Democracy exists as an epistemological trap, the knowledge possessed by us is influenced and produced by others. This point focuses our efforts toward new forms of knowledge, the protest begins this different episteme. The mere act of protesting allows us to break the epistemological trap, our protesting changes the way we focus and interpret knowledge.
Protesting develops our knowledge in a different way: old truths are no longer accepted. Truth becomes something that it has never been: unformed. We become the new perceiver of truth, it ceases being perceived and formed by others. The form of the protest develops what we can perceive as truth.
A protest begins the idea of epistemological liberation. This term personifies the new mindset of the liberated individual. The mind breaks free from restraints and perceives things in a new way. The form of the protest becomes the important factor in ensuring the success of this. Self-organizing allows for the proper way of addressing liberated knowledge. Individuals formulating their own knowledge allows for proper liberation.
A set ideology makes true liberation impossible, because the subject assimilates the ideology and is never totally liberated. The right thing to do is to have no set ideology. This way knowledge formulates from the individual, the process of individual liberation becomes ideology. Proper liberation strives to have no set knowledge attached to it, only the knowledge of the liberated.
-Mark Brinton
Friday, October 21, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
Occupation as Liberation
The structure of a society does not dictate the way a society behaves. If America were to wake up tomorrow and find itself an anarchist society, the same injustices and inequalities would still exist. The same would be true for any structural or economical change. The goals we hope for will not be achieved by the reformation of an entrenched system, for the system itself breeds these injustices. It is false to believe we do not achieve these goals because some rich white guy does everything he can to stop the poor from gaining liberation. Even though rich people do benefit from the current system, they do not systematically oppress the poor, or the 99%. We all are implicit in the corrupt system. We all share in the blame. We all oppress each other and ourselves because this is the way we have been conditioned to behave.
In order to revolt against the system, we need to change ourselves. From that change, the structural changes within society will organically occur as a natural offshoot of a new people. We need to create space were a new society can be born. The occupation taking place globally can achieve these ends if it dedicates itself, not to changing a flawed system, but to immediate liberation. Within these areas of occupation, a new society and spirit can begin to form, but unlike past societies founded on social contracts which protect a minority, a bottom up system will take hold where each person is dedicated to establishing the freedom of all within the occupied area and anyone who wishes to be liberated.
The first step in creating a space for liberation is to stop being implicit in the flawed system. Because we are all so involved in society, there does not exist many ways to disconnect from the larger society, nor is it very desirable to end associations we have been developing within our own lives. One systematic and potentially productive way to do this positively is to not vote in elections. Of course one individual not voting is ineffectual. If a large and intelligent drive to not vote is organized, the movement could send a powerful message to the political establishment. This would also allow people who would not normally participate or are not comfortable with traditional protest to participate in a positive way. Instead of people tacitly agreeing to an unjust and oppressive system, we declare the political system as bankrupt and unrepresentative of the majority’s opinion.
Revolution is not war, nor is it a simple event. The true and sustainable revolution will occur within ourselves, within the very way we perceive the reality we help to create. A great dedication to liberation, justice, and peace from all humans must become the reason for our existence. One individual is only as free as the next individual because we give each other freedom. By allowing each other freedom, we will achieve our own freedom.
-Eric Virzi
In order to revolt against the system, we need to change ourselves. From that change, the structural changes within society will organically occur as a natural offshoot of a new people. We need to create space were a new society can be born. The occupation taking place globally can achieve these ends if it dedicates itself, not to changing a flawed system, but to immediate liberation. Within these areas of occupation, a new society and spirit can begin to form, but unlike past societies founded on social contracts which protect a minority, a bottom up system will take hold where each person is dedicated to establishing the freedom of all within the occupied area and anyone who wishes to be liberated.
The first step in creating a space for liberation is to stop being implicit in the flawed system. Because we are all so involved in society, there does not exist many ways to disconnect from the larger society, nor is it very desirable to end associations we have been developing within our own lives. One systematic and potentially productive way to do this positively is to not vote in elections. Of course one individual not voting is ineffectual. If a large and intelligent drive to not vote is organized, the movement could send a powerful message to the political establishment. This would also allow people who would not normally participate or are not comfortable with traditional protest to participate in a positive way. Instead of people tacitly agreeing to an unjust and oppressive system, we declare the political system as bankrupt and unrepresentative of the majority’s opinion.
Revolution is not war, nor is it a simple event. The true and sustainable revolution will occur within ourselves, within the very way we perceive the reality we help to create. A great dedication to liberation, justice, and peace from all humans must become the reason for our existence. One individual is only as free as the next individual because we give each other freedom. By allowing each other freedom, we will achieve our own freedom.
-Eric Virzi
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Occupation Without Message
Many observers have failed to realize that the occupation is a positive act of protest in itself, regardless of any specific message that the participants attach themselves to. The act of self-organization, the practice of direct democracy, and the creation of a community based around an ill-defined discontent are not insignificant factors in understanding why people have gathered here. These group actions speak louder than any of the words that have been ineffectually prodded out of any individual person.
The pressure to formulate a list of demands serves only one purpose: to settle them quickly and end the occupation. Are we to celebrate the day we can finally put an end to the inspired discussions, give up the invention of alternative social arrangements, and leave our festival of solidarity only to return to a life submissive to the same economic imperatives employed on slightly more level playing field? No, we must see that 'reform is not a breath of liberty, it is the respiration of tyranny.' The hostile critics who cry “get a job!” (while completely unknowing of how many of us do have jobs, and the various reasons we do not), give both a perfect illustration of the central concern of negotiators, and a portent of what the policy makers will soon say once reform has been made. How miserable their lives must be, that the slightest interruption in the absurd quest for production and consumption at all costs can arouse so much fear and anger in them!
This has been the predominant attitude towards the recent events in the Middle East as well. The instant the regime was overthrown in Egypt, the U.S. media cheers, “Great! Mubarak is gone! Get back to work!.” Why would anyone want to get back to work? No post-protest government will function as healthily as the organization in Tahrir Square, precisely because the miserable indifference of a well-regulated work force and the “every man for himself” attitude engendered by capitalism are violently opposed to the enthusiasm, spontaneity, and spirit of camaraderie generated by a community of protesters. The same is true for Liberty Plaza, as for any other occupation site, no matter how small in number or uncertain in aim.
If we demand anything at the moment, it is an end to the demands being made on us. The occupation offers a place where time is severed from its monetary equivalence and spent luxuriously, commercial relationships based on mutual exploitation are replaced by human ones, and a political system that directly involves the community in decision making is made possible. The more we strive for emancipation on a small scale – through the skill sharing of working groups, the diligent democratic processes of general assemblies, the free giving of food, music, knowledge, etc. - the more senseless it becomes to translate our creative energies into policy changes that will reintegrate us into a world directed by coercion, bitterness, and greed.
The pressure to formulate a list of demands serves only one purpose: to settle them quickly and end the occupation. Are we to celebrate the day we can finally put an end to the inspired discussions, give up the invention of alternative social arrangements, and leave our festival of solidarity only to return to a life submissive to the same economic imperatives employed on slightly more level playing field? No, we must see that 'reform is not a breath of liberty, it is the respiration of tyranny.' The hostile critics who cry “get a job!” (while completely unknowing of how many of us do have jobs, and the various reasons we do not), give both a perfect illustration of the central concern of negotiators, and a portent of what the policy makers will soon say once reform has been made. How miserable their lives must be, that the slightest interruption in the absurd quest for production and consumption at all costs can arouse so much fear and anger in them!
This has been the predominant attitude towards the recent events in the Middle East as well. The instant the regime was overthrown in Egypt, the U.S. media cheers, “Great! Mubarak is gone! Get back to work!.” Why would anyone want to get back to work? No post-protest government will function as healthily as the organization in Tahrir Square, precisely because the miserable indifference of a well-regulated work force and the “every man for himself” attitude engendered by capitalism are violently opposed to the enthusiasm, spontaneity, and spirit of camaraderie generated by a community of protesters. The same is true for Liberty Plaza, as for any other occupation site, no matter how small in number or uncertain in aim.
If we demand anything at the moment, it is an end to the demands being made on us. The occupation offers a place where time is severed from its monetary equivalence and spent luxuriously, commercial relationships based on mutual exploitation are replaced by human ones, and a political system that directly involves the community in decision making is made possible. The more we strive for emancipation on a small scale – through the skill sharing of working groups, the diligent democratic processes of general assemblies, the free giving of food, music, knowledge, etc. - the more senseless it becomes to translate our creative energies into policy changes that will reintegrate us into a world directed by coercion, bitterness, and greed.
-Ryan Wallace
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Economic disenfranchisement must be addressed at the bottom...
One problem that was encountered today during a sympathy protest at UNC Charlotte was the ability for homeless people to gain access for food at the occupation site. Some individuals at this protest balked at the idea of the occupation site being used to service the needs of the most disenfranchised (the homeless). The economic collapse made the ultimate victims out of the homeless. They exist as the ultimate precarious individuals, ones who have been ignored and who show the end result of poor economic policy and a social system developed out of lack of care. The moral thing to do is to use the idea of the community to care for the homeless and let them into the community.
The problem with the society we have now is that ultimately individuals who have nothing to spend or invest (capital or labor wise) are ultimately deemed worthless and non-existant. The idea of the homeless individual is one who has conceded to not exist in the society as a whole, they have been deemed extra precarious and cast aside. Their ontology diminishes by the mere fact of the existence around them; they never choose to exist as homeless people (who would?), but instead have it cast on them. If the occupiers truly want to stand for justice, then developing the occupation as a place where the homeless can be taken care of is the best way to start.
The whole notion of the occupation is to reaffirm the social contract, to show that we are all equal players in our society. The first thing should be to address those who have ultimately been forgotten in the social contract. Show that a distribution of limited resources (the donated resources) can be distributed to other needy members of the community. Setting this as an example would be the best way to show that this can be done in the larger community.
- Mark Brinton
Monday, October 10, 2011
False Logic
In the beginning of the following video, a women remarks on Occupy Charlotte's march on the Bank of America Headquarters that a.) it is not the best idea to march on a Saturday, when people are not at work, and b.) the protesters should get a job. Watch -
Aside from the obvious retort that we are marching on a Saturday because many of us do have jobs, there is a flawed logic behind this. It is an often refrain of detesters that people who protest do not have jobs. I suggest the logic is as follows - A person who opposes the system (whether it be the economic or political system) cannot participate within the system, therefore they cannot possibly keep a job.
There are many reasons why this is false, but the main reason I bring it up is to shed light on similiar logic used by some lifestyle anarchists or by those who wish to drop out of the system. This logic is as follows - A person who opposes the system cannot possibly work within the system. If a person works within the system they cannot possibly oppose the system, therefore they are poseurs or illigetimate.
I won't go into the arguments about how one cannot escape the system, therefore must subvert the system from within. I merely want to demostrate the similarly flawed logic of seemingly completely different perspectives.
-Eric Virzi
Friday, October 7, 2011
ARGUMENTS FOR NOT VOTING
As a society our government is not created by us, but consented to. Our system is a social contract, where rights are given away in order to ensure protection of other rights. By voting we give consent to this system, in essence, by participating we give authority to the state. This occurs regardless of who wins, it is the participation in the system that allows for this consent. Therefore, by not voting, we deny consent and negate the system as a whole.
With this negation occurring, you refuse the present state of the social contract and instead force the current formation of government (the personification of the social contract) to have a.) No credibility and b.) No ability to function as a legitimate entity. With this in place, the social contract would as it currently stands dissolve, because of the lack of consent to its continual existence. In dissolving this, a new contract would be forced to be had. This contract would encompass a new set of values that would encompass the problems and concerns of the body that must consent to it in order for the contract to exist. All of this would be only be possible by a.) Not participating. b.) Enough of the plurality not participating,therefore, allowing for the system to be negated, (this percentage would have to be between 20-25% in order to be feasible.) c.) Having this action of negation dissolving the form and function of the system as a whole.
To explicate, it would negate the current form of the contract and the function that exists from the practice of it. This negation would eliminate power structures. This occurs by negating the system and the structures that support and rely on it. The "contract" protects this system and without consent, it would not be able to function. Resources would be reevaluated, refigured, and dispersed with an absence of hierarchal power. All of this would lead to a new social order and a greater and more profound equality.
-Mark Brinton
With this negation occurring, you refuse the present state of the social contract and instead force the current formation of government (the personification of the social contract) to have a.) No credibility and b.) No ability to function as a legitimate entity. With this in place, the social contract would as it currently stands dissolve, because of the lack of consent to its continual existence. In dissolving this, a new contract would be forced to be had. This contract would encompass a new set of values that would encompass the problems and concerns of the body that must consent to it in order for the contract to exist. All of this would be only be possible by a.) Not participating. b.) Enough of the plurality not participating,therefore, allowing for the system to be negated, (this percentage would have to be between 20-25% in order to be feasible.) c.) Having this action of negation dissolving the form and function of the system as a whole.
To explicate, it would negate the current form of the contract and the function that exists from the practice of it. This negation would eliminate power structures. This occurs by negating the system and the structures that support and rely on it. The "contract" protects this system and without consent, it would not be able to function. Resources would be reevaluated, refigured, and dispersed with an absence of hierarchal power. All of this would lead to a new social order and a greater and more profound equality.
-Mark Brinton
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
ANARCHISM AND PEACE
Paper on Anarchsim - Abstract...
Anarchism has a long history in which it has morphed and varied. In this essay some of the major themes and ideas of anarchism are discussed in the hope to shed light on the current understandings and potentialities of anarchism. The argument this essay attempts is to show how anarchism, as developed and understood by social anarchism, is necessary for the possibility and development of positive peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)