A Call to Consciousness
I, for one, am sick and tired of the American form of representative democracy that equates to nothing more than rule by a few and wage slavery for the rest. I intend this blog to be a space meant for discussing alternative forms of government, and, in general, alternative ways of living. I welcome participation by all, but especially by fellow sociologists. As Peter Berger has taught us, “the fascination of sociology lies in the fact that its perspective makes us see in a new light the very world in which we have lived all our lives.” Therefore, it is this transformation in consciousness that I seek, as opposed to a transformation in my immediate material reality.
Many radical thinkers believe that revolution can only be achieved through violent means, particularly through class warfare. However, I find these individuals to be crazed and impatient. I, for one, do not believe in violence. I believe that revolutions, like most things in life, are achieved through a painfully slow process. Moreover, I believe it is this process, the revolutionary act of expanding one’s consciousness, which fills one’s life with meaning. The cliché of life being a journey rather than a destination holds true. Therefore, I do not seek a utopian paradise, especially one achieved through violence, death and destruction. My aims are more modest: I seek to transform my consciousness through exercising my sociological imagination.
I would like to start this process through a discussion of anarcho-syndicalism. Admittedly, I only have a minimal knowledge of anarcho-syndicalism, and other forms of anarchy, primarily through my readings of Chomsky. What I have read, I have found particularly “attractive,” and would like to learn more.
Would anyone care to join me? If so, any suggestions on where to start?
Many radical thinkers believe that revolution can only be achieved through violent means, particularly through class warfare. However, I find these individuals to be crazed and impatient. I, for one, do not believe in violence. I believe that revolutions, like most things in life, are achieved through a painfully slow process. Moreover, I believe it is this process, the revolutionary act of expanding one’s consciousness, which fills one’s life with meaning. The cliché of life being a journey rather than a destination holds true. Therefore, I do not seek a utopian paradise, especially one achieved through violence, death and destruction. My aims are more modest: I seek to transform my consciousness through exercising my sociological imagination.
I would like to start this process through a discussion of anarcho-syndicalism. Admittedly, I only have a minimal knowledge of anarcho-syndicalism, and other forms of anarchy, primarily through my readings of Chomsky. What I have read, I have found particularly “attractive,” and would like to learn more.
Would anyone care to join me? If so, any suggestions on where to start?
posted by Cheerful Robot at 4:00 AM
3 Comments:
Those are some good questions pdg. Again, I am only marginally familiar with anarcho-syndicalism and am merely trying to get a better grasp of it, but I’ll try to provide some responses the best that I can:
I’ll start with your question: “what criterion would (people) unite around?” I think that implicit to anarchy is a belief in human beings liberating themselves from economic exploitation and intellectual, social and political oppression. They believe that any gains or losses made by some workers should eventually affect all workers, and that only direct action will lead to their liberation (as opposed to indirect action through elective representatives). These are some of the beliefs anarchists would hope that people could get behind.
As to “how” they would unite, I think that anarchists seek to unite through the organization of all the various trade unions into a collective federation, such as the International Worker’s Association.
In regards to the group of human beings being fair once in power, I think it is important to remember that the “group of workers” implied in this question is not just a small, elite minority of individuals, as in the case of monopoly capitalism, but rather the whole of society. In anarcho-syndicalism, the people rule over themselves. That is to say, power is in the hands of the people, and therefore, the only ones they could oppress would be themselves.
Again, these minimalist responses are based on my limited knowledge of anarchy. After having read over my responses, I realize that I am having difficulty seeing the differences between anarcho-syndicalism, communism and socialism. Can anyone help out by providing some differences between these various forms of governance?
I assume that differences arise in regards to the role of the state in the transition from capitalism to whatever that emerging from of governance may be (communist, socialist or anarchist).
pdg, that was a very well thought out and articulate response. . .having never read anything you’ve written before it makes me wonder why I’m not the one calling you “theory-boy” or “sixteen out of fifteen boy” (now I'm the one being sarcastic and only half-joking).
Of course, I’ve taken no offense to what you’ve said because I pretty much agree with it. However, before I respond to some of you points directly, let me restate from my initial post that I intended this blog to be “a space meant for discussing alternative forms of government, and, in general, alternative ways of living.” With that said, I merely wanted to kick-off such a discussion with the topic of anarcho-syndicalism. We by no means have to restrict ourselves to that topic alone. I sent you, and a few others, an invite to join the blog’s staff in hopes that you would be willing to contribute some posts (as opposed to just commentting on my posts). So, by all means, sigin-up and, as you say, help us “get off the beaten path and trail blaze some newer and fresher ideas.”
Now, to get back on topic: I agree that the responses I’ve provided are canned and well-worn mantras, but I do not believe them to be “weak,” or even “vague.” After all, they point out specific problems in society that you yourself have agreed are serious problems. Moreover, they outline specific plans of action to combat these problems. However, that is not to say that I agree with such plans of action. Your assessment of unions is an apt one, as is the “problem of the heart” that you have alluded to, which I would like to address directly.
First, let me restate your comment: “(A)re humans hard-wired to look out for the groups interests or do they innately revert back to looking out for ‘numero uno’?”
This question begs a sociobiolgoical response. The language you use (e.g., “innately revert back to looking out for ‘numero uno”) implies a belief that human beings are by their very nature “greedy” or “self-centered” creatures. I tend to agree. After all, we come out of the womb crying, begging for attention and clinging to others for survival. It’s only through socialization that we learn to care about people and things other than ourselves. However, if the process of socialization stresses individualism and individual responsibility above all else, of course we’re not going to grow much beyond our infantile concerns (i.e., it ends up being all about “Me”).
With this in mind, note your continual stress on people’s “differences” (whether they be economic, cultural or what have you) as being the major barrier to their ability to unite. This stress on differences seems to eclipse a seemingly bigger underlying problem that you (partially) recognize: our “innate,” and therefore common, self-centered nature. . .our inability to get beyond “Me,” to care as deeply for others as we do for ourselves.
I’m merely trying to suggest that perhaps it’s not our differences that are holding us back, but our biological similarities: our selfish natures. Now, what is to be done about this? Two things come to mind. First, recognition of this problem is a must. Otherwise we’ll seek solutions in the wrong places (e.g., “How can we overcome our differences,” as though such a thing would ever be possible in a multicultural society/global village). Second, perhaps socialization is the key to reigning in our selfish impulses. Just as we have to be taught to “look outside the box,” perhaps we should also be taught how to look beyond our immediate milieus in order to learn how to look past our “personal troubles” to broader “public issues.”
Of course, I am not saying anything new. I have once again digressed into well-worn mantras, right? But are they really that well worn? I do not believe that evoking Mills is a canned response, at least not outside of academic circles.
What? You want to gamble with your body?
Post a Comment
<< Home