Latest Insurgent Meeting

So I just went to the latest meeting of the Student Insurgent collective, the radical student newspaper on the UO campus. It was by far the most eventful meeting I have attended. An obviously mentally ill lady spoke to us (P, J, D, and I, no Natty) to start off. She ended up speaking for nearly an hour about her life story. It seems that she wished for us to publicize her plight against doctors in control of the pharmaceutical industry who were incompetent to treat her sleep disorder because all they did was prescribe her expensive drugs. She somehow took this to court and lost. She was definitely seriously paranoid (which she denied), and even suggested that someone had been breaking into her old house to mess with her and someone else was responsible for the times she woke up in hotel rooms with needle marks in her arms. She is paranoid and currently homeless, and says she used to be a doctor. She simply thinks her problem is a misdiagnosis of her sleep disorder, and expects us to write about the corruption that is the cause of this misdiagnosis. I felt sympathy for her, and I think she is crazy and that the real story here is that her mental illness has certain social and environmental roots (which her story seemed to suggest). Very very long story short. Anyway, when she left, we discussed the delicacy of the situation (she's gonna come back and we want to write about her but not necessarily from the angle she wants.) It will be challenging, we don't want to cut her off and send her out alone into the world again, but she is very difficult.

Once we got that behind us, we had the most productive critical, internal interaction at a meeting ever. The older guy, D, who has some background in newspaper work and is technically The Editor of the paper, even though it is run by our collective, began to voice some issues he has. He seems to be under lots of stress lately, so it all came out. Apparently, his ideal vision of a radical newspaper is not being fulfilled. No surprise, I don't think any of us can say we agree fully with even most of the paper's content, because we are a relatively open and kinda diverse collective. This is fine. But D seems to be upset that he doesn't have more control. He 1) thinks my articles are too academic, 2) thinks some of the articles are too long and not captivating (like Natty's excellent piece on Israel/Palestine) which again ties into the whole academic thing, 3) thinks there are too many animal liberation articles (I tend to agree, but what are we gonna do, censor? This is a goddamn collective!) and overall 4) wants more straight news devoid of analysis and context. At one point, when we tried to counter him, he wailed about how he is the editor and he is the one who went to editor school (or whatever the hell he was talking about.) He was extremely authoritarian. This triggered some very helpful discussion.

To begin with, we all three strongly put D back in his place. That is, he is not a dictator and does not own our newspaper. It is a student publication run collectively by students. He hopefully understood, no love lost. Moving on to the issues he brought up, we all agreed that we have different focuses but that unity in diversity is a good idea in this case. P defended the animal lib stuff, and she had very good points about supporting local activists. J did as well, and they both agreed with D about Natty and I and our academic style. But the two of them accept it and just said it is kind of hard to understand or even to work up the effort to read. I acknowledged these criticisms, and said that I am not interested in dumbing down anything I wish to say for a larger audience, and would like to focus more on analysis and theory than just news. And we all accepted each other in the end (D did grudgingly.)

D went out and said it and Natty and I have been joking about it together all year: our stuff doesn't belong in a newspaper, it belongs in academic journals.

Camatte: The Most Original Communist I've Read

Lately I've been trying to get my hands on some of the writings of Jacques Camatte. His stuff is hard to find, but I figure Eugene is the place to be to find it (thank you, Green Anarchy!) But I haven't got a hard copy of any of his work yet, so in the meantime I've been reading through some of his essays online. I think he makes way too many good points to be as obscure as he is, but then again, I understand why he would be obscure because his conclusions are very radical.

The first major point of his that I think distinguishes him from just about every other communist I have read is his belief that as long as revolution means progress, it is not desirable. He says in his essay The Despotism of Capital that "capital, as it constantly overthrows traditional patterns of life, is itself revolution." The whole history of capitalism is one of revolutions instigated or recuperated by capital; in other words, the history of progress. “Every separate revolt now becomes a further stimulus for the movement of capital.” So any steps forward now are only steps forward for capital. We need to step backwards toward traditional forms of community:

Revolution can no longer be taken to mean just the destruction of all that is old and conservative, because capital has accomplished this itself. Rather, it will appear as a return to something (a revolution in the mathematical sense of the term), a return to community, though not in any form which has existed previously. Revolution will make itself felt in the destruction of all that which is most "modern" and "progressive" (because science is capital). Another of its manifestations will involve the reappropriation of all those aspects and qualities of life which have still managed to affirm that which is human. In attempting to grasp what this tendency means, we cannot be aided by any of the old dualistic, manichean categories. (It is the same tendency which in the past had held back the valorization process in its movement towards a situation of complete autonomy.) If the triumph of communism is to bring about the creation of humanity, then it requires that this creation be possible, it must be a desire which has been there all the time, for centuries. (The Despotism of Capital)

As the quote makes clear, he isn’t exactly atavistic. He sees primitive communism as the only effective guide for humanity, not as a model to strictly adhere to. This critique of progress ties in with his critique of science. He makes it clear that “a scientific solution is a capitalist solution, because it eliminates humans and lays open the prospect of a totally controlled society.” (Against Domestication) Basically, rationalization negates what is human and fosters reification.

The other unique argument of his (coming from a communist) is that the identification of a specific group as the most revolutionary subject is a degrading consequence of domestication. He pragmatically remarks that “communist revolution…won't be the activity of one class only, but of humanity rising up against capital.” (The Mythology of the Proletariat) Obviously, certain groups are more exploited by the system, but his emphasis is not on exploitation, but domestication.

This all strikes me as highly original thought for a communist—ideas which were virtually plagiarized by primitivists like Zerzan (not that plagiarism’s a bad thing.) I need to find out more about this guy because I am extremely interested in him. Maybe I’ll drop by Zerzan’z little cabin (I’m not even kidding!) one of these days and ask where I can get me some Camatte.

Murray Bookchin Tickles Me

Been reading some Bookchin to get into the groove for Foster's class. Some thoughts and quotes:

What renders social ecology so important in comparing ecosystems to societies is that it decisively challenges the very function of hierarchy as a way of ordering reality, of dealing with differentiation and variation- with "otherness" as such. Social ecology ruptures the association of order with hierarchy. It poses the question of whether we can experience the "other," not hierarchically on a "scale of one to ten" with a continual emphasis on "inferior" and "superior," but ecologically, as variety that enhances the unity of phenomena, enriches wholeness, and more closely resembles a food-web than a pyramid. (The Modern Crisis, 66-7)

I think this type of outlook is helpful. Not everyone is the same, but that doesn't mean we all cannot be valued equally. This doesn't mean Bookchin is simply focusing on values, though. If he were simply saying that everyone should be valued equally, we could use this logic and retort, "well, there needn't be hierarchy in capitalism because capitalism is a system in which everyone fulfills a valuable function, like in an ecosystem." But he does come dangerously close to this line of thinking, so thankfully he mentions "functional hierarchy," meaning he isn't just arguing against personal beliefs in certain superiorities, but hierarchy as a social fact. He also brings up a point I've thought alot about before:

In a world that is fairly innocent of greed and hierarchy- a world in which the very word "freedom" is absent from the vocabulary because it is a universal reality of life- only a far-reaching consciousness of the ills that emerge with the first breahces of its libertarian "social compact" can prevent the logic of domination from totally altering a community's fragile sensibility of mutual aid and respect for human beings and the natural world. Naivete bears not only the charm of purity, but also a dangerous vulnerability to manipulation. (118-9)

This is why history always matters, and why I am skeptical of the proposition that, in order to step closer toward (anarcho-)communism, we should expunge from the dictionary all words that harken back to old, abhorent social orders (along with happy words, like freedom, that imply the existence of any other possibilty.) To me, really, revolutionary activity will always be a necessity, because counter-revolution will always exist, even if only as a latent possibility. Which brings us back to Marx:

Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the now existing premise. (The German Ideology, 57)

Richard Heinberg's Talk

Richard Heinberg is one of the few Peak Oil educators who comes from a vaguely radical perspective, and this is why he is very influential to me. So I was happy to have the priviledge of seeing his presentation at the Eugene Hilton tonight entitled "Peak Oil: Challenges and Opportunities at the end of Cheap Petroleum." I was pleasantly surprised to find that a rather large ballroom in the Hilton was filled to capacity with probably over a thousand people who came to see Heinberg. I even believe some people were turned away once the place was filled.

He was introduced by Eugene's mayor ______. Ms. ______ gave a very warm welcome to Heinberg which bordered on ass-kissing, and towards the end seemed to be giving a sales pitch about how great Eugene is. Fortunately, she wasn't long. Heinberg himself came up and warmed up the crowd with a few jokes, including one about how he doesn't know whether people in Eugene are lucky to have such an awesome mayor, or just smart to have elected her. Yuck.

Then came the real part. Heinberg basically just summed up Peak Oil for the crowd, and I learned little, but it was still great. He mentioned the US production peak in 1970; he showed how the supply shocks temporarily reduced demand in the 1970s; he emphasized the fact that no one exactly knows when the global peak will happen but it inevitably will; he talked about the probable consequences of the global peak; and he dismissed the notion that any currently known energy source will in any way replace fossil fuels. His message is "prepare for the worst, just like in any other crises management." It was especially interesting when he mentioned the book that he is currently working on called "The Oil Depletion Protocol" which calls for oil producing nations to agree to restrain production in agreement with consuming nations to restrain demand. I don't see such a proposal being very effective, but if it actually were implemented and agreed to I believe it would have some (slight) positive effects. But the major point is that, locally, we ourselves need to deal with these problems...

...Which brings me to the question I asked in order to take advantage of the Q&A session. I said, "I know you've written for anarchist periodicals in the past, so I was wondering what role you see anarchist philosophy playing in the whole peak oil picture?" His response was that he sees anarchism as the belief that people can come together to make their own decisions, and that this has obvious connections to the type of world we should wish to create after the age of cheap oil. We basically have two options after the crisis, he said: some sort of society loosely constructed around anarchist principles, or fascism. He was very blunt.

I'd also like to add that I was very pleased with the way he dealt with an old hippie asking a stupid question. Some guy with crazy hair wearing tye-dye came up to the mic and said something along the lines of "There are no economic, political, or social solutions to these problems. So could you address the need for spirituality?" (I groaned loudly.) Heinberg told him that we are addressing material problems and it is dangerous to drift away from reality in favor of the spiritual. To be more consoling, he added that in the future there might be opportunites to become closer to nature and that this could have healing effects. I concur.

TAZ and Hakim Bey's Curious Approach

I just finished reading Hakim Bey’s book Temporary Autonomous Zone. Needless to say, it was kind of creepy. I can appreciate Bey’s socially-indifferent hedonism, especially since even he recognizes it isn’t a practical approach but a spiritual mindset (yes, he’s a mystic, which is a bit strange) but he just has to blather on about his attraction to little boys. Perhaps he is a NAMBLA spokesman in all of his books, as his Pirate Utopias (written under his real name, Peter L Wilson), which is overall a great history, is also rife with his little boy fetish. I try hard not to let his advocation of pederasty detract from his better points, but…ew.

But seriously, he does have some very good points. His idea of the TAZ is a reasonable proposal to not try to smash the state all at once, but to tear holes in the spectacle here, there, anywhere and anywhen, as long as the autonomy achieved exists in the present. We shouldn’t wait around for a totalistic revolution. As I understand it, he sees it as wise to avoid spectacular confrontation and instead to quietly engage in radical organizing behind the scenes. Here is a good quote (ignore the postmodern jargon about the “Simulated” state. Baudrillard is a step backwards from Debord):

[The destruction] of the Simulated State will be “spectacular,” but in most cases the best and most radical tactic will be to refuse to engage in spectacular violence, to withdraw from the area of simulation, to disappear. (102)

Also, as I briefly mentioned above, Bey is concerned with the immediate fulfillment of desires. He is realistic and does not reject all mediation, but he is transfixed with immediatism. His critique of anarchism in his essay Post-Anarchism Anarchy reflects this belief. I think some of his points here are worthwhile:

Between tragic Past & impossible Future, anarchism seems to lack a Present—as if afraid to ask itself, here & now, WHAT ARE MY TRUE DESIRES?—& what can I DO before it’s too late?…Yes, imagine yourself confronted by a sorcerer who stares you down balefully & demands, “What is your True Desire?” Do you hem & haw, stammer, take refuge in ideological platitudes? Do you possess both Imagination and Will, can you both dream & dare—or are you the dupe of an impotent fantasy? (61)

His essay on linguistics is an interesting read as well. He argues against both Chomskyan linguistics and anti-linguistics (Zerzan, Rimbaud, etc.) He agrees more with Zerzan’s approach, but like Chomsky wishes to “save” language. His argument is that language should be saved as a completely chaotic element of the human spirit: in language, anything goes. The problem is, the whole essay illustrates a complete disconnect. Zerzan employs a highly abstract philosophical argument against representation and mediation. Chomsky takes a scientific approach to prove that language tools are inherent in the human mind. Bey tries to pit these two tendencies against each other, and comes in with an abstract argument near the same level as Zerzan but still fundamentally different. He does not understand that they all have different approaches (philosophy, science, mysticism.) There is no real disagreement here: both Zerzan and Chomsky would reply to the other “so what?” The disconnect here illuminates Bey’s writing style and thought process: chaotic. While he has many good points scattered throughout this book, it has more literary merit than practical value. (After all, look at the quotes on the back of it: Burroughs, Ginsberg, etc.)

The last thing I wish to comment on is Bey’s obsession with “CHAOS.” Instead of tearing down all of the typical myths of anarchy, he wishes to reinforce them with an emphatic so what! and consistently associates chaos with anarchy. In order to understand such an irrational approach, one must understand that Hakim Bey is an irrational fellow. Again, his argument for chaos is a spiritual one, a sort of praise for the movement of the free spirit; it isn’t grounded in reality. Only, sometimes he could be a little clearer about this. But I have to conclude that this doesn’t matter as long as it is understood that TAZ has more literary merit than practical value. Essentially, TAZ is an enjoyable read written for anarchists to re-inspire themselves and re-learn to actually question everything.

Marx and Consumption

Marx focuses on production in his economic analyses, which, from an economic standpoint appears one-sided. But in his Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy the reasons for this become clear:

Production is at the same time also consumption...The individual who develops his faculties in production is also expending them, consuming them in the act of production...Consumption is directly also production, just as in nature the consumption of the elements and of chemical matter constitutes production of plants. (7)

Marx sees the two related together dialectically as part of the same process, so by focusing on production, he is also directly dealing with consumption. On a semi-related note, Marx also viewed production as a truly emancipatory human action (assuming it is not alienated production, an assumption some primitivists would challenge as an oxymoron.) I would agree with him on this one; too many radicals use the terms production and consumption as pejoratives, when in fact it should be recognized that production and consumption are both materially necessary and can be personally fulfilling. One needs to make a distinction between capitalist and communist production/consumption.

New Songs To New Music

I recently read Paul Lafargue's The Right to Be Lazy. It was an enjoyable, quick read. Lafargue was Marx's son-in-law, was financially supported for a large part of his life by Engels, and worked against Bakuninist tendencies in the First International, yet he still brought a more libertarian perspective to marxist thought and was sometimes compared to Bakunin. The Right to Be Lazy is his attack on the degrading capitalist work ethic. He believes "revolutionary socialists must...demolish in the heads of the class which they call to action the prejudices sown in them by the ruling class." (18) Of course, he points out how an ascetic work ethic is meant to destroy the desires and reduce the needs of producers in order to mold them into automatons for a system predicated upon production. The piece is also directed against workerist tendencies in the labor movement which call for the right to work and hence merely reproduce the "slaveholder ideology" of capitalism.

But while this is a seminal writing on the problem of work and must be commended as such, it still is highly flawed. For one, Lafargue has quite an awesome sense of humor, which makes me wonder about the seriousness and desiribility of some of his (hopeful) predictions. For example, he happily envisions "a brazen law forbidding any man to work more than three hours a day" (68) being enacted after rational technological automation of production makes the labor market swell. This is either a joke or is a highly unrealistic authoritarian dream.

Even more importantly, his call for the three hour work day contradicts his entire attitude about work. I would think a proponent of leisure so critical of the work ethic would recognize that fundamentally the two should not coexist. Even a mandatory 1 hour work day reduces the producer to...well, a producer. All free time is merely time for recuperation/reproduction of the worker, who still must have at least a tiny bit of that capitalist work ethic Lafargue rails against. So it may be an overly grand proposal, but it would make more sense to demand the abolition of work. Only in a leisure society (communism) can any true leisure be realized and the work ethic destroyed. The only solution to the problem posed by Lafargue is a communist society in which people freely produce however they so desire (and for some reason he doesn't just come out and say this.) After all, leisure is highly productive, a fact that Lafargue points out himself.