There was a time when I was ignorant of oppression; a blissful childhood spent aloof to the suffering in the world. My eyes began to open in my adolescence, and my identity shifted. Naively, I thought we could use the system’s own channels to reform and ameliorate oppressive conditions. I slowly became disillusioned with this process, and at the cusp of adulthood supported government overthrow. Years ago now, I abandoned both tracks.
The discussion still lives: work within the system, or overthrow the system. Reformists are interested in sustainable change and pragmatic action. They rightly believe that practices must become institutionalized if they are to last. But in their insight lies their oversight: the classism, racism, and sexism of the enlightenment were thusly institutionalized, and that is why they persist through the modern era. Revolutionaries recognize fundamental structural flaws and are yet blinded by dialectic fancy; so obsessed are they with burning down the castle that they have yet to ask what would be built in its place.
I am absolutely convinced that the structure is irreparable. We look at society as an environment, where organizations, individuals and practices must adapt to given conditions in order to thrive. So those things which persist we assume are good, because they have adapted to a society that we believe is fair and democratic. If they were as harmful as some claim, would they not have been altered or abolished long ago? And so institutions are self-legitimizing. And they change only very slowly. And so the white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy that our forefathers founded is still a white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy. It cannot be fixed, because it is fundamentally flawed.
And yet I have no interest in overthrowing it. It’s not enough to burn down the castle, because then where do you go? You can’t destroy unless you are also creating. Therein lies the fundamental difference between myself and the revolutionary: he or she seeks to destroy in order to create, I seek to create in order to destroy. He or she wants to burn down the castle and build something beautiful in the ashes. I want to build something so beautiful the castle becomes obsolete.
I would describe my stance as abandonist. The superstructure will outlive itself–like a fire with no kindling–but when the logs fall, what will take their place? Yes, we can help topple the logs by pressing in the least balanced places, and that is extremely important, but it is more important to ask ourselves what we are going to do when things fall apart. And then to ask ourselves why we are not already doing that.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
I can’t wait until CA.
I’m reading Thoreau and going insane.
Is there any precedent for such an ambition? And can you really call yourself an “abandonist” if you still crave a revolution, regardless of the motives? I feel like an “abandonist” puts an apathetic spin on your desires.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:29 am
I guess the point is to emphasize the importance of building over destroying. Am I a revolutionary? What does this mean? Do I refuse to recognize the legitimacy of national government? Yes. Do I support its overthrow? Yes. But this process must be organic. Toppling a power structure with nothing to replace it creates a dangerous vacuum. You do raise a good question. I guess the point of identifying as “abandonist” is to stress that we can, right now, be laying the foundation for future community, that we don’t have to wait for the government to go away first, and that in doing so we will actually further that struggle, perhaps moreso than some sort of direct opposition.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:27 am
wal mart is abandonist… but not in the same sense. you guys and your meta meta meta stuffs. this is one of your best posts as far as content, my dear. i like it. i agree.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I couldn’t figure out a way to write the part in bold without using gender binaries. That frustrated me.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Wow this post really gets at what I have been thinking about lately, and this is not the first time I’ve come here and had this experience! I guess because I read/hear a lot about this desire for collapse or this desire for something drastic or catastrophic to happen. People think this will rattle everyone into some kind of awakened state.
I disagree. I think the poorest, most vulnerable will suffer and the wealthiest elite will be insulated and prepared. I am not sure exactly why people think this would NOT be the case. I mean, look at natural disasters. Who suffers- capitalists? Hell no. They go out and raise the price of building materials and fresh water.
I think that there are some gaps in the “destruction” scenario. I don’t think we, as a society, have to necessarily hit some sort of rock bottom to start addressing our problems. On the other hand, we often give humanity a lot of credit. That last part is where I struggle and get right back to confusion.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Excellent. Reading Fanon?
In response to lynn: I half expect that status quo and world systems to crumble because of global calamities resulting from the biggest, most binding, and ingrained institution the humanities ever faced: capitalism. Its self destructing and unsustainable, and will naturally lead to ruin. There are two sides of the coin: this will force us to move beyond a beastly system, we no longer know how to control (including the global elite) but could easily lead to megadeath largely claiming the worlds most disenfranchised and oppressed.
If we tear down the gov’t now, were does that lead anyone? Those who will be harmed the most will be the facing the most injustices now The rebuilding of all systems, like everything needs to be from the bottom up, and not a tear down. Just plant stronger, better seeds that will naturally replace the nasty bushes in the garden.
Which is why I rant about the need for creativity.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:45 am
Nice discussion.
I’d like to frame the issue in terms of power. Hearkening back to that post-Ironman post, power was defined in terms of ability to allocate resources, and politics as the practice of distributing power.
So if we create resources, we are gaining power, and acting directly in the political realm.
The “building” I have spoken of is precisely that–a process of gaining resources by which old resources meet obsolescence and old powers are weakened.
I will write more about this.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I found you today in my google search “how to talk to men about sexism.” I used to believe in anarchy until I became so annoyed and disillusioned. I used to believe in reform, until the same happened and I meandered on my own ways. I am so happy to have found you, because you articulate this third path that I desperately need and prefer and know. Thank you! Come to Boston, we’ll have tea and chat :-)