A Revolution is Just a Spinning of the Wheel

I mistrust the notion of revolution.  Far too many people put stock in it as an effective way to change society, but even a brief gloss-over of history tells me that it is not particularly effective. Take Russia for example.  They have had several revolutions in the past 200 years both violent and peaceful, yet they still have an authoritarian government, it may be composed of different people, but it is still essentially the same as the Tsar monarchy or the Soviet-style government. China too, several revolutions, still authoritarian.  Then there are countless third world countries that have had revolutions galore, and we can see how well that has worked out for them. We could take the French revolution as the archetype of revolution.  They overthrew an absolute monarch and large, powerful factions such as the Sansculottes pushed for direct democracy.  The core of the intellectual support for the French revolution supported more democracy, and indeed has inspired the rest of the world with its idealism.  Yet they ended up empowering Napoleon in the near absolute power of an Emperor.   If there were to be a revolution in the typical sense in America, I do not believe it would achieve the ends we desire. 

I am reminded of the analysis provided in 1984 about before Oceania's type of government:  there were always revolutions that would overthrow one group of oligarchs and replace them with another group.  Indeed, a republic is designed to institutionalize this process, stabilizing the switching of control and reducing disruption.  It also stabilizes the groups who maintain power, allowing them to entrench themselves more effectively and simply change places with each other every few years.  Kind of scary to think that a republic, what we have now in America, is an institutionalization of the cycle of revolution.  I am not particularly interesting in changing who has the reigns of power, which may be why I am never had a particular interest in working to elect politicians or bothering rich people to do things.

  

True to its definition, revolution is just the spinning of the wheel, you always end up where you started.  Myself, I am not interested in spinning my wheels... what I want to do is change the wheel itself.  History, again, can aid in understanding this.  There have been numerous wheel-changing events in history, among the most prominent are the industrial revolution and the enlightenment.  They both defined the lenses that the world has been seen through since they came about.  What is phenomenal about them is that they were not specifically directed at the power structures themselves, they were simple shifts in our view of the world and how one acts in it.  

I have come across the idea of wheel changing events before; something that happens that changes everything.  For indigenous populations, exposure to western civilization has been wheel-changing, their cultures are disrupted, and they are often forced to abandon their way of life.  Forced in the military sense, or in the generational shift-sense when the next generation has to stop living the way they did to survive.   But, the best description of a wheel-changing event that I have come across yet comes from literature.  The Riverworld series describes how an ancient society accidentally developed an artificial soul generator that automatically bound souls to new sentient beings.  So, this society changed its newborns without even knowing it, and in the space of only a couple generations, all the beings without these souls were gone because of old age.   This is a great metaphor for generational change.  One generation develops something, the next generation is imbued with it and it becomes an indestructible part of our society.

This seems to be the main wheel-changing method that humanity has at its disposal, and it can be boiled down to mass education, motivation, and changes in each of our ways of life.  To change society, you really have to change the way people think and act, because what else is society but the aggregate of all of our thoughts and actions.  

The industrial revolution was a revolution of mind, it shifted the priorities in life more directly toward profit, productivity and self-interest away from the typical human priority of social networking and the reciprocal economy.  It manifested itself in the day to day behavior of people and in their way of life.  It was compelling enough to spread like a plague across the earth, infecting all those it touched.  

I also think that the 60s was a wheel-changing event in opposition to the industrial revolution's, as it prompted people to change their priorities away from profit.  In fact, I believe that the old sds's long-haul strategy of radicalizing (educating) young people was key in the effectiveness of this specific event.  Without a de-centralized yet organized education and motivation effort, wheel-changing events are much harder to produce.  

Without this hard work of changing minds, we will not see success in our movement.  In the eternal words of Monty Python: "Power is derived from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony."  Too often people on the left focus on the power structures in a society, when we should be focusing on the real power in human society - each other.

Walk the Earth as Humans

Building upon the thinking in my previous post, motivation to profit has started to seem like the crutch on which capitalism leans. In "The Age of Revolution" Hobsbawm talks about how employers during the early stages of the transition to capitalism would complain about the "laziness" of their employees. These people would work enough to make ends meet, and then stop. They were not used to the consistent work of industry, where one needs to be on time and to stay the whole time. Workers were more used to the farm and rural mentality of working whenever, and making your own hours. The combination of lack of motivation to work extra and to stay working annoyed the employers... because it cut their efficiency and profits. And this didn't happen just in urban centers of proto-capitalist economies, it happened in colonies and the outskirts of "civilization" too. It is a stereotype in my mind that British colonial officials would always complain about the laziness of the indigenous people. Anthropology pointed out to me that our civilization stereotypes indigenous societies as lazy and unproductive too.

Once the capitalist motivation of profit took hold in people with authority and power, they sought to use other people as tools to profit, and when these people stubbornly resisted by not conforming to capitalist ideals of a worker. But, as people had become tools to profit in the eyes of business owners and employers, they justified terrible repressions. Material starvation was one tecnique that was used to get more work out of their workers. They cut wages, to force them to work longer, and used the law. When the workers fought back by forming unions, these were attacked by the methods of coercion at the disposal of the powerful. This began the protracted war over labor rights which continues to this day. Another method to motivate people was to place immense obligations on their shoulders, such as military service and debt.

But the most effective method they used was cultural re-education. The early capitalists wanted everyone to think like they did, that profit is what they should seek and self-interest is the primary motivator. After three centuries of capitalistic re-education of society and culture shifting, we can see the success of this approach. Our entire civilization is now based on money as a motivator. It is true, there has been significant resistence to this belief, which is why it is not too surprising how many people still live in poverty. Fear of making ends meet, of feeding your family and keeping a roof over their heads is an immensely powerful motivator, and it ensures that people continue to buy into the capitalism by selling their labor and conforming to the rules.

Martin Luther King said something like "Humanity has learned to swim in the sea like a fish and fly in the sky like a bird, but we still can't walk the earth like a man." I think to put it more correctly, we forgot how to walk like a person. This analogy is very astute and gets to the heart of the problem. Humans were not meant to live this way, it is physcially and mentally destructive. Placing profit over people corrupts people's souls, and is mentally oppressive to those who think that way. Walking the earth, as MLK implies, would require us to treat people as an end in themselves instead of a tool. Something that I think most lefties dont realize is that capitalism is an oppression on the affleuent and power as well as on the down-trodden and working class. Where the majority of people suffer from material poverty, the rich suffer from a spiritual poverty that I find to be much more oppressive. And by spiritual I don't mean faith in God, or religion, I mean how much fulfillment one gets out of life; how people treat each other and the ramifications that has on their minds; lack of a deeper meaning than materialism; and suffering from a severe disconnection with other people.

Spiritual poverty is generated because people are not meant to live this way. Humans are social creatures and we have certain dispositions toward each other that capitalism disrupts. Generosity, connection, reciprocacy, and the social glue that holds a society together are all hard-wired into our brains, and when capitalism disrupts them it lays a yoke upon the mind of a person. This burden is so heavy it causes us to flee to transient pleasures to dull the pain and try to escape.

In Kentucky, people took care of each other. It is true that poverty took its toll with alcoholism, drugs, alienation and mental illness. But poverty also brings people together, it connects them and can build strong social ties. Lack of material comfort does not seem too harsh if one's family and friends are there, protecting each other. The affluent world I gained a view of at Brown was much worse, in my opinion. In the words of the Union song "Bread and Roses" by Bobbie McGee, "Hearts starve as well as bodies." And I see starvation of the heart to be a common affliction among the rich.

The capitalist motivation meme seems to have taken on a life of its own. It spurrs us into spending our collective time and energy on things that are not important, into things and not into people. Last time I was flying I had a window seat, and as I looked down, I noticed that I could always see something made by people. We have built so much, and yet we don't realize that it is more important to put effort into people. This does give me hope though. If we could push ourselves to do all this, build this entire world in a couple centuries, then we could push ourselves to do anything. Human culture is surprisingly flexible and powerful, we have drifted so far from our nature, and its impact is also quite impressive.

Capitalism (the Game!)

The more I think about capitalism, the more it seems to fit into the "game" category. Except it is perhaps the most complex game out there, and your survival depends on playing it. I think the most game-esque part of capitalism is the stock market, where you watch a bunch of numbers go up and down and you try to make more money based on when you buy and sell. Almost all of the people playing have more than enough money to live comfortably, but they are still focused on raising their own personal score. It is a symptom of a culture that is obsessed with over-accumulation.


Consumerism. That was the answer capitalism developed to answer the problem of the "stationary state." This idea was introduced to me by a book by Eric Hobsbawm titled "The Age of Revolution." As profit is the main motivator in the game of capitalism, if people are not motivated to profit, they will quite soon reach a point where they are quite satisfied with their position in life, and no longer seek to profit.  This is a stationary state, where people no longer seek to profit because they have enough.  I have fallen into such a state, I really have no motivation to make money and my living conditions are pretty good. I am not being a very good consumer, and I could see that the capitalism system would be in deep trouble if most people acted the way I am.  To avoid this pitfall, that would have reduced profits, consumerism evolved.

It actually reminds me of many video games. In Dungeons and Dragons based games like Diablo II and Nethack you walk around killing evil things, getting gold and new equipment. That is all the game is, getting new stuff by killing things... it is almost like gambling, because every time you kill something you have a chance to get something really good. It can be pretty addicting. I wonder how many of you thought I could compare capitalism to Diablo II. In games like Age of Empires II and Starcraft your objective is to conquer your competitor, but to do that, you have to develop an economy where you accumulate resources and assets. If you manage your assests affectively, you win. If not, then you lose. In Thief, you have to steal a certain amount of money. They are all focused on counters... little numbers that tell you how well you are doing. Sounds like the stock market to me.

I was looking at my bank statement the other day and asking myself how much happier I would be if my account was larger. Would I be happier if it were twice as much? How about 100 times as much? What would be the point of having that? What would I do with it? Why are so many people happier when the number on their bank statements are higher? I am still not sure why, which is a failing on my part, failing to understand other people. The only possible explanation I have been able to come up with is that they are approaching it the way I approach games, in that it is fun to test one's skills and see how good one can get. Well, I hate to be the one to say it, but basing a way of life on what amounts to a game is a horrible, HORRIBLE idea. Games were meant as training for real life, not to become real life! It seems that this is another example of goal displacement.

The truth is, the only reason I would be happier if the number on my bank account was bigger would be because it meant I got to give my money away to my friends and family. To help them in whatever way I could figure out.  And once I did that, the number would fall sharply.  I see no other reason why I would want alot of money. Some would respond to that by saying, "oh, but then you wouldn't have to work." But I like work! I would get depressed if I did not have something to do, something to really sink my teeth into. I have done experiments on myself, "Sloth" makes me unhappy. I am quite certain I would just end up giving my money away if I had any extra beyond what I would want to have on hand during an emergency. I don't want to have any more, I do not want that burden. As Kahlil Gibran said in "The Prophet": "The fear of thirst when your well is full is the thirst that is unquenchable."

No, the meaning of my life is not profit, something I am greatly thankful to my parents for imbuing in me. The meaning of life (well, atleast mine) is other people. And I see no other motivator that could bring me as much fulfillment and happiness as that one.

Bread and Roses

I have been listening to some classic labor songs lately, and they are so awesome. One of my favorite lines is from the song "Joe Hill." It goes like this: "Takes more than guns to kill a man, says Joe 'I didn't die'... says Joe 'what they can never kill went on to organize'"
This is such a powerful message, that when people stand up for something and die in its defense, that their spirit lives on in others. They inspire people with their sacrifice and their selflessness. Joe Hill was a Swedish-American labor organizer and a Wobbley (term for a member of the Industrial Workers of the World aka the IWW) in the early 1910s. He traveled around the country organizing people to fight for their rights, and penned songs, poems and speeches. He coined the term "pie in the sky" referencing religious figure's claims of rewards after death but apparent apathy toward the living conditions of the average person. His execution was a sham of justice. He had recieved a gun wound (he said it was over a woman) the same night that two people were murdered. During the crime, one of the two murders was wounded, and of the five people with gun shot wounds who went to doctors in the area that night it would be the labor organizer who was tried, convicted, and executed. No motive could be determined for why Hill would have committed the crime, and many of the facts just didn't fit. But he was still convicted. The trial was very controversial and the media made a big deal about it. Hill gained a bit of fame from it, and his loss has been morned in the labor movement since he was murdered by the government.

Another song which tugs at my heart strings is "Aragon Mill" by Peggy Seeger. It describes the economic desolation caused by the closing of the mill in a small rural town. The mill was the main employer, and once it pulled out, it left a void of unemployment. It reminds me alot of my hometown, with its 23% poverty rate, and the darkness that a lack of jobs creates in a community. This lyric always gets me, sometimes I tear up from it: "Oh, I'm too poor to move, and I'm too young to die, and their's no where to go for my family and I, cause the mill has shut down, its the only life I know, tell me where can I go, tell me where can I?" There is such pain in her voice in that lyric. The level of helplessness that she is expressing is really staggering. Maybe if I had not seen this type of economic situation with my own eyes as I was growing up, I wouldn't be as sympathetic. But this song plucks my heart strings like few others.

Then there is "Bread and Roses." People need more than just subsistence. Earning a wage just for survival is not the way people were designed to live. My favorite lyric in this is "hearts starve as well as bodies, give us bread, but give us roses." People need beauty, fun, and love in their lives or they will starve as assuridly as if they did not get their daily bread. I have seen many people whose hearts are starved. Interestingly, most of these people are not in economic need, they are quote well off. But they have no time for the things that are truly important in life. And this leaves them starving. They try to fix this hunger with material goods. But that is like eating empty calories to fight malnutrition, it does nothing to heal the body, just fills the stomach for a short time. True and lasting happiness comes from other people and the beauty in human interactions, not from consumption.

The Dread of Thirst

One of my favorite quotes of all time. "The dread of thirst when your well is full is the thirst that is unquenchable." from "The Prophet" by Kahlil Gibran.

This is a great analogy for our current economic crisis. Fear of loss dominates the market right now, and caused the bank-runs and near collapse of AIG that we have witnessed. And that fear will consume the trust that keeps the market afloat until it is addressed. The ironic thing is, people with stocks are generally well-off. They have the material comforts they need, but it is still not enough, they still thirst for more. This thirst causes them to, as a group, act in ways that will cause pain , alienation, and mistrust which inherently dirupt human social interactions, including the market.

It is not only the unquenchable thirst that capitalism creates, but the inequity which it distributes wealth that has caused this economic trouble. As the average person finds it harder and harder to purchase their necessities, there will be less spending and fewer people spending. And that will hurt the economy. Let me put it another way, concentrating wealth in the hands of fewer people will decrease economic prosperity.

The foundation of the global economy rest on the necessities. Food, clothing, shelter, and each other. The more people who can have all of these, the higher the GDP. When more people do not have these fundamentals, fear begins to infect society. The thirst for more starts triggering the fear of less, and in our society, this seems to cause people to act selfishly. It is the selfish impulse to limit one's losses that has caused these banks to fail. I believe, that if enough people decided to have confidence in an organization, it would not fall apart. Belief in a social system is what keeps in afloat, whatever the system. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If people believe something stable, then it continues to survive even if it is inherently unstable. And so if dread of want, loss and, yes, thirst begin to prevail the social system becomes unstable because people have lost faith in it.

Bucky said something like this the other day, "For all the fancy math that economists do, it is amazing how much emotions and belief factor into how the economy is doing."

For our own sakes, I want us to stop dreading thirst.