the end of the revolution but at
least as its beginning. (The end, as in Kropotkin and G Landauer, would
be regional anarcho-federations of autonomous entities.) Lysander
Spooner liked to shock people by saying he supported both Abolition and
Secession. The American Philosophical or Individualist Anarchist school
has always defended a universal right of secession: small state from big
state, region from small state, town from region, neighborhood from
town, family from neighborhood–and children from family. Naturally this
right also includes that of voluntary association, as in Stirner’s
“union of egoists.”
I learned a second interesting thing from Kirkpatrick Sale: secessionism
is “in the air” these days; movements are springing up here and there,
partly inspired by the demise of the USSR, more recently by the Pure
Capitalist Imperialism of the USA, which has become too disgusting to
ignore. Zapatista-style armed uprisings seem utterly futile in the face
of US military and police power–but secession may offer a political and
non-violent option: a kind of legal Escapism.
The Internet is abuzz with these ideas and movements, including
break-away proposals from Maine (the “Second Maine Militia” headed up by
novelist Caroline Chute); New Hampshire (the “Project” launched by
capital-L Libertarians to persuade 20,000 freedom-lovers to migrate to
that state); the Republic of Texas (a politically-dubious but amusing
group; I once met their “Ambassador to the Court of St. James” in
Dublin, after he’d been thrown out of his London “Embassy” for
non-payment of rent); Alaska; North Carolina; etc. etc.
Secession has appeal across a wide spectrum of political tastes:
decentralists, greens, bioregionalists, “buddhist economists,”
socialists, libertarian marxists, anti-globalists, Libertarians,
libertarians, separatists, “Third” and “Fourth” world nationalist
movements, tribal rights militants, neo-luddites, true federalists, true
conservatives (i.e., conservationists and isolationists),
anarchists–even a few disgusted Democrats–can all find something to
admire in this loose philosophy.
Kirkpatrick invited me to a conference on secession in Middlebury,
Vermont, co-sponsored by Fourth World and the Second Vermont Republic
(SVR), a secession movement pushing for Vermont independence. RadCon 2
(“second radical consultation”; the first was held in England in 2001)
asked its delegates, “After the Fall of the US Empire, Then What?” The
event was scheduled for the weekend after the national election in
November, on the premise that Bush would “win.” Delegates expressed the
belief that four more years (minimum) of imperial war, insane deficit
spending, predatory capitalism, and general immiseration will result in
conditions propitious for secession. They intend to get ready by
organizing now.
The mood of RadCon 2 was upbeat and hopeful. A good deal of discussion
was devoted to the question of the constitutionality of secession. SVR
founders Thomas Naylor and Don Livingston argue for its legality; their
reasons are fascinating but naturally of little interest to anarchists.
I presented the old Lysander Spooner argument that the Constitution
itself should be considered illegal, based as it is on a false
definition of the social contract. The Constitution represents a
counter-revolutionary coup d’etat by plutocratic anti-democratic forces.
Our last “legitimate” governing document was the Articles of
Confederation (based in part on the Iroquois Confederation), which made
a serious attempt to organize for “life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.”
Agrarian and democratic forces in the American Revolution detested the
Constitution and correctly identified it as a conspiracy of wealth and
power. The so-called “Anti-Federalists” (who were actually the true
federalists, not Alex Hamilton and his gang of bankers and landlords)
resisted to the point of violence. New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island
actually reserved the right to secede when they finally joined the
“union.” Vermont, which had seceded not only from the British Empire but
also from New York, retained its independence from 1777 to 1791. Ethan
Allen (like Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Gov. George
Clinton of New York, Tom Paine) was one of the original “unterrified
Jeffersonians” (unlike Jefferson himself!), but unfortunately Allen died
before he could lead the Anti-Federalist resistance. It’s nice to
imagine a rebirth of his Green Mountain Rangers (the true non-sexist
name of the so-called “GM Boys”) in the maquis of modern Vermont….
Anarchism in North America has never developed sustainable success
despite significant rhetoric and periodic moments of tactical promise.
Beyond small and scattered anarchist liberated zones, isolated actions
in radical labor unions, a waning co-op movement, a youth movement with
multiple styles but limited substance, and no effective anti-global
movement or even anti-war movement…nothing’s really moving. Thousands of
websites pass as “organization” and big protest marches are now
considered ends in themselves. “Symbolic discourse” is confused with
“praxis.” Some anarchists have embraced “nihilism,” the belief that
nothing can be done except hope for the end of Civilization. No
strategic alliances are allowed to sully the purity of our intransigent
positions; in fact, most of us spend most of our time denouncing each
other.
Anarchists often complain about the lack of “non-whites” at various of
our events, etc. Purist anarchism seems to offer little to people facing
immediate oppressions of poverty and racism. Why should anarchists who
claim to be “post-ideological” find it so difficult to cut slack for
other people’s definitions of freedom?
In fact many radical Blacks, Chicanos, and Native Americans are
intensely interested in separatism–which need not imply racism. We
should remember it’s the US government that defines “race” according to
genetic heritage, whereas Native Americans, for example, formerly
defined themselves by way of life not blood. The Iroquois Constitution
has a whole section devoted to adoption, both of tribes and individuals.
This wide-spread practice resulted in “Black Indians” and “White
Indians” (including at least one Iranian friend of mine, adopted into
the Native American Church).
Can anarchism re-invigorate itself by making strategic alliances with
separatist and secessionist movements? Or–if this question seems too
parochial–does secessionism stand any chance of success?–or victory?
Well, how about anarchist revolution? How’re its chances of success
these days?–Or how about the downfall of Civilization?
Secessionism of the Second-Vermont-Republic variety is based on
Kohr-type thinking, basically decentralist, non-authoritarian, roughly
“socialist” (although they prefer the term “commons”), green and
sustainable, not to mention anti-imperialist and anti-war. If anarchists
in the Northeast bioregion were considering strategic alliances, the SVR
might seem a good choice. Just now they’re on a roll–maybe.
Certainly, anti-statists can make valid critiques of varying aspects of
the currently configured secessionist project. Like any radical
endeavor, we should only participate with our eyes open and intellects
engaged, hoping to enhance the revolutionary tenor of groups grappling
with intentionally unraveling mass culture. If nothing has happened in
four years to further the cause, then obviously I’ll have to reconsider.
Meanwhile, however, I hope at least for a virtuous form of Escapism, a
spark for the imagination, maybe even…a cause.
— December, 2004
For further reading, the author suggests:
The Second Republic, Journal of Vermont Independence, POB 1516,
Montpelier, VT 05601
Thomas Naylor, The Vermont Manifesto, published by Xlibris,
1-800-795-4274
Naylor on Vermont, George Bush and Secession, from The Vermont Cynic:
Vermont Independence Day Petition:
www.vermontindependenceday.org
New Hampshire Free State Project, 74 Shirley Hill Rd., Goffstown, NH
03045, 1–888–532–4604
Fourth World Journal, ed. John Papworth. POB 2410, Swindon, England SN5
4XN