tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post49101779722543333..comments2024-01-08T04:16:25.601-08:00Comments on Ché (What You Call Your) Pasa: On Gene Sharp and The Revolution This TimeChé Pasahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01926630891287949373noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-68456158417353296832012-03-26T20:18:13.539-07:002012-03-26T20:18:13.539-07:00Alcuin,
Re: permaculture.
Yes.
Whether it can ...Alcuin,<br /><br />Re: permaculture. <br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />Whether it can become the base for an alternate socio/economic system remains to be seen. It has the potential, and it's already being implemented more widely than practically any other (secular) alternate.Ché Pasahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01926630891287949373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-41264871350637421062012-03-26T20:09:07.220-07:002012-03-26T20:09:07.220-07:00Cu-hool,
I appreciate your perspective on all of...Cu-hool, <br /><br />I appreciate your perspective on all of this. I realize you're trying to figure things out on behalf of the struggle as a whole. I see that as a good thing!<br /><br />We're all looking for what will work. I'm reading some material on Otpor in Serbia -- I believe they were a Sharp-advised and modeled movement -- that brought an end the Milosevic reign. One thing that stands out to me is that they had to try all sorts of tactics and strategies before they hit on the most effective ones, and they had to stay flexible. And their goal was simplicity itself: the end of the Milosevic regime. They weren't trying to UnFuck the World. They were trying to get rid of Milosevic. Eventually, they succeeded.<br /><br />And one thing they were very conscious of was that they were engaged in a marketing campaign, not so much in revolution.Ché Pasahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01926630891287949373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-56414571067805981822012-03-26T19:49:53.022-07:002012-03-26T19:49:53.022-07:00I can kind of see the idea of making the dominant ...I can kind of see the idea of making the dominant system "irrelevant." But it's a hell of a lot more difficult in the modern age when that system has nukes, predator drones, SWAT teams, etc. etc. <br /><br />The other problem is that another force is making the political elite largely "irrelevant" already -- in another sense. Since the plutocrats now (post-Citizens United) don't even have to pretend they don't pull the strings, politicians -- their bought and paid for pawns -- are interchangeable and dispensable. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, etc. etc. And since the right has been so incredibly successful at turning the people against even the idea of government, all too few people really care about that interchangeability. Left, right and center, people are truly pissed off and turned off by the entire system. If the Masters manage to privatize the whole works, I don't think enough people will raise a stink until the next depression hits, and by then it will be too late. They'll be so beaten down, they'll gladly go for the likely fascist coup/military junta, etc. <br /><br />IOW, I think we're in an age of oversimplication, dueling dualities, polarities and white hot emotions. I fear the long slog needed to "make the existing power structure "irrelevant" (from the left, from <i>our</i> POV, for our reasons and goals) is, in a way, too subtle, too nuanced, too intellectually clever to work in our current dark ages ethos. <br /><br />. . . . <br /><br />Just hashing some things out. The above isn't set in stone, by any means. <br /><br />Looking forward to more of your essays . . .Cuchulainnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-24602459200898105472012-03-26T19:03:27.925-07:002012-03-26T19:03:27.925-07:00Cu-hool,
how can "the good" go toe to t...Cu-hool,<br /><br /><i>how can "the good" go toe to toe with "the bad" and win</i><br /><br />That's a conundrum. The answer, as far as I can tell, is that it doesn't go toe to toe. <br /><br />The "good" goes around, it goes through, it burrows, it stands outside, it becomes the alternative... Graeber and Sharp share some insights about this, in that both see success by hollowing out the "bad," if you will, and collapsing it. Or enabling its collapse on its own. Actually, Graeber goes so far as to suggest that the present regime or system doesn't even have to collapse. It simply becomes irrelevant. That seems to be his ultimate and completely nonviolent revolution.<br /><br />They differ on what they see as an ideal to replace the "bad," but they are not that far apart on the hows and the mechanisms.<br /><br />As for hierarchies... <br /><br />There are informal hierarchies in Occupy that come and go; and there have always been dominant personalities and particularly energetic people who more or less run things day to day -- and this seems to be true everywhere, not just in New York. But OWS in New York does not run the Occupy Movement. It is one of many Occupys in New York City. And its influence on the rest of the movement is, IMHO, diminishing. <br /><br />The structure, to the extent there is an identifiable Occupy structure, is more like the Zapatistas -- only without Subcomandante Marcos and global. In fact, I thought that by now, someone like Subcomandante Marcos would emerge, but the closest Occupy seems to have come to that character is Jesse LaGreca. Many people ignore him or aren't even conscious of his presence.<br /><br />If only Jesse were a poet!<br /><br />I've said many times that there is no sign at all of an armed insurrection within or growing out of the Occupy movement, but there is lots of militance. "Fighting back" against oppression/repression is part of the framework of Occupy -- and that has led to a good deal of animosity between those who engage in "fighting back" and those who are absolute pacifists. <br /><br />I put "fighting back" in quotes, because much of it is symbolic and highly ritualized struggle. Like tearing down the barricades and mounting the Bull on Wall Street the other night. Or the use of shields against police projectiles. <br /><br />I saw livestream of a march in Portland OR yesterday; the front line was carrying... paintings on stretched canvas as shields. Some were art, some were slogans, some were hybrids, but none were functional as shields. They were symbolic. <br /><br />I'm torn about the necessity for masses of people. I'm not opposed but neither do I think it is a panacea. I'll try to expand on that notion in another post.Ché Pasahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01926630891287949373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-39637942337172679452012-03-26T17:49:49.687-07:002012-03-26T17:49:49.687-07:00"so propagandized," rather."so propagandized," rather.Cuchulainnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-15179421231348521762012-03-26T17:48:23.899-07:002012-03-26T17:48:23.899-07:00Thanks, Ché,
That was helpful.
We obviously do...Thanks, Ché,<br /><br /><br />That was helpful. <br /><br />We obviously don't want one plutocracy replaced by another. We want true egalitarian democracy to replace plutocracy.<br /><br />However . . . and again, hierarchies of dominance have massive advantages over non-hierarchical movements which eschew dominance. They play by different rules. <br /><br />Whether we like it or not, to overthrow the dominant system, another must dominate, somehow, someway. If the previous dominant, hierarchical system refuses to abdicate, it takes a greater force to defeat it. <br /><br />Not only is that just physics, history shows us that as well. <br /><br />The impossible conundrum, tragedy, obstacle is that most revolutions either fail or fail to improve the lot of the people when they "win". The very force they need to overcome oppression almost always seems to propel them into an equally oppressive force -- sooner or later. <br /><br />Basically, OWS -- or some truly egalitarian, emancipatory, non-hierarchical movement -- is what we <i>want</i> as a non-system system. But its very form, ideology, perhaps even its basic "goodness" all but prevents it from ever knocking off the current reigning bully/thug/champ.<br /><br />IOW (to radically simplify), how can "the good" go toe to toe with "the bad" and win, when "the bad" will go places its opponents simply will not go? Can "the good" overthrow "the bad" without becoming what it abhors?<br /><br />. . . . <br /><br />I fear the only way around this is overwhelming numbers. A velvet revolution with overwhelming numbers. But, then, in a nation so polarized, so beaten down, no propagandized, how do we bring enough people on board . . . ?Cuchulainnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-77988668562881548502012-03-26T16:42:22.952-07:002012-03-26T16:42:22.952-07:00If capitalism is all about hierarchy and dominance...If capitalism is all about hierarchy and dominance in the pursuit of power, the sensible course of action to me seems to be embrace the principles of non-hierarchy and non-dominance. I don't see how it is possible to fight dominance and hierarchy by becoming dominant and hierarchical. I think a lot of people involved in the Occupy movement know this and that is why we don't see a Demand.<br /><br />I think permaculture is anarchism in action.<br /><br />Good post, Che, thanks!Alcuinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-27609830666220320042012-03-26T13:20:07.040-07:002012-03-26T13:20:07.040-07:00Thanks for the follow up comment. I do see your po...Thanks for the follow up comment. I do see your points in regard to how these countries eventually ended up essentially being oligarchies. Have there been any countries that transitioned to more socialist types of governments? I guess some of the South American countries would better fit that bill.<br />I guess the thing that scares me is how much the US govt seems to be preparing for a people's uprising. See for example: surveillance, laws criminalizing protest and militarization of police forces. I guess I just don't believe all those things happening are coincidence. Also, I fully support the Occupy movement. They are the only ones putting their asses on the line to show the emperor has no clothes.Pathmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-52567801059011000622012-03-26T13:00:40.605-07:002012-03-26T13:00:40.605-07:00Pathman,
Interesting that you were in the Philipp...Pathman,<br /><br />Interesting that you were in the Philippines so soon after Marcos fled. No, the revolution didn't change things for many Filipinos, but there was some rearrangement of the power players. <br /><br />I'm more ambivalent about Sharp's revolutionary theories than it may seem. They did work rather spectacularly, for a while, but they don't seem to be as effective any more. And of course they almost always led to the installation of some neo-liberal/Chicago Boys type looting regime that worsened the condition of the masses while enhancing the position and well-being of a tiny cadre of domestic plutocrats and an array of foreign financial interests. Funny how that works.<br /><br />That's what's happening in Egypt and Tunisia, and it's no wonder the People are saying WTF? Libya was a stark horror, requiring international intervention on behalf of the rebels, and the fallout is spreading through Africa. There is no discernible benefit to the Libyan people, but once again a small cadre of Libyan would-be plutocrats and foreign financial interests are making out like the bandits they are.<br /><br />Syria appears to be going down the same horrible path. The failures elsewhere should be just as mortifying. But to Sharp they are "to be expected." I'm just not that cold-blooded I guess.<br /><br />Sharp has lots of good insight into the nature of power and the weaknesses of the systems by which we are ruled. There was a time when I think his revolutionary theories could have been effectively employed in this country -- between December 2000 and September 2001 -- for the Bush Regime was incredibly weak at that time, and the People were pissed. But it was like Americans had been put under a trance and nothing happened.<br /><br />Now I think it is way too late for Sharp-style movements/revolution in this country. Something else is necessary, some other approach that isn't so linear. Occupy? Hmmm. Could be!<br /><br />But I think there is room for a Sharp-style approach, especially in some of the cities with highly authoritarian and rigid administrations -- I can think of a few off the top of my head, New York and Chicago come to mind.Ché Pasahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01926630891287949373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-68255488987840822882012-03-26T11:37:27.761-07:002012-03-26T11:37:27.761-07:00Thanks for writing this. I've been waiting to ...Thanks for writing this. I've been waiting to hear what your take is on Gene Sharp's ideas as they relate to Occupy. Your essential argument is that the revolutionary forces he advocates for are already in charge here? Interesting. I don't know if his ideas would change anything here either but we certainly can't continue with what we have. We seem to be farther and farther down the rabbit hole in this surreal nightmare we call America. I certainly hope their is an "awakening" on the part of the American people and soon.<br />As a side note, I was in the Philippines two weeks after Marcos was overthrown. I wasn't in Manila so it seemed pretty much business as usual.Pathmannoreply@blogger.com