Printed Editions



Download our Printed Editions
Volume: 1.1 1.2

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

How Nonviolence Protects the State by Peter Gelderloos

How Nonviolence Protects the State by Peter Gelderloos
Available here or as a PDF here

Contents:
Introduction
Chapter One: Nonviolence is Ineffective
Chapter Two: Nonviolence is Racist
Chapter Three: Nonviolence is Statist
Chapter Four: Nonviolence is Patriarchal
Chapter Five: Nonviolence is Tactically & Strategically Inferior
Chapter Six: Nonviolence is Deluded
Chapter Seven: The Alternative: Possibilities for Revolutionary Activism

---

First off, I have to say that this is one of the best political books I've read all year (probably tied with The Coming Insurrection). It echoes a lot of what I believe about the ideology of nonviolence-only/pacifism. It also opened my eyes to other aspects of nonviolence that I had not thought about. Moreover, it covered what I tried to get at in my post on the Limits of Peaceful Resistance in a much better and more organized way, while still showing frustration.  When it was handed to me and I looked at the contents, I knew this was a book I would have to read. My friend told me I would love it, but I had no idea how much. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in activism, even from a theoretical standpoint, and in particular to those who tout a pacifist-only ideology.

One of the first things Gelderloos tries to do in this book is dispel the idea that being against pacifism and nonviolent approaches does not mean one is necessarily pro-violence. I would not say I am pro-violence, but rather I support the diversity of tactics, which is what Gelderloos restates throughout the book: we don't need a staunchly pacifist bloc that will never really accomplish the ultimate goal of overthrowing capitalism, we need a diversity of tactics that may necessitate property destruction and armed struggle. He starts his argument with a discussion of how and when nonviolence has succeeded only as a result of armed blocs within a movement: the US Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s had the nonviolent face of Martin Luther King, Jr. who was co-opted by the state AND the militant faction of the Black Panthers who really showed the urgency of the movements; Gandhi was supported by the British and was easily maintained by the colonizers, but what really gave the urgency for the British to pull out of India was the armed uprisings of the Indian people elsewhere; the Hippie movement didn't really do anything to force the US Government to pull out of Vietnam, the fact that the Vietnamese people were relentlessly fighting against the US troops is what ultimately forced them to withdraw.

From there, Gelderloos builds his argument based on the chapter titles above. The main reason he gives for nonviolence being racist is that it often comes from a white person of privilege. How can someone who has never felt the brunt of racism tell someone in Oakland, for instance, who has to deal with racist police, to just turn the other cheek when the cops will not hesitate to shoot and kill even unarmed citizens? As Gelderloos shows, exclusively nonviolent practices are almost always preached by white people who coopt nonviolent figureheads but ignore the other aspects of their struggle, or ignore when they endorse the use of a diversity of tactics among other groups fighting for the same cause.

In the chapter "Nonviolence is Statist" explains how nonviolent protest is easily contained and managed by the state. Pacifists use approaches that are accepted by the state and happen in designated areas, where as militant property destruction can't be co opted and can't be contained. the police are not threatened by protesters who lock arms and sit in a human chain in the designated protest area, they are afraid of the people rioting in the streets, destroying bank windows, unafraid and going beyond what peaceful protest can do. In the chapter "Nonviolence is tactically & strategically inferior", Gelderloos reiterates that nonviolence can only get a movement to a specific point, but to go beyond it and overthrow capitalism and all forms of oppression, they will need to escalate their methods. He says,
[As] long as we continue to tolerate nonviolent leadership, the police will have us right where they want us. But if we refuse to de-escalate and to cooperate with the police, we can organize disruptive protests when they are needed and fight for the interests of our community or our cause without compromise. (103)
The alternative that he proposes is the necessity for the diversity of tactics. Nonviolent protesters need to stop the demonization of "violent" methods (which is even a debatable term since what may be violent to one person may not be considered violent to another), and violent protesters need to recognize that nonviolent methods do have there place. However, a strictly pacifist methodology will get us nowhere, as it will be easily contained, coopted, and put down by the state.

I highly recommend this book to everyone.

If you want to read a review from a nonviolent protester, one is located here.

~the GADFLY

Friday, November 19, 2010

What anarchism really means

As well as a tactic, direct action is also a means for self-empowerment. It is a component of the society we hope to create, where people take control of their lives into their own hands and confront the root causes of injustices directly, without representatives. This sometimes includes property damage, but anarchists take seriously the notions of liberty and equality: that people are capable of speaking and acting for themselves and become even more capable through practice rather than representation.
I saw this article entitled "What anarchism really means" and had to share it. It was written by the Anarchist Studies Network and appeared in the British daily newspaper The Guardian, which is a pretty mainstream news source. Check it out
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/18/anarchism-direct-action-student-protests

- the Gadfly

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

theory of how college is like a game


[11/2/10 9:37:49 PM] person 1: hey, my friend patrick wants to know more on your theory of how college is like a game
[11/2/10 9:37:49 PM] person 1: please elaborate
[11/2/10 9:37:51 PM] person 1: for his sake
[11/2/10 9:37:53 PM] person 1: :)
[11/2/10 9:38:27 PM] person 2: alright give me a sec. just need to get through a couple things with j-money
[11/2/10 9:40:30 PM] person 2: essentially at this point in america, most decent to great jobs (monetarily and usually physically and emotionally "better" jobs) require at the very least a bachelors degree, if not a masters/phd
[11/2/10 9:43:17 PM] person 2: and your college education (academic education primarily) doesn't really have anything to do with the job you will be working. I for example am a sociology major. I can get a job doing research on race in a poor, immigrant community in some big city with a degree that has not actually taught me anything (except for one methods class) about actually going to do the research: how to communicate with people that probably view me as a privileged white outsider
[11/2/10 9:44:52 PM] person 2: what the degree really is suppose to prove is that you are a disciplined worker. I go to Middlebury, y'all two go to Hampshire. Both schools are considered rigorous and achieving good grades at our schools requires hard word. I bust my ass when i need to and definitely do a lot of work (though I spend a lot of time dicking around too).
[11/2/10 9:45:21 PM] person 2: thus when i apply for a job, i am showing them a piece of paper that says i am a disciplined, hard working.
[11/2/10 9:45:42 PM] person 2: my work in clubs. i'm a humanitarian, a leader, a good team player
[11/2/10 9:47:35 PM] person 2: at the end of the day, you totally learn some cool stuff at college, but it is less useful then actual lived experience. i should be able to prove that i am a hard worker just by working hard at a job, not paying a bunch of money to read, write, and talk a bunch about a bunch of sort of irrelevant things.
[11/2/10 9:48:43 PM] person 2: i therefore propose that if you can get away with doing really well in school while avoiding as much work as possible, you should do it
[11/2/10 9:50:32 PM] person 2: skip class, don't hand stuff in on time, stay out too late, or get high when you should be doing a reading
[11/2/10 9:50:42 PM] person 2: just make sure you don't start fucking up your grades
[11/2/10 9:51:10 PM] person 1: amen
[11/2/10 9:51:12 PM] person 1: :)

the G(L)ADFLY

Thursday, October 28, 2010

A Book Review: Arturo Escobar, "Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World "

PRINCETON STUDIES IN CULTURE/POWER/HISTORY 




Arturo Escobar
Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World

CHAPTER 1 Introduction: Development and the Anthropology of Modernity 3
CHAPTER 2 The Problematization of Poverty: The Tale of Three Worlds and Development 21
CHAPTER 3 Economics and the Space of Development: Tales of Growth and Capital 55
CHAPTER 4 The Dispersion of Power: Tales of Food and Hunger 102
CHAPTER 5 Power and Visibility: Tales of Peasants, Women, and the Environment 154
CHAPTER 6 Conclusion: Imagining a Postdevelopment Era 212

Review 
            An 'encounter' with Escobar's book begins with his intention to rethink the entire notion of development by approaching the subject via deconstruction, prejudicial detachment, and the contextualization of development as a hegemonic all-encompassing cultural space. Relying heavily on “Foucault’s work on the dynamics of discourse and power in the representation of social reality,” Escobar compares his conception of development as a historically produced discourse to Edward Said’s groundbreaking work on “Orientalism.”
            The author proposes that “The West’s” inherently paternalistic and ethnocentric domain of thought and action, a discursive regime, should be defined by the interplay amongst its three axes:

“the forms of knowledge that refer to it and through which it comes into being…objects, concepts, theories and the like; the system of power that regulates its practice; and the forms of subjectivity fostered by this discourse.”


His thesis seeks to move beyond the concept of development as arisen through this regime of order and truth (a quintessential aspect of modernity) and provide a foundational query for the emerging theory of post-development. This task is begun by attacking the representative traditions of late-modernity, places of encounter where identities are constructed; wherein the “Third World” and its people “exist ‘out there,’ to be known through theories and intervened upon from the outside. 
            Escobar’s book does take on a range of heavily nuanced and often embedded issues. Also, broadly speaking, the deployment of a development discourse in a world system in which “The West” has a certain dominance over the Third World is central to understanding the profound political, economic and cultural effects that have to be explored. As the discourse was constructed under this unequal exchange of power, it has come to be seen by Escobar as “the ultimate colonial move.”
            Some critics such as Sarden, Moss, Lewis, and Painter have suggested that while the conception of development as a discursive power construction remains valuable, the deconstructive approaches are no less ideological than the populist ones. Sarden has even asserted that Escobar and others’ post-structuralist analysis should more aptly be deemed ideological deconstructivism; the term itself a direct response to Escobar’s semantic construction of the phrase “developmentalism” (the so called -ism “disease of the field”)  Many of Escobar’s critics thus do not abandon deconstructivist perspectives, but endeavor to make them methodological rather than ideological.
            Methods and data that form the book’s academic grounding span multiple disciplines and cognitive scales. Because the book (as a starting point) rejects the objective truth and order of modernity’s western cultural condition, most of the references come from anthropological and geographic case studies of development’s failures, as they affect real communities and their traditions. These studies explore how the displacement of indigenous communities, disruption of people’s habitats and occupations, and the increase in pressure on natural systems (forced upon rural societies) are all rooted in the development process. Vandana Shiva, Judith Butler, Manthia Diawara, Wolfgang Sachs, Gustavo Esteva, Immanuel Wallerstein, David Harvey, Ivan Illich, Majid Rahnema, and Anibal Quijano are just a few of the more well known academics supporting and cited in Encountering Development. Escobar juxtaposes these cultural studies/analysis with UN, IMF and World Bank reports, international government agency critiques, and most importantly, critical analysis by professionals who previously worked in the development discourse (i.e., Helena Norberg-Hodge, founder of the International Society for Ecology and Culture). All of these methods serve to inform historical process, understand trends and actions in the paradigm, and ultimately discern their direct connection to the creation of “underdevelopment.”
            One of Escobar’s central conclusions is that there is no linear or universal model of economic or social development that can be objectively applied to the diverse local cultures of the societies misleadingly grouped under the “Third World”. Conceptual understanding of language (the ‘Third’ world denoting a lesser society; or the introduction of ‘poverty’ to people who previously knew nothing else),  economics (the development of underdevelopment), etc, must necessarily be explored within the context of institutional knowledge-building hierarchies representative of the global agenda. Furthermore, all of these impetus can be traced back to the mid-20th century realization that growing instability around the world ultimately meant that “the destinies of the rich and poor parts of the world were to be closely linked.”(22) The Truman Doctrine is thus understood/interpreted as a carefully constructed tool in the vein of neo-colonial control, one which is still both pervasive and prevailing today.
             A basic assumption and point of departure for Escobar and other post-development theorist is that the alienated, Western consumer culture (i.e., Guy Debord’s Society of the Spectacle) and the social norms that accompany it, may not only be an undesirable goal for the people of the “Third World,” but also an unrealistic one, in light of prevailing ecological and biophysical limits. This also informs the notion that the perceived fascination of the global south with western lifestyle is directly related to ethnocide via global capitalism, and development’s transformation of perception relating to formerly satisfactory ways of life. Rounding out the question of assumption in a most circuitous manner (as assumptions often do in informing praxis!), I will posit that Escobar’s most important assumption is the supposition that standard assumptions concerning the notion of general “progress,” and who knows how to best pursue it, can be collectively referred to best by the colloquial phrase “a load of crap.”
            From the perspective of a deconstructive analysis, Escobar’s critique is flawless in its internal consistency. This is partly made possible by using the discursive framework, which helps connect process to theory and on to practice by the reification of modernization and Western biases. By encouraging such prejudicial abstractions to be understood- manifested really- as the produced goods/services and other concrete ways development is carried out, it is easier to make direct connections and linkages to how institutional development actually effects people. This is a critical point of the analysis that cannot be overlooked. It is the root to understanding both historical and contemporary causation of the role that development has played in the destabilization of the global south and its individual’s basic-needs security.
            Since its publication in 1995 by Princeton University Press, Encountering Development has sent shockwaves and stirred much controversy both within and outside  the international development community. Although some scholars refuse to identify Escobar’s work as part of a new cannon, herein referred to as “post-development,” they nonetheless agree that it represents a major turning for a set of criticisms that have long been evident in the discourse, although not explained or framed as such. Since encountering Escobar’s now classic text, my own worldview and internationalist perspective has been serendipitously altered by its influence. An influence which I will claim has allowed for an expansion of the mind, the inclusion of global ethnic-diversities, and an experience in critical though-processes concerning all aspects of global hegemony. 

Matt 

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

First month digest now available.

Download it here: http://db.tt/hcBnU5N. Send it to everyone.

the GADFLY

What couldn't the anarchist draw a straight line?

Because she didn't have any rulers.

the GADFLY

The Limits of Protest as Resistance

This article is written in response to “The Limits of Peaceful Resistance.” I understand that not everyone that reads this is an anti-capitalist or anarchist, so bear with me while I use “we” and “us” frequently throughout this post to describe radical Left or post-Left movements. Also, this article is in reference to large-scale change, on a national and international level. My ideas about local protest and many other methods of local resistance are very different, though in many ways just as grim.

I believe that this question about the role of nonviolent/peaceful protest is a very interesting one. After much time spent studying and thinking about this issue, I have come to the conclusion that traditional protest—a march, sit-in, blockade, vigil, etc.—is essentially ineffective and almost always negative if it attempts to bring about radical change, regardless of whether or not it is violent. The tools used to counter, disseminate and terminate traditional protest used by those that rule over us, whether they be the government, the media, or giant corporations, have been sufficiently developed to defeat any possibility of major change through protest. That being said, I believe it can bring about some changes if your goals are not radically Left, or Right for that matter, and more in line with mainstream, feel-good politics. What I mean by that is you may be able to reach your goals if they focus on reform (which you should read as perpetuation of the same system but with a new face) and do not involve actually changing the system. To play devil’s advocate against the post “The Limits of Peaceful Resistance,” I will begin with an analysis of violent protest.

So what exactly happens when we use violence as protest? The response of the authorities is brutal violence and the response of the media is extremely negative coverage. I would argue against the author of “The Limits of Peaceful Resistance,” who claims, “This [violence] gets their message heard, albeit with some negative media spin.” Unless the message is simply that we should fight cops, the message is never heard. Or rather, a different message is heard than that meant to be spread. The media always portrays violent protesters as nothing more than anarchists (which is pretty much only a positive term among anarchists), anti-government, anti-America, etc. It is always framed as them being against authority and the government, and thus against the American way of life. While these things may be true, being framed as against everything our society stands for is counterproductive. No one will listen to these people except the minute population of radicals that already agree.

The true problem goes beyond this however. The aspects of the protesters’ messages that could be seen as positive are never heard. The media will never say that a violent response to the police is an attempt to put an end to police brutality (nor is it in reality an effective strategy to end to police brutality). Anti-capitalists will never be portrayed as struggling to create a more just economic system just as anti-globalization activists will never be viewed as trying to creating a sustainable way of living that puts emphasis on the desires of local communities (yes, I recognize these are not always the goals of these two groups). Essentially, any aspect of a violent protest that could potentially be viewed as positive in mainstream America is ignored and instead protestors are viewed as having neither a legitimate alternative nor any defined set of goals except destruction.

So what if you believe that we actually need to destroy society to create something better? I would say that you should pick a more effective method of destruction if you want your message heard. Bombings and assassinations get much more media coverage than any protest that has occurred in my lifetime. Remember how big of a deal 9/11 was or the DC sniper? Those were more effective methods than fighting police.

This brings me to my next point. Using violence, unless it is large-scale violent revolution (and this of course is very questionable), actually makes the authorities stronger. Violence is central to the most important instrument that the government and the media implement to control us. This method of control is fear. We need protection from the violent world of terrorists, nuclear capable non-Westerners, abortion, murderers, and, yes, violent protesters. While many (hopefully most) people believe that police do some bad, if not much more, most people unfortunately also believe that we need them to maintain society. An attack against them represents a crumbling of the protection provided by them and the social order in general. Thus almost any response by the police, with the exception of murder (and this is not even a golden rule), is deemed acceptable. This is particularly true when violent protest is directed at more than just the police, such as businesses, homes, or individuals. Furthermore, when a massive protest is planned and there is resulting anticipation of violence, police departments receive incredible amounts of funding for riot training, new weapons, armor, and even vehicles, among many other fun toys for beating protesters up. We continue to use violence in traditional protest, claiming to be fighting against the system while in reality we are simply increasing police budgets, legitimating the existence of the police and enforcing the perceived need of government for protection. If you’re hoping for revolution, you’re just making it more unrealistic.

It seems to me that violent protest is primarily used as a way for frustrated activists to release their anger and have some great stories to tell. I can say from experience that there is nothing quite like the high of kicking windows and pushing back the wall of cops with the help of a group of protesters screaming threats and chanting slogans about freedom or some other unrealistic goal. We did not save public housing that day, but we sure felt good about trying. You thought it was totally worth it when you threw that brick through that window right? It certainly helped reverse capitalism and overthrow the American political system. Thanks for helping lead the revolution!

“So what do I think about peaceful protest?” you ask. Well, for one thing, I think that we frequently consider violent inducing protest something that it is not: pacificism. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi are probably the two most famous “pacifists” taught in history classes in the United States. They were not actually opposed to violence though. For example, King consciously chose Birmingham as one of his major campaigns because Sheriff Bull Connor was a known racist that used excessive violence to suppress protest. He knew the violent and racist response of the police force would win sympathy from the Federal government and cause intervention on a national level. Yes, King’s side did not attack the police. However, they meant to be attacked by the police. That doesn’t sound like someone that is opposed to violence to me.

This example of King using violence to provoke Federal intervention is, however, an example of nonviolence used effectively. Well, at least in the sense that it definitely played a major role in turning Civil Rights into a national issue, not that the movement necessarily met its other goals, like stopping racism. The debate of the actual effectiveness of this violence is sort of irrelevant today, however, because of two reasons that have serious implications for modern nonviolent protest. The first is that the police have more or less stopped using what will be construed as excessive violence. They actually learned that lesson during the Civil Rights movement, something that was detrimental to the movement going into the second half of the sixties. The second reason is that if there is excessive violence it can either be blamed on the demonstrators or sometimes a few police officers are sacrificed to take the blame. These officers are exceptions and not representative of the police in general, often with the media finding some report from a childhood friend or relative claiming that the officer had been strange or problematic as a child.

Another problem with nonviolent resistance is the numbers of protester and the resulting amount of media coverage. It is hard to get media coverage with small numbers of participants, especially if violence is not a luring factor. Independent media sometimes eagerly covers these issues but small protests are lucky if they get any national coverage if they are nonviolent. The opposite is problematic as well. Highly attended protests always draw at least some national media coverage. Unfortunately for “pacifists,” large-scale protests very rarely remain nonviolent. If it is big enough to draw the national media, it is big enough to draw Black Bloc kids, which always leads to violent confrontation with the police. When the violence begins it usually spreads quickly. Even if it remains a small part of the demonstration, the media always focuses on the violent aspects of the event. If a big protest manages to remain peaceful, it will likely only be covered briefly in the news and in reality is just a bunch of people walking down the street with signs annoying politicians for a day by chanting outside their windows.

So what about the burning cop car as a powerful symbol? I like it. However, I do not think that most people want that to be the symbol of the world that they are struggling for (I also do not think that most people are actually struggling to change the world—this is a much larger discussion, but I think it is also an extremely important factor in examining the effectiveness of traditional violent and nonviolent protest). A burning cop car is also a negative symbol for many Americans. You should also ask yourself, do you want to use a symbol of violence to represent your opposition to a violent system? I am not saying that violence is not necessary for change (I am not saying that it is either) but that it should not be the leading image in a movement that hopes to create a more just world free of the violent State.

Ultimately, the powers that be are too prepared to handle traditional protest, violent or nonviolent, and radical change is not a feasible goal of this form of resistance. So what then? I think that activists need to completely change the way that they practice resistance and that it is time to more or less scrap traditional protest. I do not have anything to propose we put in its place, but I do think the Left has a lot to learn about creating strong social movements from the Tea Party movement and other radical aspects of the Right. I personally, however, do not think we can change this system beyond irrelevant reformism. My ideas begin post-collapse.

the GADFLY

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

clarity, not such a rarity

“what is the GADFLY?” you ask, with ingenuous and laudable curiosity. 

the GADFLY is a student-generated newspaper and blog intended as a forum for underrepresented voices in the Middlebury community. as an independent publication yet unswallowed by the political or institutional motives of the Middlebury College and its dancing bear, The Campus, we espouse a policy of absolute freedom of speech. this means that the articles presented in the GADFLY come to you 100% unedited and uncensored. since we recognize that unfiltered communication has a tendency to stir up emotional storms, we wish to iterate that all views reflected herein are solely those of their authors. freedom of expression is their right, not just under the legal sanction of Amendment 1 of United States Constitution or Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but as a condition of their being human beings endowed with the gift of communication. it is also of course your right, and if you disagree with any particular idea, you may rant about it to your friends or perhaps engage in discussion by commenting on the blog posts of our articles.

“why is the GADFLY?”

when an institution such as Middlebury College goes to great lengths to allow the financial and bureaucratic arrangements that make the publication of a college newspaper possible, it has a vested interest in the product. any college newspaper’s primary purpose is to serve as the public face of the institution, the broadcasted documentation of its activities and developments. its secondary purpose, which is an extension of the first, is to reflect the views of the student body. both of these objectives have a way of interpreting the overall character of a college – both in what is said and what is not said. because the college newspaper is read by a host of persons, many of whom, such as alumni and parents, have a direct impact on the institution’s success, the college reasonably takes steps to ensure that the public presentation matches its self-image and advances its goals, contradicting them only on certain terms (focused critiques with proposed solutions). 

so what portrait of Middlebury College does The Campus sketch out? : professionalism, pragmatism, global citizenship, diversity, environmentalism, athleticism, localism, liberalism, to name just a few qualities. Middlebury College is indeed many of these things (to varying contestable degrees), but i can conceive of several faces of the college which hardly ever see the light of readership: hostile homophobia, spatial and social boundaries between races, aggressive misogyny on weekends, flagrant littering, departmental favoritism, the mysterious disappearance of millions of dollars into an opaque budget, the exploitation of third world nations as training grounds for a class of elite professionals, and so on. (suggestion: brainstorm your own set of words for how Middlebury sees itself. then brainstorm words that describe how you see Middlebury! it'll be fun, trust me). images and opinions which don’t square with the desired public production of Middlebury College, The College on the Hill, are seen as a liability and infrequently make it past The Campus’s editors. even sadder, they usually don’t make it there at all due to the stigma which outliers place on themselves.

it is from this kind of discrepancy between the ideal and the real that radical newspapers are born. in hundreds of colleges and universities across the nation, initiatives similar to the GADFLY exist. UNC has The Boiling Point, BU has The Student Underground, Darmouth has the Darmouth Free Press, Berkeley has X, Vanderbilt has the Orbit. these newsletters have achieved success within their communities in disseminating alternative views on local and global issues across a broad range of topics. it is our hope that the GADFLY will serve similarly to inform this community of nuances in opinion and identity at Middlebury College, or at least raise eyebrows if not fists.
~ APERTURE E.V.
of the GADFLY

The Limits of Peaceful Resistance


A few weeks ago (29 September 2010) I attended a lecture by Colman McCarthy. The posters and his Wikipedia page describe him as “an American journalist, teacher, lecturer, pacifist, an anarchist and long-time peace activist.” I was intrigued as to why an anarchist was speaking at Middlebury since there is no doubt that anarchy is an under represented viewpoint on this campus. I was also confused as to why the Newman club (a Catholic organization) was bringing an anarchist, but my views on religion and anarchy are the topic for a different paper.
Colman McCarthy’s speech was entitled “How to be a Peacemaker: Nonviolence in a Time of War.” The main point that I took away was that it is impossible to cultivate a culture of peace in a society that celebrates its war heroes and barely gives a footnote to its peacemakers. Sure, every American student knows about Martin Luther King Jr. and how he preached nonviolent civil disobedience, but that’s about the extent of my knowledge on peaceful figureheads. Chances are if you do not actively research peacemakers you could not name (m)any, yet if you were asked to name one war hero or authoritarian who used violence or describe who Robert E. Lee is, you most likely could.
So, what to do? McCarthy suggests that “Peace studies” should be taught starting in elementary school. I agree, peace should be taught, and I think that would be a positive thing for society as a whole. But I also think peace has its limits like everything else. Eventually people will be in a situation where they realize peace does not cut it anymore, no matter what they’ve been taught. And while I’d never advocate actively trying to hurt other people, I do think there is power in violence. That is, I believe there is power in violence that manifests itself against objects and symbols of oppression.
For instance, think about resistance to police brutality. I don’t think nonviolent action will do much to counteract a force that has authority over everyone yet indiscriminately uses violence to exert that authority. If you speak your mind about the true evils of the police force and our prison system, you will face police repression varying in severity from being handcuffed, fined, and held for a night in prison, all the way up to being beaten, potentially shot, by the cops. And that’s in our own country, where we supposedly have the right to free speech.  In other countries with more extreme versions of the police state, repression is worse, and a daily occurrence. Do you think nonviolent resistance to the police state in these places could bring about meaningful change? I highly doubt it.
When the cops are using violence left and right, be it in the form of a “nonlethal” taser, a good ol’ fashioned beating, or using their guns, it is hard to remain peaceful. Sure, the fact that a large proportion of the population has a phone with a camera on it and knowing that if they fuck up there will probably be a video of them on the internet within a few hours may keep some officers in check, but it certainly does not solve the problem. Often, people take to the streets and protest in nonviolent ways against things such as police brutality, and it gets no media coverage. Only those who search it out find it. Generally it’s not until the protesters severely outweigh the oppressors or until they start rioting that mainstream media will cover it. Often, the cops will provoke the violence and the media will spin it so the protestors look like the evildoers. This is when things get too radical for mainstream media and society; individuals and groups start burning cop cars, vandalizing police stations, and prisons (for example). This gets their message heard, albeit with some negative media spin. And this is where I come to an internal struggle: does the negative coverage outweigh the symbolic power of a cop car on fire?
I realize this is a bit convoluted and vague. I’m trying to think about this issue in the vaguest terms, trying to figure out if some general rule applies. I do not have an answer. I sincerely wish that peace could solve everything, but I know that is not possible. Not as long as those in power who are supposed to “protect and serve” have guns, batons, tasers, and other tools of violence at their disposal. What I do know is that seeing photos of a destroyed police station gives me hope. It shows me that people are as fed up with the tools of oppression as I am, and probably more. It shows me that if the police are going to be a violent force, they’re going to have to deal with the consequences that our judicial system cannot suppress.


the GADFLY

Monday, October 25, 2010

Ignorance is Bliss?


I repeat this proverb over and over again in my mind, thinking of the many examples which contradict it due to recent events caused by utter stupidity, which I like to deem as ignorance.  My final conclusions and remarks on the clause: Bullshit! Who is the idiot that made this faulty phrase famous? Thanks to quick research on Google and then Wiktionary, I found the answer to my question.  The proverb derives from Thomas Gray’s poem, “Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College”, written 1742.  The words tattooed on my mind stem from Gray’s line in the poem: “Where ignorance is bliss, ‘tis folly to be wise.”  In fact I had never read the poem, so I did so to obtain some justification on Gray’s behalf before I shred apart his loop-holed concept.  Gray speaks of young boys who play happily on the hills of Eton College, indeed ignorant of the pain and suffering ahead of them in that thing called life. So, yes, in those circumstances, ignorance is bliss.
Is it not ironic that those same oblivious boys playing on the hill are those who will grow into men who cause pain and suffering upon others? Moreover, those who no longer have the excuse to consider their ignorance as bliss, but as something daunting and unnerving which can lead to stupidity, irrationality, and most unfortunately, violence?
Ignorance is the main ingredient for a chain reaction amounting to disaster. I could only help but think of such a recipe as I perused what French I could of Sud Ouest’s (le journal régionaux de Bordeaux) September 23rd headline article. I could extract that three French hostages were taken from a boat on an oil field off the coast of Nigeria. They were three of sixteen passengers---the remaining passengers left onboard, untouched and undisturbed. The three Frenchmen then added to the now seven total detained by al-Qaida. Scan the article, scan the article—ah the section of the article that highlights the conditions underlining how the hostages can be returned to their country. Ransom—obviously; the French government removing the law on the burka; some conditions I can’t recall—but have to do with the government complying with the wishes of respecting the Muslim religion and culture? After reading the article, my first thoughts were only the French government is to be recently blamed for the actions of al-Qaida.  And of course the same can be said about Pastor Terry Jones and his “International Burn a Quran Day.” Ignorance, ignorance, ignorance. Let’s make the California wildfire flames dance some more before actually making an effort to put them out.
Blatant ignorance. Why are the little boys playing blissfully upon Eton hill ignorant of the fact that sooner or later they’ll grow up to face the problems of life? Because they’d rather play than ponder life’s encounters or the possible outcomes of their actions.  Unfortunately, it seems the same can be said about French policy makers and Mr. Preacher of “Holiness”. The policy makers supposedly forgot that al-Qaida was a very dangerous MUSLIM terrorist organization sans limites et sans morale and Jones figured that in protestation of the Muslim “devil” religion and the 9/11 attacks, he would patriotically and rebelliously instate an international holiday burning the holy book of Muslims—which if anyone else also ignorantly forgot and I will recall for them, is the religion practiced by al-Qaida.  Al-Qaida’s response to this type of ignorance: you disrespect our religion—our culture, we don’t disrespect you—we kill you.  How does one know this answer? History.  Events that have already transpired.  Humans should not be sacrificed because of someone’s inability to think or realize the consequences of their actions and words. Actions which result in a country’s citizens  taken captive and having their lives threatened or country’s security levels (such as France) raised because terrorists want to extinguish all possible tourists associated with the land of Muslim-hating-hicks. 
Did I miss something? Am I just simply ignorant of the ways in which governments’ operate or how people think?
Thank you, ignorance! You’re a doll!

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Comments fixed

hey everyone

it was brought to my attention that one could not post anonymous comments. That has now been changed and you should be able to. In fact, we encourage it! Happy commenting.

the GADFLY

Thursday, October 14, 2010

The Role of the American Nation-State in Fighting Climate Change

***Op-Ed cross-posted from The Middlebury Campus, with permission from the author.***


            It has indeed occurred to me that the position I’ll soon take towards this question will be attacked. Critics and sympathizers alike will accuse me of  writing what is both a topical critique, and an assessment lacking requisite emphasis on potentially potent solutions. I do not deny either. My attempting to outline a whole host of complex issues in the space of a limited word-count op-ed, should not neglect my offer to engage anyone interested in pursuant rhetorical debate. Nonetheless this written polemic, having been expressly penned for the Campus’s “Green Issue,” seems to be a necessary disruption for Middlebury’s environmental discourse.
            The first point, one that I believe cannot be avoided by any critically-thinking environmentalist, is that capitalism itself is unsustainable. This assertion pertains to both the operation of Middlebury College (a corporation “working towards sustainability”) by means of an exploitative endowment portfolio, as well as the entire workings of the system itself. Capitalism is an economic system based on perpetual growth and expansion, with new markets to be created and goods to be sold. Last time I checked, we were living on a planet with an overwhelming list of biophysical limits.
            The pursuit of GDP and growth as a universal tool of political economy are being proven wrong by an overwhelming list of accelerating ecological catastrophes of which climate change is only one of many (biodiversity, clearcutting, desertification, global fisheries etc.) If greenhouse gas abatement is solved at the expense of carbon markets and emissions trading, it will only fuel the concentration in power behind complex, globally-traded financial instruments. Remember that the global financial crisis of 2007-(?) was the not the first- nor will it be the last- crisis of capital to rock our increasingly globalizing world. And while I have no doubt in humanity’s ability to solve problems with profound ingenuity, standard techno-fixes rarely come without unintentionally creating problems elsewhere. As noted academic David Harvey likes to put it “Capitalism never solves it’s own problems, it simply moves them around Geographically.” 
Yet the ideological arch of contemporary American politics refuses to acknowledge such contradictions. Sustainability is a politicized buzz-word irresponsibly thrown about on both “the left” and “the right.” Furthermore, Democrats and Republicans are both captive prisoners of a corporatist state, failing not only in enacting progressive policy changes, but even in the more basic act of protecting our cherished civil liberties. We are living in a country where corporations have the same rights as an individual. A country where imperialist wars are fought to protect “our American way of life”- not our civil rights- but a front, to be sure, for economic exploitation and market capitalization.
            By its very global nature, climate change negotiations are subject to the cooperation and whim of international civil society, negotiations which the U.S has overtly and publicly sought to undermine. Safe with the knowledge that a changing climate will disproportionately affect the global south, our government can sit back and watch as all the cherished tenets of universalism collapse into greedy bickering. With food security becoming the dominant immediate concern of people the world over, the fact that U.S cereal grain production is set to increase in a warming world should give even the most hardened optimist a moment of pause.
The biggest problem here on campus, is that most people play into this short-circuit, where their activism empowers the very people who stand in the way of making real systemic changes. Incrementalism and Democratic activism only result in “feel-good” moral politics where nothing is actually accomplished save for the individual’s moral absolvency. Lifestyle politics abound on this campus, but serve as nothing more than a dangerous facade for change. Dangerous, because by believing in the legitimate agency of their actions as individuals, they actually play into the hands of those very forces they claim to oppose. Dangerous more so, because Middlebury students are exactly the engaged and empathic people the world needs most in this fight.
Our economic system, moving at the direction of transnational organizations and multinational corporations, will need a strong dose of direct democracy in this coming decade. Nobody in this world wants to see their environment degraded, but without the agency or power to stop these forces, their worlds literally crumple around them. We will need to confront these growing problems by recognizing the only realistic option for survival. Already citizens of the world are calling for system change, not climate change. 

Matt Birnbaum

Friday, October 8, 2010

What is freedom?

For us radicals, the struggle for freedom is central to our beliefs. However, we frequently forget to ask the question “What is freedom?” This is a very complicated question. The leftist definition tends to be broad and indicative of a universal human freedom. Definitions usually resemble something like “living without oppression” followed by a list of the types of oppression we should be living without: “racism, sexism, ageism, religious intolerance, heterosexism, environmental degradation, classism, etc.” Other times, explanations of freedom are characterized by what the radical is for, rather than against. “Freedom is living in a world where all are equal and power is organized horizontally, instead of top-down.” Essentially no one has power or authority over others.

I do not believe in freedom anymore. Don’t get me wrong, these types of “freedom” I described above are models of a world I would love to live in. However, these freedoms also carry with them oppressions that we radicals love to overlook. What if you firmly believe that you are better than others because of your race? What if the wife wants to cook and the husband wants to be the sole economic provider? What if you hate gays?

Yes, these people are wrong.

Unfortunately for radical ideologies, they are only wrong because we (or at least I) believe they are. Our beliefs are legitimate because they are built on the history of ideas created and perpetuated by the thinkers that started laying out radical left-wing ideologies less than 200 years ago. Sure, there have existed collectively run societies for thousands of years, but our notions of freedom are primarily based on the theories first developed by European intellectuals in response to industrialization and the growth of capitalism. What makes them right? All they did was sit around writing about how wrong everyone else was and how great their theories of the world were, getting high on self-righteousness. Did they save the oppressed peoples of the world? Did they even help change it for the “better”? The biggest change Marxist ideas created was the Soviet Union and we all know how great of an alternative that was.

I know I’m getting a bit carried away but still I think it’s a fair point. Why should we hold their ideas to be the truth of freedom? I can quote Kropotkin, Marx, Bakunin, and Rudolph Rocker all day, but what if they’re wrong? The idea of freedom is a sham. It is just a word to describe various an idea that can be defined in an infinite number of ways. It is not a single truth that can be attained.

And what about the freedom to hate? I hate bigots because they hate people for no reason. I feel like I have a justifiable hate, but they think they do too. Nothing actually makes prejudice or oppression wrong. Nothing makes it right either, though. Freedom is just something I learned, just like racism is something the racist learned. They have the same right to hate, as I have to try to create “freedom” (actually, the ideology of racism came about before European anarchism, socialism, and Marxism, maybe they’re more legitimate).

So what am I saying? Essentially that we are wrong, or rather that we are just as right as everyone else. I am not trying to say that we should just give up. I have fought hard to create small models of the world I would like to live in. In truth, I’m not really sure what I’m trying to say. At the very least, I would say it is important to always be self-critical, especially while being critical of others, because at the end of the day their views are just as valid as ours.

the GADFLY

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Radical lifestyles built upon the privileges we oppose...

People that lead radical lifestyles, whether it be squatting, living in an ecovillage, or hopping trains, frequently forget that these ways of living are built upon many of the privileges we oppose. What does that mean? Obviously giving up radical living for "normal" living isn't the solution. However, people that live outside of the norms of society should recognize that they need the help of people living by the book to continue living radically. Dumpster divers need over-consumers that waste, ecovillages need middle-class people to buy from their farms, and hitchhikers need people to drive cars. Here's a short story I wrote about the kindness a cyclist was shown by a middle-class married couple (they just happen to be my parents):


$40

“Who’s bike is that?” she thought as she watched her husband pull off the ferry with a bicycle in the bed of the truck. He pulled up beside her and she climbed in quickly to escape the rain. There was a young man sitting in the back seat of the truck, clearly happy to have found shelter from the stormy weather. Her husband had met him on the ferry and offered him a ride since they were all going to Orient.
Tim was from Portland, OR and in his mid-20’s. His career was a bit vague: an aspiring philosopher of sorts, definitely some type of writer though. He explained to the woman and her husband that he was riding his bicycle and taking trains throughout the foreign coast, a place that was their home, to do some writing. He had a number of destinations he wanted travel to, each one pertaining to his elusive writing project.
As she heard Tim’s story, she couldn’t help but think about her son. He had done a bicycle tour the summer before and she remembered the tremendous generosity strangers had shown her son. With thoughts of her son churning in the back of her mind, she was happy that her husband had befriended this stranger and offered him a helping hand.
The women intently listened to Tim as he explained that he was on Fire Island a couple days before, where his trip took a turn for the worst. While in the quiet beach town, someone had stolen his wallet. His ID, month-long Amtrak ticket, credit cards, and almost all of his money were taken from him. He had just enough money to buy a ferry ticket from Orient to New London, CT and a train ticket to start his journey to Boston, his next destination for writing. Someone from back home had sent money to Boston for him, but he was broke until then.
When they arrived at the Orient Point Ferry, the woman and her husband said they would watch his bike while he went inside to buy his ticket. She couldn’t help but pity Tim and his miserable situation. She thought again about the kindness her son was met with while on the road and knew she had to do something to help Tim. Before she had a chance to say anything to her husband, he suggested that they give the young cyclist some money.
Tim slogged through the rain back to the truck, where he was greeted with $40 and smiles. The women’s husband handed Tim the money as she told the young man about the kindness and giving her son had received on his bike trip. She told him that this was their way of saying thank you to all of the people who had helped her son. She could feel his deep appreciation as he thanked them. The money, a relatively small amount for the married couple, was a big gift for Tim. His energy changed as if he had been given new hope for his trip, possibly even a bit of new hope in humanity. Maybe her son had felt the same way when that stranger in Virginia offered him a warm place to sleep after a long, rainy day. They said their goodbyes and Tim trudged off towards the ferry.  

the GADFLY