rigorousintuition.ca

I am scared that the current generation of political activists, by seizing on democracy as the cause are completely missing the point. Democracy is a means to an end: good, just government. Right now we have democracy, but without good, just government, and this is the crisis of our times. We have fallen from grace, while retaining our vote.

what are the rights of every man, woman, and child, and how should we cooperate effectively to live in the full expression of those rights?

vanlose Kid wrote:
systems-think

two things are being conflated across the board from the far left to the far right: (1) "the wish to be rid of tyranny" and (2) "the wish for democracy" these are not identical. the first in no way entails the second. neither logically nor empirically.

part of the illusion here is that we are conditioned/taught to think in terms of stable and functioning systems that are necessary and that, one set up, are self-correcting and keep everything flowing smoothly. this is a throwback to the dream of the enlightenment rationalists: based on Newtonian mechanics, the rationalists sought to establish, by supplying (or "discovering") self-evident formal proofs, the "belief in celestial stability" [i.e. that a system can be exhaustively described and formalized in a set of 'laws' that would, once and for all, give human beings a handle on the assumed deterministic character of the 'natural system' (cf., the "Three Body Problem")].

once physics had established that one need only transpose or build upon it theories of social organization, of economics, of the most rational political system that most faithfully conformed to nature. these were dreams and remain so. the idea of such total(itarian) systems reeks of nothing but tyranny, to me at least. – modern economics and the social sciences that have adopted many, if not all, of the "methods" of "economic science" still cling to this chimera.

this systems think is the real demigod upon whose alter men, women, and children are sacrificed. this is the "owl" that is worshipped in bohemian grove. the meaning of the pyramid. the true Moloch is not some creature but the State – Leviathan

It is important to understand that behavior which rises out of ecosystems—life lived by immersion—has never been passive but diligently active: symbiotic, reciprocal, deliberately manipulative, and creative. Dennis Martinez, the pre-historian of the restoration movement, has shown us that the indigenous peoples of North America—and by extension elsewhere—have always been an interactive element of the landscape, effecting their own long-term survival with management practices so extensive that ecosystem function was affected (Martinez 1993). This is another view altogether of human relationships to nature. Rather than objectifying nature as a resource base functioning only to provide human wealth and comfort, such cultures express themselves as interactive parts of the natural systems around them. In such cultures, individuals are able to perceive themselves as having no greater (or lesser) a function in ecosystem process than algae, or deer.

Most of us have forgotten how to act this way. Over the recent few hundred years we have been encouraged to forget. There is, in fact, a whole educational industry structured for the purpose of convincing us that our primary identity is as consumers. The question is not how to mourn nature, or how to isolate and protect its tattered fragments, but how to re-engage it and thus rediscover our native wit and adaptive genius. And we will find, I believe, that this rediscovery is possible, but only ever in one place at a time. If we are to re-immerse ourselves in our larger lives, if we are to regain our extended identity, it will be through the portals of individual ecosystems and particular places.

The Virtues of a Disorganized Resistance
Author: Stephen DeVoy

American opposition movements have always focused on the notion of organization. It has always been their goal to organize the people. Their hope has been to wield the collective power of the disaffected, downtrodden, and exploited as a single unit against the concentrated power of the ruling class. While their hope has been noble, their methods have been foolish. Organized resistance has many drawbacks. These drawbacks have seldom been discussed by the opposition. We believe that the only effective resistance is a completely disorganized, decentralized, and leaderless opposition.

While, on the face of it, this claim may impress you as absurd. Of course it seems absurd! It is counterintuitive. Never the less, it is the ONLY method of resistance that will work within American society. We will explain why organized resistance has never worked in the United States. In addition, we will promulgate a new formula for effective resistance.

Why has organized resistance failed in the United States?

There are many reasons for the failure of organized resistance. The two primary causes of failure are intimately connected to the culture of the United States and the political system laid down by our nation's founding fathers.
The Cultural Cause

Americans, culturally, are anarchists. Few Americans realize this. Most Americans have a false understanding of the term "anarchism." However, upon examining the beliefs of your average American, you will find that most Americans:

* do not trust leaders
* do not trust government
* wish to be left alone
* value their privacy
* think of themselves as independent from society
* do not believe that there is a systemic solution to their problems
* believe that others should be free to do what they choose, provided they do so in private and do not harm others

While it is undeniable that political culture in the United States often speaks to the opposite of the above list, it is also undeniable that most Americans register as neither Democrat or Republican and most Americans do not vote. Thus, despite the political culture, most Americans choose not to participate in it. This is not only due to their belief that the American political system is hopeless, but also is due to the cultural clash between the wider culture and the political culture.

Any attempt to organize large numbers of Americans into a single political movement will fail. Any attempt to create an organization led by a strong group of leaders will fail. Americans reject submersion into the collective. In a sense, Americans are anti-collectivists.

The Political Cause

American political culture is not ideological. Politicians attempt to draw ideological distinctions between the two major parties, but these distinctions are a matter of splitting hairs. The only significant difference between the two political parties is the degree of compassion represented by the rhetoric of the two parties. Compassion is not a political concept. Compassion is an attitude. Thus, the two parties differ, primarily, in attitude and not ideology.

Despite this, there remain two political parties. One is prompted to ask "why?" If each party is basically the same, with respect to ideology, why do they not merge into one party? The answer to this question is best found in viewing each political party according to its true nature. American political parties are, for all intents and purposes, organized crime units. American political parties have more in common with the Mafia than they have with their counterparts in more democratic societies. Like Mafia, each political party competes for control of territory in order to maximize the benefit to their business constituency. Like Mafia, the political parties attempt to mold the system to maintain their positions and access to resources. Like Mafia, the political parties force the average citizen to pay "protection" under the threat of violence (taxes). Like Mafia each political party uses the "protection" money collected for its own advantage.

By defining our political system in terms of the "majority" and the "opposition," our Constitution enshrines this two mafia system into law. Each Mafia passes laws to exclude new comers from the game while focusing the rest of its energy in destroying the other Mafia.

Thus, any resistance movement that chooses to become an organization is in competition with these Mafiosi. The deck is stacked and the power of the state, wielded by these organized crime units known as the Democratic and Republican parties, will waste the time and resources of any newcomer. A newcomer can only succeed by rejecting the political system, draining its resources, and undermining the rule of the state.

How is disorganized resistance superior?

In some societies, dissidents become heroes. In American society dissidents are systematically slandered, libeled, harassed, and villainized. If they become successful, they are murdered (e.g. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X). In the American experience, movements that look to leaders are decapitated. Leaders are a liability, not an asset.

Organizations can be (and are) infiltrated. Organizations can be taxed. Organizations have legal responsibility. Organizations have membership lists and lists are wonderful tools for the oppressor. Organizations take on a life of their own. They struggle to exist and their continued existence takes priority over their mission. Organizations attract opportunists, power mongers, and attention seekers. Organizations tend to exploit their rank and file for the benefit of their inner circle. Disorganizations share none of these defects.

Bureaucracy cannot comprehend disorganization. Disorganization is invisible. The asymmetry of the relationship between organization and disorganization favors disorganization. Organization depends upon planning. Planning requires predictability. Disorganization cannot be predicted. This leaves organization at a disadvantage.

Organization requires a supply chain. Supply chains can be disrupted. Disorganization depends only upon the resources of its members. Supply chains that do not exist cannot be eliminated.

Disorganized movements rely upon swarming. Swarms are difficult to defend against. If you cut a swarm in half, you have two swarms. If you eliminate one of the resulting swarms, you still have a swarm. Disorganization breeds. Organization grows. The many and dispersed are a more difficult target than the large and concentrated.

Organizations takes their steps by design. If the design is flawed, the organization fails. Disorganization relies not upon design but upon evolution. The motivating notions of disorganization are memes. Memes evolve and memes compete. This process improves the motivating notions of disorganization. This process produces multiple courses of action. While some may fail, others are likely to succeed. Taken as a whole, disorganization is more likely to succeed.

The important thing to remember is that it is easier to destroy than to create that which is designed. Thus, the cost to those who lose the manifestation of their design outweighs by leaps and bounds the cost it takes to destroy it. That which evolves is cheap and when an effort is created to destroy the evolved entity, it merely mutates and evolves again, adjusting to the new conditions. As a process that fosters evolution, a movement based on disorganization will continue to survive, evolve, and expand without cost. The resource constraints placed upon the designed (e.g. government and corporate) and those absent from the evolved (a decentralized and disorganized opposition movement), favor the latter.

The limits of disorganization

We do not propose a complete absence of organization. Instead we propose a disorganization of units. Units can be as small as a single individual, or as complex as cell of individuals working together. Cells may be internally organized, but they should not be statically organized cell to cell. The movement should have no commander. It should have no central committee or governing body. No global plans should be made. The modus operandi of each unit should be to think globally and act locally. Ideas, strategies, and tactics should float freely and compete as memes within the medium of the collective conscious.

Conclusions

We need to construct a disorganized movement. You need not apply to join. In fact, it might be better if you did not contact anyone except those with whom you wish to form a unit. Your ideas, strategies, tactics, and lessons learned should be spread anonymously or by word of mouth. When you act, should you decide to act in resistance, attribute your actions to "the Resistance." The growing din of disorganized disruption will be felt as an earthquake. There will be trembles. There will be pre-shocks. The tension will mount and, in time, there will be an earthquake. When that earthquake strikes, the organized edifice of the oppressor will fall like a house of cards.

http://www.anarkhos.org/disorganizedresistance.html

vanlose kid wrote:Americans, culturally, are anarchists. Few Americans realize this.

23 wrote:The contention that Americans are culturally anarchistic deserves further discussion.

Anecdotally, I have found the contrary to be true.

Acquiescence to a coercively authoritarian government isn't an anarchistic attribute, IMO.

Stephen Morgan wrote:

vanlose kid wrote:Americans, culturally, are anarchists. Few Americans realize this.

Yep. Servile, obedient, militarist anarchists who worship their flag and government.

INTRODUCTION
PETER MARSHALL

“Neither God nor Master.”1
—Michael Bakunin
“Love, and do what you will.”2
—Augustine

Is religious anarchism a contradiction in terms? Is not anarchy the very
opposite of hierarchy which in the original Greek means the “rule of the
priests”? Is not an all-powerful God who threatens wayward humanity
with terrible punishments necessarily evil? Is not submission or obedience
to the authority of God slavish?
Given the close historic link between the church and the state in the
West, it is not surprising that the classic anarchist thinkers of the
nineteenth century, steeped in the humanist tradition of the Enlightenment,
should have generally opposed religion as a heavy fetter holding back the
liberation of humanity. For the most part, they shared Marx’s view that
religion was the “opium of the people,” offering workers and peasants
extravagant fantasies of pie in the sky while sapping their energy to
improve things on earth. Like the philosophes, they generally held the
practices and beliefs of religion to be part of the ignorance and superstition
left over from the Dark Ages. Above all, they rejected unquestioning
obedience to a supernatural power having ultimate control over their
destiny. Man, they concluded, was not made in God’s image, but God in
the image of some of the worst aspects of humanity.
They were standing in a long radical tradition in Europe which
opposed the authoritarian and hierarchical nature of organised religion.
Popular peasant revolts during the Middle Ages attempted to throw off the
triple yoke of priest, landlord and magistrate who lived off their backs and

1 Anarchist slogan, usually attributed to Michael Bakunin.
2 Augustine, “Seventh Homily on the First Epistle of St John,” in Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 7, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. H. Browne (Buffalo,
N. Y.: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888), para 8.

-----
xiv
who threatened, fined and whipped them into sullen obedience. As
capitalism began to develop, the downtrodden and dispossessed further
rejected the Protestant ethic which saw success in making money as a sign
of divine grace. Many during the French Revolution looked forward to that
splendid time when the last priest would be hanged by the entrails of the
last aristocrat.
In the nineteenth century, the individualist Max Stirner argued that
religion was a “spook” in the mind, a manifestation of our alienation from
our true humanity.3 But amongst the classic anarchist thinkers, it was
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Michael Bakunin who most virulently
opposed organised religion, the unholy alliance of church and state, and
the notion of an omniscient God. Proudhon, brought up in Catholic
France, put it simply: “God is stupidity and cowardice; God is hypocrisy
and falsehood; God is tyranny and poverty; God is evil.”4 Bakunin, a
militant atheist like Marx, was no less iconoclastic. In his view, “all
religions are cruel; all founded in blood.” As for monotheism, he declared:
“The idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is
the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the
enslavement of mankind, both in theory and practice.” Indeed, turning
Voltaire on his head, he argued that “If God really existed, it would be
necessary to abolish him.”5
Anarchists after them have not only criticised the church as a
hierarchical and authoritarian institution but have condemned its repressive
morality. Its concept of sin, they have pointed out, encourage feelings of
fear and guilt which can cripple the spontaneous generosity and
playfulness of humans. In short, the agents of institutionalised religion
have turned the sun-blessed garden of love into a mouldy cemetery of
desire.
That is the main thrust of the anarchist case against religion. But have
all anarchists agreed? As the wide-ranging, thought-provoking and
scholarly essays in this excellent collection demonstrate, religion has in
the past been and can still be a source of inspiration for anarchists.
Anarchism is not inherently atheistic, denying the existence of God, or
even humanist, giving a central place to humanity within nature. Nor is it
wedded to any particular metaphysics, religion or even ethics; it is a wide
river with many tributaries, currents and eddies. What unites anarchists is

3 Max Stirner, The Ego & Its Own, trans. Steven T. Byington (1963) (London:
Rebel Press, 1982), 39.
4 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Système des contradications économiques, ou
philosophie de la misère (1846) (Paris: Rivière, 1923), I, 384.
5 Michael Bakunin, God and the State (New York: Mother Earth, 1916), chapter 2.
-----
xv
a common rejection of coercive power and imposed authority and a call
for freedom to shape their own lives and realise their full potential.
Within the Christian tradition, there has always been an ambivalent
attitude to government and the state. Despite Paul’s teaching in Romans 13
and Jesus’ famous “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and
unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21) many early
Christians saw obedience to God and imitation of the life of Christ as
taking precedence over any obligation to worldly powers or temporal
authority. In this, they took inspiration from Romans 11:36: “For of him,
and through him, and to him, are all things.”
Early in the fifth century, for example, the British theologian Pelagius
denied original sin, emphasised free will and claimed that all human
beings can achieve spiritual perfection without external assistance. They
could also have their basic needs easily satisfied if it were not for the
avarice of the rich. Again, in the twelfth century the Cistercian monk
Joachim of Fiore predicted the imminent realisation of the Kingdom of
God on earth in which free individuals would live together in loving
harmony and ecstatic joy.
In the Middle Ages, there were waves of religious libertarian and
millenarian movements inspired by such beliefs in north and central
Europe. Most notable were the Brethren of the Free Spirit who emerged in
the thirteenth century. These mystical libertarians were antinomians,
believing that they could be saved by faith alone and that the bestowal of
grace released them from any obligation to moral law. They took literally
Augustine’s adage: “Love, and do what you will.” Many of the
revolutionaries in the peasant rebellions which swept through Europe,
especially the English Peasants’ Revolt in 1381 and the Hussite
Revolution in Bohemia in 1419-21, were tinged with these ideas. Peter
Chelčický, recognized by Kropotkin as a forerunner of anarchism and
much appreciated by Tolstoy, was not only opposed to the “two whales”
of the church and state but following the example of Christ turned the
other cheek and refused to take up arms. During the Reformation, a loose
movement of Anabaptists (who believed in adult baptism) and Spiritualists
(who believed God was within) called for the separation of church and
state and the building of a New Jerusalem on earth. It was not easy. When
the puritanical Anabaptists in Münster in 1534 pooled their resources and
tried to create a community based on love they ended up burning books
and introducing a draconian new legal code.
The revolutionary and anarchistic tendency within Christianity came to
a fore during the upheavals of the English Revolution and civil war in the
seventeenth century. The Diggers wished only to obey the “law of


-----

xvi
righteousness” and were willing to break the laws of England and to work
the land as a common treasury. Gerrard Winstanley spoke on their behalf
when he declared: “True freedom lies in the community in spirit and
community in the earthly treasury, and this is Christ the true-man-child
spread abroad in the creation.”6 The most extreme antinomians at this time
however were the Ranters, lawless and masterless women and men, who
believed that since they were in a state of grace, they could commit no sin.
They shared their goods and practiced free love. Abiezer Coppe in his
marvellous Fiery Flying Rolls made clear that since God dwells within “to
the pure all things are pure” and “sinne and transgression is finished.”7
At the time of the French Revolution, William Blake was an offshoot
of this underground religious libertarian tradition. Rejecting the
constricting, judgemental and authoritarian Jehovah God of the Old
Testament, he saw Jesus as a revolutionary force of love and forgiveness,
bringing balm to heal the God-beaten heads of downtrodden humanity. In
his view, Jesus not only broke the Ten Commandments but was “all virtue,
and acted from impulse, not from rules.” Indeed, for Blake, “The Gospel is
Forgiveness of Sins & Has No Moral Precepts.”8
William Godwin, a one-time minister, may have been an atheist when
he wrote his Enquiry concerning Political Justice (1793) but it was by
extending the Dissenters’ right to private judgement to the political realm
that he reached anarchist conclusions. The kind of voluntary communism
he advocated moreover can be traced back to the Calvinist sect of
Sandemanians among whom he moved as a teenager. Later in life, he
began to talk of a “Great Spirit” which pervaded all nature.
Of the great anarchist thinkers, it was however Tolstoy who was most
inspired by Christianity. A radical interpretation of the “Sermon on the
Mount,” with its emphasis on love and forgiveness, helped him reject all
governments as immoral forms organised violence. Since the “Kingdom of
God” is within us and we can all be guided by the divine light of reason,
governments are both unnecessary and harmful. Tolstoy died on his way to
a monastery. Among the many religious groups influenced by him were
the Nazarenes in Hungary and the Christian anarchists in the Netherlands

6 Gerrard Winstanley, A Watch-Word to the City of London (1649), in The Law of
Freedom and Other Writings, ed. Christopher Hill (Cambridge University Press,
1983), 128.
7 Andrew Hopton, ed., Abiezer Coppe: Selected Writings (London: Aporia Press,
1987), 27.
8 Geoffrey Keynes, ed., Blake: Complete Writings (Oxford University Press,
1972), 158, 395.
-----

xvii
who refused to bear arms and pooled their resources in intentional
communities close to the land.
While not strictly speaking anarchist, a stance of indifference to the
state, developed philosophically by the Danish theologian Søren
Kierkegaard, was widespread among Christian anarchists who believed
like him that the love of God and the imitation of Christ lead to withdrawal
from the state. In the twentieth century in the United States, Dorothy Day,
Ammon Hennacy and their fellow Catholic Workers further argued that
the law of God overrides all man-made laws and supersedes any obligation
to obey governments. As Hennacy put it colourfully, a Christian anarchist
is “one who turns the other cheek, overturns the tables of the moneylenders,
and who does not need a cop to tell him how to behave.”9 The
French thinker Jacques Ellul equally claimed that Christianity means a
rejection of temporal power and argued that a form of non-violent
anarchism is the only sensible and moral way forward.
For Christian anarchists, if there be any conflict between God and
Caesar, a benevolent God will always take precedence. Love of God and
love of one’s neighbours are paramount. It is not a question of Bakunin’s
“Neither God nor Master” but rather “No Master apart from God.” While
they reject the church as a hierarchical and authoritarian institution, most
Christian anarchists see the church in the universal sense of a community
of believers as a place for resistance against the nation-state and the racism
and inequality it engenders.
Although anarchism as a self-conscious body of ideas and practices
was largely a product of the European Enlightenment, many indigenous
peoples, from the pygmies in the African rainforest to the Dalits in rural
India, have been “anarchic” in their religious practices by worshipping
without leaders and institutions. Even the humanist Kropotkin argued that
morality among humans had evolved naturally prior to the state and
recognised that religion had played an important role in encouraging the
practice of mutual aid.
As with Christianity, religious traditions and beliefs throughout the
world have had their libertarian movements and have inspired anarchist
beliefs. The Judaic God of the Old Testament certainly cast the sinful into
hell and called for an eye for an eye, yet the Hasidic mystical tradition
which developed within Judaism in the eighteenth century brought out the
importance of “loving kindness” (the Hebrew root word of Hasidism).
Many Jews have been drawn to anarchism. The libertarian philosopher

9 Ammon Hennacy, Autobiography of a Catholic Anarchist (New York: Catholic
Worker Books, 1954), preface.

-----

xviii
Martin Buber, strongly influenced by his anarchist friend Gustav
Landauer, also saw the kibbutz movement as one of the possible Paths to
Utopia (1949). Although it has largely lost its way under the pressure of
war, some Jewish anarchists still see the possibility of creating a network
of libertarian communes to replace the need for the brute force of
government.
Islam of course is a monotheistic religion like Judaism and Christianity
whose prophets it recognises. At first sight, and certainly for many in the
West, it would seem to be fundamentally authoritarian and violent. But
this view is largely based on ignorance and prejudice; historically,
Christianity has been no less given to violence and coercion than Islam
when linked to temporal powers and misled by political leaders.
The very word “Islam” means “submission” or “surrender” and Islam
calls for submission to the teaching of the Koran and surrender to the
authority of God. The primary commitment of all Muslims is to obey God
and God alone. Yet within Islam, there has been a libertarian tendency.
The brotherhood and sisterhood of Muslims go beyond national
boundaries and their morality transcends the laws of the state and the
dictates of government. While sharia has crystallised into a rigid set of
laws and rules it was originally a form of ethics for everyday life. There is
moreover no institutional hierarchy in Islam and a strong emphasis on the
search for consensus (ijma) within the community (umma).
Among Islamic sects, the Qarâmita, the Ismailis (especially the socalled
Assassins) and the Sufis have all had anarchist-leaning groups. The
Berbers and the Bedouin lived in a form of tribal anarchy. In the ninth
century, the Najdiyya and members of the Kharijites felt that since imams
had a tendency to turn into kings and rulers, it was better not to set them
up in the first pace. From the thirteenth to the sixteenth century,
antinomian dervishes, such as the Qalandars and Haydarîs, went their own
idiosyncratic way, either rejecting or embracing the world as unruly
friends of God. Like Christian anarchists, they refused to obey any master
apart from God. The mystical sect of Sufis, who preach universal love and
tolerance, are particularly libertarian and egalitarian—so much so that
Ataturk, the founder of the modern secular state of Turkey, banned them.
Sufism has had a growing influence in the West. The anarchist Hakim Bey
(Peter Lamborn Wilson) in particular has espoused Islam and celebrated
its heretics and outcasts.
Unlike Christianity and Islam, Hinduism has no room for a supreme
God in its unruly pantheon of gods and goddesses. At the same time, it
stresses the divine nature of the unique individual and encourages personal
autonomy. Its ethics can be summed up by the phrase ahimsa, meaning

-----

xix
“no harm.” Like all the major religious traditions, it too has had its
libertarian movements and thinkers. The religious philosopher Aurobindo
Ghose, for example, argued that the ideal of humanity is to be found in the
natural association of free individuals outside the constricting and
mechanical nation-state. Although brought up as a Brahmin, Gandhi was
strongly influenced by Tolstoy’s Christian anarchism. He too considered a
form of “enlightened anarchy” to be the highest form of society where
“everyone is his own ruler, and . . . there is not political power because
there is no State.”10 He had a profound belief in the power of truth and like
Godwin believed that it would ultimately be victorious over error. In the
long run there was no need for government in a self-managing and
decentralised society based on the village councils. Society would then
become a community of communities. The Sarvodaya (“Welfare for All”)
movement in India and Sri Lanka continues to apply Gandhian principles
of non-violent resistance and the voluntary pooling of land and resources.
In the Far East, modern Daoism has taken on many of the attributes
and rituals of a religion but in its original form it was a strongly libertarian
philosophical and moral system. The Dao is older than any god and by its
very nature escapes concepts and words. The wise person goes with the
flow of the Dao. As the Daodejing, the most beautiful, oldest and
profound libertarian text in the world, puts it: “The world is ruled by
letting things take their course. It cannot be ruled by interfering.”11 The
conclusions of the Daoist text Zhuang Zi are even more anarchistic: to
attempt to govern people with laws and regulations is impossible, “as well
as try to wade through the sea, to hew a passage through a river, or make a
mosquito fly away with a mountain!”12 If the natural dispositions of
humans are not perverted, there is simply no need for government. Some
later Daoists like Wu Nengzi were prepared to accept a degree of
governmental rule if not attached or deceived by it usefulness but the early
Daoists were undoubtedly forerunners of anarchism when they embraced
the universe as a whole, accepted the underlying unity and equality of all
things and beings, and advocated letting them go their own beneficial way.
Like Daoism, Buddhism is non-theistic. In its pure form it is more of a
system of ethics than a religion. Buddha is not considered divine but as a
symbol and living example of the enlightened person. Buddhism does not
therefore worship a personal deity or divine being but is concerned with

10 Mohandas Gandhi, Democracy: Real and Deceptive (Ahmedabad: Navajivan,
1961), 28-9.
11 Tao te ching, trans. Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English (New York: Vintage, 1972),
section 48.
12 Chuang Tzu, trans. H. A. Giles (London: Unwin, 1980), 87.
-------
xx
self-development. In self-disciplined freedom, all are equally capable of
enlightenment. Although it became institutionalised and sclerotic like
other world religions, its original message is deeply libertarian. While
recommending the teaching of the wise, as the Kalama Sutta makes clear,
it encourages free enquiry. Its practice of personal autonomy and selfdisciple
makes external government superfluous. Combined with Daoism
to form Zen, it can have profound nation-shaking and state-transforming
implications. And as Gary Snyder and Kenneth Rexroth understood, living
the life of Buddha in the East or West does not need the law or the state.
It should by now be clear that religion itself is not inherently
authoritarian and hierarchical but that organised religions have an
unpleasant tendency to become so. The original message of the great
religious teachers to live a simple life, to share the wealth of the earth, to
treat each other with love and respect, to tolerate others and to live in
peace invariably gets lost as worldly institutions take over. Religious
leaders, like their political counterparts, accrue power to themselves, draw
up dogmas, and wage war on dissenters in their own ranks and the
followers of other religions. They seek protection from temporal rulers,
bestowing on them in return a supernatural legitimacy and magical aura.
They weave webs of mystery and mystification around naked power; they
join the sword with the cross and the crescent. As a result, in nearly all
cases organised religions have lost the peaceful and tolerant message of
their founding fathers, whether it be Buddha, Jesus or Mohammed.
For these reasons, anarchists, whatever their religious beliefs or lack of
them, have questioned and opposed the authority of religious leaders and
the rule of priests. They have tried to end the close alliance of church,
mosque and temple with government and the state. They have insisted on
the freedom of belief as well as the freedom of thought and action.
An increasing number of libertarian socialists and anarchists, including
myself, feel that the arguments against the existence of a tyrannical God
and the need for hierarchical institutions have been won. At the same time,
they are prepared to call themselves “spiritual” in a loose sense. While
continuing to oppose organised religion, the hierarchy and domination of
the church and mosque, and the imposition of a repressive morality, they
recognise that life is sacred, that the cosmos is inherently good, that all is
ultimately one. They believe that every created thing is divine. As mystics
have always known, to attain “union with God” or to be “at one” with the
universe goes beyond all organised religion, temporal laws, governments
and states. It involves a transformative experience which breaks down the
narrow boundaries of ego, nation and race and connects with all beings
and the cosmos as a whole.

-----
xi
We can be spiritual without being a member of an authoritarian sect;
religious without joining a hierarchical organisation; moral without
obeying religious leaders or laws. We can be at one with God or the
universe and at the same time work for the betterment of humanity and the
well-being of the earth. We can read sacred texts and listen to the wise and
still think, judge and act for ourselves. We can enjoy voluntary poverty,
peace, fellowship and forgiveness in the garden of love. In short, we can
be deeply spiritual and still profoundly anarchist, one strand enriching and
enlarging the other in a widening circle of freedom.

http://www.c-s-p.org/flyers/978-1-4438- ... sample.pdf

now we're talking.

A Middle East without borders?
The nation state is ripe for change and people power offers new opportunities for mapping the future of the region.
Mohammed Khan Last Modified: 05 Mar 2011 15:00 GMT

The modern geography of the Middle East was carved out by British and French colonialists whose sole interest was in sharing the spoils of war between themselves and in maintaining their supremacy over the region in the early part of the 20th century.

The contours of the region, with its immaculately straight lines (see maps of Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Sudan) are much the same today as when they were first drawn up, despite decades of cross-border encroachment and conflict.

Never has an imported concept been so jealously guarded by ruling families and political elites in the Middle East as that of the nation state, together with the holy grail of international relations theory, state sovereignty.

The artificialness of the borders in question is not in doubt. Take a look at any map of the Middle East prior to the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France (when the division of the region was finalised with no consideration for the thoughts of the people that lived in it) and you will be hard pressed to find many physical boundaries between, say, Syria to the north-east and Morocco to the west.

What you may find, however, are free-flowing train routes spanning the region. A relic of the old Hejaz Railway, which connected Damascus to Medina, still stands (dilapidated) in the centre of the Syrian capital. It once transported pilgrims to the Muslim holy city in modern-day Saudi Arabia without the need for cumbersome visas and frustrating bureaucrats. But that was obviously some time ago.

Trial and error

Over the course of recent history, Arab leaders have attempted to foster closer unity in the Arab world whether in the form of the 22-member Arab League - "to safeguard the independence and sovereignty [of Arab states]" - or the six-state Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) - as a political, economic and security union in response to the Islamic revolution in Iran.

However, the sanctity of the state itself, and its borders, has been absolute within these blocs.

Possibly the greatest experiment in cross-border union, one which admittedly lasted barely three years, began in 1958, when under a wave of Nasserism sweeping the region, Egypt and Syria (and for a very short period, Iraq) established the United Arab Republic (UAR).

Gamal Abdel-Nasser's demagoguery and penchant for power, however, and the subsequent economic tumult felt in Syria, soon saw an end to that project in 1961.

Theoretically, Egypt and Syria became one, as part of the UAR. Under a single leadership (with devolved power), the UAR was supposed to foster a spirit of togetherness and spur other countries in the region to join up and expand the union.

That the project failed was in no way a reflection of the Egyptian and Syrian peoples' desire to forge a single alliance. Together with the then Yemen Arab Republic, the formation of a United Arab States was also mooted.

That was the last we heard of a pan-Arab national project.

Arguably, the 1990s and the 2000s were the decades of cross-border post-nationalism, especially with the rise of Islamic movements as major political actors whose ideology was premised on Islamic ideals that transcended national borders.

Analyse closely the manifestos of some of these movements, however, and also consider their specific origins, and it soon becomes clear that their political ambitions were, and are, ingrained firmly in the states in which they emerged.

As such, the Islamic Salvation Front was a dominant actor in Algeria and Algeria alone, while the Muslim Brotherhood's focus is on political reformation in Egypt. The Brotherhood's offshoots are similarly specifically state-centric.

These movements may well have ideological underpinnings that aim to replicate the glory days of the early Caliphates or the Ottoman Empire, but realism has dictated that they focus their energies within specific national confines. This is unlikely to change anytime soon.

All for one

Given this recent history, then, is the idea of a borderless Middle East still viable? It may well be when you consider that the globalised nature of the world, in its present form, has thrown up possibilities in the region that would have been inconceivable barely a few years back.

More precisely, the political convulsions that the region is undergoing right now have revealed glaringly the extent to which the problems and, potentially, the solutions to the Arab world's ills are remarkably similar. The political, economic and social suffocation that the people of Tunisia and Egypt have endured, before popular revolutions swept the countries' dictators from power, were near identical. The political, economic and social ailments suffered in Libya, Algeria, Bahrain, Yemen and now Oman are of the same vein.

Obviously, the causes of political unrest across these states are much more nuanced and cannot be reduced to generalisations. However, the future, unsurprisingly, is with the youth, the very demographic that is taking the lead in battling corruption and autocracy and one that is communicating, encouraging and helping others across borders in the spirit and language of togetherness.

Sure, this does not by itself denote that borders are now irrelevant. What it does suggest, however, is that political and economic issues and opportunities cannot be dealt with simply within the confines of borders any longer. The pent-up frustrations of the Arab youth, the economic inequalities, the demands for better representation extend across the entire region. A single voice is emerging in search of a single value: Freedom.

A single political authority is certainly not about to emerge out of the current political turmoil. But such an authority is not necessary. An appropriate governance model for the Arab world to emulate would be that of the European Union (EU). The 27-nation political and economic union is borderless in the sense that its people can live, work and travel in member countries without much hindrance.

Sovereignty is still paramount in the EU but the federalisation of political and economic power is to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans. Granted, the recent economic and financial crisis has called into question the viability of the EU, or more specifically, the single European currency, but the political will remains resolute in defence of the union.

We can probably find a plethora of reasons why a real political and economic union would not work in the Arab world. Take a look at the GCC, for example, a bloc of around 40 million people: After a decade of trying, it is still unable to form a currency union. How are we then to expect over 200 million people to agree on a federally-based political and economic union?

But, this would be to dismiss the thrust towards a common set of goals in the Arab world. Borders are increasingly irrelevant in this new equation. The means of mass communication, interdependency, pan-regional media, ease of access through improved infrastructure, the identification with a cause rather than a country, all suggest that the political awakening in the region may be conducive to a completely different set of political and economic realities.

The nation state as we know it, as it was imposed on the region by colonial powers, is ripe for change. The unleashing of people power has now opened up new possibilities for mapping the Arab world's future. While protesters across the region have been waving their respective national flags, the cause for which they are fighting and risking their lives extends well beyond their immediate borders.


http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/op ... 41689.html

*

vanlose kid wrote:

23 wrote:The contention that Americans are culturally anarchistic deserves further discussion.

Anecdotally, I have found the contrary to be true.

Acquiescence to a coercively authoritarian government isn't an anarchistic attribute, IMO.

it should be discussed. i've been trying to, actually. by beginning with Doc Chomsky's rought sketch of the history and "popularity" of (left) libertarianism/anarchism in europe and the states i was also trying to add materials that qould better qualify the discussion. i'm still building on that.

one thing people lose sight of, even here, is that, just as there is a MSMedia there is also a MSAcademia. the victors write history, and anarchism has been written out of history almost entirely both by the left and the right (see upthread). also, anarchists at times forget that none of their ideas, like Athena, came into being fully formed from the mind of Bakunin or whoever.

some also tend to forget the natural, human, anthropological, whatever, argument for anarchism that references historical facts re societies predating any european anarchist "movement" or whatever, that serves a purpose at certain times but must be, for dogmatic or ideological reasons, "forgotten" at others.

also, some, not necessarily anarchists, being "progressive" (or culturally social darwinist) tend to view history as only worthy of consideration in so far as it is "modern" and befitting of whatever paradigm is current or dear, leads inexorably from time immemorial to the hightpoint of reason which of course means their way of thinking, and say things like:
*

Peter Marshall wrote:We can be spiritual without being a member of an authoritarian sect;
religious without joining a hierarchical organisation; moral without
obeying religious leaders or laws. We can be at one with God or the
universe and at the same time work for the betterment of humanity and the
well-being of the earth. We can read sacred texts and listen to the wise and
still think, judge and act for ourselves. We can enjoy voluntary poverty,
peace, fellowship and forgiveness in the garden of love. In short, we can
be deeply spiritual and still profoundly anarchist, one strand enriching and
enlarging the other in a widening circle of freedom.

The contention that Americans are culturally anarchistic deserves further discussion.

which is really a piece of nonsense for several reasons: (1) americans are not monolothic; (2) not all americans are "obedient, militarist anarchists who worship their flag and government"; (3) to say that all americans are "obedient, militarist anarchists who worship their flag and government" is to repeat lazy myopic ideological stupidities that in some circles lend the hue of "superior intellect" to the speaker; (4) the original quote to which the twice quoted "quip" was a reply to is qualified by the sentence: "Few Americans realize this". (5) it neglects the fact that anarchists, broadly speaking, as such don't leave many traces in the form of collossal artifacts that extol the virtues of tyrants, seeing that they have never been interested in building glorious civilizations and institutions that last a thousand years, but societies that function peacefully and harm little: cf., the plains natives, aboriginal, etc., whose chiefs may have been leaders but were never rulers. examples abound.

They were determined to be efficient, to be effective, and you also have to remember that during a time when public water supplies were very suspect, when you had uncontrolled dumping of sewage in the rivers, these were not polite infrastructure projects. This was a matter of life and death to a lot of citizens of Milwaukee. That was a very important cause of theirs and it goes to the whole notion of public enterprise. You spend public funds for the public good.

Gurda: I think the big legacy is the expectation of honesty and efficiency. Milwaukeeans still want their government to work. In cities where that has not been the case, say, Providence, Rhode Island, or Chicago, places where there’s been kind of a culture of corruption and inefficiency over many years, those expectations will not be so high.

It’s just my theory, but the pension scandal—the outrage, the absolute blind rage that voters felt was precisely proportionate to their expectations. In other cities, it may have generated headlines for a while and gotten people angry, but here, Ament stepped down and supervisors were recalled. It was really a scandal of the first order. These things are hard to quantify but I would say that the reaction was based on the latent expectations that people have about government. And that goes back to the time when government was upright and outstanding.

Shepherd: So Scott Walker benefited from the Socialist legacy?

You've travelled a good deal. What is the status of freedom in the world these days?
Many countries around the world that suffered from poverty and lived under socialist tyranny are now experiencing economic growth and prosperity. They have abandoned the ‘socialist road" and have introduced, if not a free market, then at least freer market reforms. These changes have generated rising standards of living in parts of the world that have only known hunger and despair for all of recorded history.

But what has not been defeated is the socialist critique of capitalism. That is, many people, and most especially educators, those in the mass media and the political arena, believe the socialist claims that capitalism, as an economic system, is inherently bad. It results in exploitation of consumers and workers; it doesn't produce the goods and services that people "really" need; it is short-sighted and harms the environment; and it causes the boom and busts of the business cycle, resulting in innocent, ordinary people losing their jobs.

please, in all civility, if you have no interest in the subject(s), please refrain from derailing it for your personal pleasure. thanks.

Marxism, then, has tended to be a theoretical or analytical discourse about revolutionary strategy. Anarchism has tended to be an ethical discourse about revolutionary practice. As a result, where Marxism has produced brilliant theories of praxis, it's mostly been anarchists who have been working on the praxis itself.

23 wrote:The contention that Americans are culturally anarchistic deserves further discussion.

Anecdotally, I have found the contrary to be true.

Acquiescence to a coercively authoritarian government isn't an anarchistic attribute, IMO.

Christian anarchism is a movement in political theology that combines anarchism and Christianity.[1] The foundation of Christian anarchism is a rejection of violence, with Leo Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God Is Within You regarded as a key text.[2][3] Tolstoy sought to separate Russian Orthodox Christianity — which was merged with the state — from what he believed was the true message of Jesus as contained in the Gospels, specifically in the Sermon on the Mount. Tolstoy takes the viewpoint that all governments who wage war, and churches who in turn support those governments, are an affront to the Christian principles of nonviolence and nonresistance. Although Tolstoy never actually used the term "Christian anarchism" in The Kingdom of God Is Within You, reviews of this book following its publication in 1894 appear to have coined the term.[4][5]

...

For Christian anarchists the moment which epitomises the degeneration of Christianity is the conversion of Emperor Constantine following his victory at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312.[15] Following this event Christianity was legalised under the Edict of Milan in 313, hastening the Church's transformation from a humble bottom-up sect to an authoritarian top-down organization. Christian anarchists point out that this marked the beginning of the "Constantinian shift", in which Christianity gradually came to be identified with the will of the ruling elite, becoming the State church of the Roman Empire, and in some cases (such as the Crusades, Inquisition and Wars of Religion), a religious justification for violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism

Christian Anarchism

Christian Anarchism is a left-wing variation of modern Christian thought. Its followers put forward the idea that their philosophy arose directly from the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth concerning non-violence, anti-imperialism, and human equality. First of all, what is Anarchism exactly? Anarchism is the social philosophy that opposes all forms of domination, all forms of exploitation, and stratified hierarchy. Anarchism puts forward the ideal that all affairs in society should be undertaken by individuals and voluntary associations instead of using brute force and social control measures. The philosophy of Anarchism leads individuals to oppose the State (also know as the formal government). Also, anarchists oppose the highly stratified hierarchy present in organized religion. In addition, they oppose the vertical nature of control present in the economy under the regimes of traditional feudalism and monopoly capitalism. A large majority of anarchists, including most Christian Anarchists hold to a labor based theory of just ownership, specifically concerning land. Those who work the land, ought to own it exclusively which is in direct opposition to feudalistic land rent and government taxation.

A prominent figure within Christian Anarchist circles is the late Russian philosopher Leo Tolstoy. Leo Tolstoy believed the supposedly “Christian” ideals of pacifism and non-violence. From his pacifist and non-violent stance, he was forced to fully embrace anarchism since maintaining a non-violent lifestyle is only possible if you oppose the violent enforcement and monopolization of the political state. Most Christians that embrace anarchism do so because of the “Christian” principles of non-violence and egalitarianism. Leo Tolstoy even defended the idea that Jesus himself was an anarchist. Jesus called for absolute equality among humanity, represented the downtrodden, was the so-called prince of peace, was persecuted by the religious establishment of the time, and was eventually executed by the Roman State. Jesus was also an opponent of the Roman Empire, the state-supported merchant class, and the cultural elitism pushed by the religious authorities. Leo Tolstoy based the majority of his philosophical stances on the famous Sermon on the Mount given by Jesus. One of my favorite quotes from Leo Tolstoy is “In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful.” Leo Tolstoy died in 1910 at the age of 82. His ideas directly influenced the more famous Ghandi and eventually Martin Luther King Jr.

Another famous Christian Anarchist (who actually influenced the thought of Leo Tolstoy) was the 19th century American writer Henry David Thoreau. Like Tolstoy, Henry David Thoreau came to embrace anarchism as the only way to live a non-violent life style. In 1846, Thoreau was kidnapped by the American State and thrown in jail for refusing to pay his taxes. The reason why Thoreau resisted taxation in 1846 was that he opposed the Mexican-American War and the government’s enforcement of the institution of chattel slavery.

A colleague of Henry David Thoreau was William Greene who was also a Christian Anarchist. William Greene was a New England Unitarian Minister that came to Anarchism through faith in Jesus Christ. Unitarianism is probably one of the most left wing and radical variations that came from the Protestant Reformation. William Greene fused anarchist non-violence with the Protestant work ethic. He personally advocated an anti-capitalist free market taking the stance that authoritarian merchant capitalism could only exist with the state.

Another Christian Anarchist that deserves more attention in history is Thomas J. Hagerty. Hagerty was a 19th century Catholic priest that pushed for social and economic justice for the working class poor. He was also radically anti-militarist and anti-imperialist. In 1905, Hagerty along with other anarchists founded the Industrial Workers of the World (aka the IWW). During a conference held by the IWW, he stated “The Ballot Box is simply a capitalist concession. Dropping pieces into a hole in a box never did achieve emancipation of the working class, and in my opinion it never will”. One of the reasons, why Hagerty said this is because Jesus himself was an advocate of the downtrodden and underclass who tended to be the Samaritans in the Bible. Thomas Hagerty later influenced the younger labor leader Samuel Gompers.

Operating in the same mindset as Thomas Hagerty, the 20th century Christian Anarchist Dorothy Day was heavily influential in the American labor movement and the anti-war movement. Dorothy Day was one of the few Americans that opposed American entry into WW II after Pearl Harbor and continued to oppose it once the American State did get involved in the global conflict. Dorothy Day was the founder of the Catholic Worker Movement which is now a global movement which embraces the principles of economic solidarity with the downtrodden, non-violence, and egalitarianism. Dorothy Day also advocated working with other pacifist and anarchist groups regardless of their specific religious outlook. After years of struggle, Dorothy Day died in 1980 and now the Catholic Church is considering making her a saint.

The Catholic Church also produced another Christian Anarchist by the name of Philip Berrigan that just died in 2002. Berrigan made it on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted Fugitives” List for non-violently opposing the American intervention in Vietnam in the 1960’s as well as opposing the extortion of innocent peaceful people to fund this war through taxation. From 1955 to 1973 Berrigan was a Roman Catholic priest before he left the priesthood and got married. His three children all grew up to be radical anti-war activists.

As we see, there were many Christian anarchists throughout history. What specific religious texts and biblical passages did they use and still use today to defend their philosophical positions? Here are a few. My kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble (Luke 1:52). We are to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). To seek rule by man is to reject the rule of God (1 Samuel . Christians struggle against governments, rulers, and spiritual wickedness (Ephesians 6:12). Honest people are too busy making an honest living to accept political power, so only the corruptible will accept political power (Judges 9:7-15 The Parable of the Trees). The devil offers all kingdoms to Jesus in return for worshipping him (Matthew 4:8-10). Also, Christian anarchists cite the Ten Commandments and its prohibition of theft as well as murder (both of which are associated with state power).

Some Christian Anarchist organizations in existence today are Jesus Radicals, the Catholic Worker Movement, and CatholicAnarchy.org. Many modern Christian Anarchists are at the forefront of humanitarian projects, anti-war protests, pro-immigration rallies, labor organizing events, tax resistance movements, gender equality dialogues, and local organic farming campaigns. Melinda Foshat is a local Christian Anarchist here on Staten Island that I personally work with on various projects and activities constantly. She considers the modern American Empire to be the modern equivalent to the Roman Empire that oppressed Jesus and the Palestinian Jews in the Bible.

In conclusion, I believe Christian Anarchism to be a positive force within the overall Christian community. I believe the Christian Anarchist principles of non-violence, libertarianism, and egalitarianism are a great counter to the Religious Right’s militarism, authoritarianism, and cultural elitism. Christian Anarchism, Christian Pacifism, Progressive Christianity, Christian Feminism, and Christian Liberation Theology are all some what positive tendencies within modern Christian thought. Anarchism does not mean “no rules” but “no rulers”. Anarchists do not oppose structures and organizations, only domination and exploitation within structures and organizations. Whether the Christian believes humans to be good or humans to be bad, Anarchism is the correct philosophy. If people are good, the State is not needed. If the people are bad, the State must not be allowed to exist since it would be evil greatly amplified due to its centralized power. I will end this with a beautiful quote. “There are different forms of anarchy and different currents in it. I must, first say very simply what anarchy I have in view. By anarchy I mean first an absolute rejection of violence.” – Jacques Ellul

http://freedissent.blogspot.com/2010/08 ... chism.html

Ammon Hennacy
Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?

An anarchist is anyone who doesn't need a cop to tell him what to do.

Force is the weapon of the weak.

Love without courage and wisdom is sentimentality, as with the ordinary church member. Courage without love and wisdom is foolhardiness, as with the ordinary soldier. Wisdom without love and courage is cowardice, as with the ordinary intellectual. Therefore one with love, courage, and wisdom is one in a million who moves the world, as with Jesus, Buddha, and Gandhi.

I am a Catholic. I am a pacifist. I am a Christian anarchist. In Russia the enemies of the free worker are the bureaucrats and the communists. In the United States, the enemies of the free workers are the bureaucrats and the capitalists. I don't believe in any government at all, and I am against violence of all kinds.

The dictionary definition of a Christian is one who follows Christ; kind, kindly, Christ-like. Anarchism is voluntary cooperation for good, with the right of secession. A Christian anarchist is therefore one who turns the other cheek, overturns the tables of the moneychangers, and does not need a cop to tell him how to behave. A Christian anarchist does not depend upon bullets or ballots to achieve his ideal; he achieves that ideal daily by the One-Man Revolution with which he faces a decadent, confused, and dying world.

Despite the popular idea of anarchists as violent men, Anarchism is the one non-violent social philosophy.… The function of the Anarchist is two-fold. By daily courage in non-cooperation with the tyrannical forces of the State and the Church, he helps to tear down present society; the Anarchist by daily cooperation with his fellows in overcoming evil with good-will and solidarity builds toward the anarchistic commonwealth which is formed by voluntary action with the right of secession.

When I was working a man asked me 'Why does a fellow like you, with an education, and who has been all over the country, end up in this out-of-the-way place working for very little on a farm?' I explained that all people who had good jobs in factories, etc. had a withholding tax for war taken from their pay, and that people who worked on farms had no tax taken from their pay. I told him that I refused to pay taxes. He was a returned soldier and said that he did not like war either, but what could a fellow do about it? I replied that we each did what we really wanted to.

We really can’t change the world. We really can’t change other people! The best we can do is to start a few thinking here and there. The best way to do this, if we are sincere, is to change ourselves!

Too many of us dissipate our energy by being 'for all good causes,' attending meetings and passing resolutions, organizing and presenting petitions — all this effort to change others, when if we really got down to it we could use this energy to change ourselves… We become tired radicals because we use our weakest weapon: the ballot box, where we are always outnumbered, and refuse to use our strongest weapon: spiritual power.

Simone Weil

1. Why God is hiding?
"God could only create by hiding himself. Otherwise there would be nothing but himself."

-- Gravity and Grace

2. Waiting for God
"To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods. In the first place, we can decide not to believe that the future contains for us an all-sufficient good. The future is made of the same stuff as the present....

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©

3. How a little imagination protects us from God
"Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it We must continually suspend the work of the imagination in filling the void within ourselves."

"In no matter what circumstances, if the imagination is stopped from pouring itself out, we have a void (the poor in spirit). In no matter what circumstances... imagination can fill the void. This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass thru no matter what suffering without being purified."

"That is why we fly from the inner void, since God might steal into it. It is not the pursuit of pleasure and the aversion for effort which causes sin, but fear of God. We know that we cannot see him face to face without dying, and we do not want to die."
-- Gravity and Grace

4. Evil is bad because it is boring
"Monotony of evil: never anything new, everything about it is equivalent. Never anything real, everything about it is imaginary. It is because of this monotony that quantity plays so great a part. A host of women (Don Juan) or of men (Celimene) etc. One is condemned to false infinity. That is hell itself."
-- Gravity and Grace

5. What is real
"A test of what is real is that it is hard and rough. Joys are found in it, not pleasure. What is pleasant belongs to dreams."
-- Gravity and Grace


excerpts as noted from GRAVITY AND GRACE by Simone Weil, New York, G. P. Putnam & Sons, 1952. edited and arranged by Gustave Thibon, translated by Emma Craufurd

French © Libraire Plon 1947
English © G.P.Putnam's & Sons 1956
All Rights Reserved

There is no area in our minds reserved for superstition, such as the Greeks had in their mythology; and superstition, under cover of an abstract vocabulary, has revenged itself by invading the entire realm of thought. Our science is like a store filled with the most subtle intellectual devices for solving the most complex problems, and yet we are almost incapable of applying the elementary principles of rational thought. In every sphere, we seem to have lost the very elements of intelligence: the ideas of limit, measure, degree, proportion, relation, comparison, contingency, interdependence, interrelation of means and ends. To keep to the social level, our political universe is peopled exclusively by myths and monsters; all it contains is absolutes and abstract entities. This is illustrated by all the words of our political and social vocabulary: nation, security, capitalism, communism, fascism, order, authority, property, democracy. We never use them in phrases such as: There is democracy to the extent that... or: There is capitalism in so far as... The use of expressions like "to the extent that" is beyond our intellectual capacity. Each of these words seems to represent for us an absolute reality, unaffected by conditions, or an absolute objective, independent of methods of action, or an absolute evil; and at the same time we make all these words mean, successively or simultaneously, anything whatsoever. Our lives are lived, in actual fact, among changing, varying realities, subject to the casual play of external necessities, and modifying themselves according to specific conditions within specific limits; and yet we act and strive and sacrifice ourselves and others by reference to fixed and isolated abstractions which cannot possibly be related either to one another or to any concrete facts. In this so-called age of technicians, the only battles we know how to fight are battles against windmills.

Simone Weil on Society and Solitude

Perhaps the outstanding woman philosopher of the twentieth-century was Simone Weil (1909-1943), praised by thinkers of such diverse opinion as Andre Gide, Albert Camus, and T. S. Eliot. To Gide, Weil was the "most spiritual writer of this century"; to Camus, "the only great spirit of our times." Eliot called her "a woman of genius, of a kind of genius akin to that of a saint." The critic Leslie Fiedler described her as "the Outsider as Saint in an age of alienation."

Simone Weil was a teacher, scholar, thinker, writer, laborer, and ultimately mystic. This brilliant combination of a spectra of interests and a depth of analysis from political and social insight to pure philosophy to a deep and sensitive spirituality makes Weil the genius spirit that is the consensus of all observers.

Her special contribution may also be her trenchant thoughts on society and solitude.

Weil on Society
Weil's analysis of social, economic, and political issues, in essays such as "Sketch of Contemporary Social Life," "Analysis of Oppression," "The Need for Roots," and "The Great Beast" skillfully employ the methodologies of Marxian sociology and anarchist thought plus her own clear thinking: a post-modern or post-ideological point of view. She presents a grand critique of modern civilization and the dominant ideologies of her time: fascism, communism, anarchism, capitalism. This lays the foundation for an understanding of the present while pointing prophetically to the future.

In "Sketch of Contemporary Social Life" (1934), Weil develops the theme of collectivism as the trajectory of modern culture.

Never has the individual been so completely delivered up to a blind collectivity, and never have men been so less capable, not only of subordinating their actions to their thoughts, but even of thinking.

Weil is not defending the individual as laisse-faire atom but as subordinated to inimical modern forces by "production and consumption," with science, technology, labor, money, and social life turning historical means into corporate and collectivist ends.

The inversion of the relation between means and ends -- an inversion which is to a certain extent the law of every oppressive society -- here becomes total or nearly so, and extends to nearly everything.

Weil then analyzes the relationship bwtween economics and the state, and militarism as an adjunct to extending economic control and social content to the goals of the powerful. Sometimes she uses Marxian or anarchist viewpoints to demonstrate her point; other times she uses them to demonstrate their failure to have anticipated the shrewdness of the capitalist elites and institutions to bypass and overcome the logical obstacles to their version of reality. With the modern spirit has come the systematization of accumulation, organization, and control of the range and relationships of all human activity. Power is concentrated and like a whirlpool absorbs every facet of life. Oppression is inevitably bound to productivity, efficiency, coercion. Productivity and progress, consumption, and limitless expansion of desire and power are all aspects of modern culture. And yet society revolts not against its own oppressors but against nature.

In an aphorism of "The Great Beast," Weil begins the transition from analyzing society to discovering a solution or antidote. Here her thoughts hearken to anthropological thinking circulating in the early twentieth century, which maintained that society is a project of individual relationships, a projection given life and meaning separate from those relationships, a projection to which power and thought and authority is renounced. This is not a renunciation to the fictional cooperative called "society" but to individuals as authorities, who then contrive the symbols, ploys, and coercive social structures. Anthropology called these "totems"--Weil does not use the term--which define God, religion, and the norms of society via the power of institutions to interpret and sanction.

According to Weil, the person's accession to society, the individual's renunciation of values to the collective as defined by a small group, is based on ignorance and fear, fear that without society (which is to say the state), people will collapse into crime and evil. The social and collective is seen as transcending individuals, as a supernatural entity from which nationalism and war is as normal as science, progress, and consumption. All of these evils are taking place simultaneously in a social context. The individual has probably never reflected on these issues at all, never acknowledged his or her degree of complicity in this system. But, say the apologist for the Great Beast, the individual need have no direct responsibility,

The collective is the object of all idolatry, this it is which chains us to the earth. In the case of avarice, gold is the social order. In the case of ambition, power is the social order.

Thus society itself is the Great Beast, not some particular product of society, not even the state, the mode of production, the capitalist class, or any other social product. The weight of humanity is a heavy and ponderous gravity, a force but a contrived force to which the individual remains oblivious.

As long as one accepts the "totem," and subordinates all values to the collective, the contrived dichotomy of good and evil will trap individuals in fear. But the solution to the dilemma Weil depicts is not Nietzsche's transcendence of morality but a simple perception of the nature of society, of the nature of the "Great Beast."

It is the social which throws the color of the absolute over the relative. The remedy is in the idea of relationship. Relationship breaks its way out of the social. It is the monopoly of the individual. Society is the cave. The way out is solitude.

Alluding to the allegory of the cave in Plato's Republic, where reality is seen second-hand as shadows on the wall rather than directly in the light of reality, Weil points to the compelling truth that everything people do or believe is based on a second-hand source: society. As long as individuals substitute society's view of reality for their own discoveries of reality -- so that the relationship to self, others, nature, and the universe is direct, immediate, intuitive, and accountable -- the individual will remain oppressed.

Conscience is deceived by the social. Our supplementary energy (imagination) is to a great extent taken up with the social. It has to be detached from it. That is the most difficult of detachments.

The most difficult of detachments , yet it can begin, not with action but with reflection.

Meditation on the social mechanism is in this respect a purification of the first importance. To contemplate the social is as good a way of detachment as to retire from the world. That is why I have not been wrong to rub shoulders with politics or society.

Weil was modest in this passage. Her activism was thorough-going. In 1930's France and Spain, she took breaks from teaching to work in factories, on farms, with labor unions, and to visit the front in the Spanish Civil War to learn first-hand the nature of society, power, and politics. She worked among the republican forces in Barcelona, and witnessed the atrocities against civilians. Later, she wrote to the Catholic writer Georges Bernanos, who witnessed the atrocities of the nationalists against civilians. Though Bernanos was a social conservative he and Weil came to share a similar revulsion to war and ideology. She wrote to him:

My own feeling was that when once a certain class of people has been placed by the temporal and spiritual authorities outside the ranks of those whole life has value, then nothing comes more naturally to men that murder. ... For the purpose [of the whole struggle] can only be defined in terms of the public good, of the welfare of men -- and men have become valueless. ... One sets out as a volunteer with the idea of sacrifice, and finds oneself in a war which resembles a war of mercenaries, only with much more cruelty and with less human respect for the enemy.

Of course, Weil's experience can be extrapolated to any modern war, with its contrived pretexts and goals. In this regard, her reflections in the thirties are prophetic. She added to Bernanos that she knew of no one else who had understood the ramifications of war on human morality. Such was the "rubbing of shoulders" she so modestly mentioned.

In the 1940's, Simone Weil returned to activism as a resistance member in England after exiling with her family from Vichy France through Casablanca to New York City. She was no armchair philosopher or writer but combined deep reflection with direct experience of the complexities of the world she analyzed. Weil witnessed evil on all sides and summarized it all as "the service of the false God, of the social Beast under whatever form it may be."

Weil on Solitude
The transition to solitude has already been hinted in Weil's use of Plato's cave allegory. For those who have come to Weil's conclusions about society, the issue of solitude is treated contextually in her philosophical essays, such as "Decreation," "Human Personality," and "Love." The sources of Weil's thoughts on solitude are two: 1) her trenchant analysis of the nature of society, using modern sociological and psychological tools, and 2) religious philosophy, whereby Weil trains the same keen thinking on spiritual themes.

Weil came to discuss Christianity and Catholicism with an excellent control of the literature, vocabulary and doctrine. But she had strong reservations and criticisms about the same collectivist tendencies of the Church she critiques in society in general, and Weil never converted to Catholicism despite her great affinity for Christ, sanctity, and the moral virtues of traditional Catholic thinking. Indeed, her writings show that Weil embraced the deepest sentiments of Christianity and may have enjoyed mystical experiences, but she averred to her friend and mentor, the priest J. A. Perrin, that she would never convert or take baptism.

Christianity being Catholic by right but not in fact, I regard it as legitimate on my part to be a member of the Church by right and not in fact, not only for a time, but for my whole life if need be. But it is not merely legitimate. So long as God does not give me the certainty that he is ordering me to do anything else, I think it is my duty. ...

I have never once had, even for a moment, the feeling that God wants me to be in the Church. I have never even once had a feeling of uncertainty.

The springs of Weil's solitude, then, are not a specific example of a saintly hermit or desert elder. She was deeply moved by the melancholy hymns of Portuguese women watching their departing husbands on their fishing boats one star-lit night by the ocean. She had visited Assisi and, as she notes, been compelled for the first time to fall to her knees. And she had listened for rapt hours to the chant of the Benedictine monks at Solesmes. But her sense of solitude was not romantic or aesthetic.

Solitude was a core conclusion to the philosopher in her, formed by experience in the world, of war, atrocity, betray, and dishonor. Yet solitude was the core reality, too, of the spiritual, the transcendent, and the love of God. What a unique presence Weil brings to solitude in her complex and vibrant mind and heart!

In "Human Personality," Weil develops the notion that "what is sacred in a human being is the impersonal in him ... essentially anonymous." The realm of the impersonal genius created "Gregorian chant, Romanesque architecture, the Iliad, the invention of geometry." In a quintessentially Platonic expressions, Weil writes, "What is sacred in science is truth; what is sacred in art is beauty. Truth and beauty are impersonal."

Impersonality is only reached by the practice of a form of attention which is rare in itself and impossible except in solitude, and not only physical but mental solitude. This is never achieved by those who think of themselves as members of a collectivity, as part of something which says "We."

Solitude is thus a separation for the sake of productivity or individual self-expression. But more importantly, solitude is permanent enough to both sever that sense of subordination to social groups and constructive enough to achieve a renunciation of ego, what Weil calls "impersonality."

Moreover, solitude has a moral and ethical component that the collectivity or group lacks, or, more specifically, cannot claim. To desire absolute good but then seek it in the world of externals fails because the world of externals is the realm of merely relative goods. Weil describes the problem in terms of how one relates to others, again summarized in a Platonic image already quoted above.

Relationship breaks its way out of the social. It is the monopoly of the individual. Society is the cave. The way out is solitude. ... To relate belongs to the solitary spirit. No crowd can conceive relationship: "This is good or bad in relation to..." "in so far as ..." That escapes the crowd. A crowd cannot add things together. One who is above social life returns to it when he wishes; not so one who is below. It is the same with everything.

Weil extrapolates her concept of solitude into the realm of the sacred. She concludes that just as everything sacred in the individual is impersonal, so society is its opposite: profane, idolatrous, the realm of falsity. Yet human beings live and work in this realm.

The collective is the object of all idolatry, this is is which chains us to the earth. In the case of avarice, gold is of the social order. In the case of ambition: power is of the social order. Science and art are full of the social element also. And love? Love is more or less an exception: that is why we can go to God through love, not through avarice or ambition.

Nor can we truly go to God through the social, through institutions, which refine and redefine God in an idolatrous way. Weil goes so far as to stigmatize Israel as the idolatrous counterpart to ancient Rome.

The method of approaching the sacred Weil calls "decreation," as a de-incarnation of the person, a method for attaining the impersonal for which solitude is a prerequisite. Decreation is "to make something created pass into the uncreated." This is distinct from the thing passing into destruction, passing into nothingness. In the essays "Decreation" and "Love," Weil works out a concept of suffering, renunciation, purity, gratitude, joy, and being which is the process of approaching God. The approaching to God is the state of selfless love that rejects "pseudo-immortality," that false clinging to a prolongation of earthly social identity rather than a transcendent presence in the impersonal. Along the way, solitude is necessary but is is no long a matter of aloneness or alienation. It has very concrete application to our daily lives.

Do not allow yourself to be imprisoned by any affection. Keep your solitude. The day, if it ever comes, when you are given true affection there will be no opposition between interior solitude and friendship, quite the reverse. It is even by this infallible sign that you will recognize it.

Weil's essay "Friendship" quiets develops her only acceptable concept of the social.

The above is an autobiographical passage, as is Weil's echo of Teresa of Avila when Weil writes: "It is necessary to uproot oneself. To cut down the tree and make of it a cross, and then to carry it every day." It is autobiographical in representing Weil's own physical suffering (migraines and fatigue, which apparently always plagued her but which contributed, she writes, to her concept of suffering and sacrifice and an insight into the values of Jesus).

Towards the end of her very brief life of thirty-six years, having suffered so much with the world and humanity, Weil died of tuberculosis in England. Her spiritual goal, the insight that saturates her writing, is aptly summarized by the poem that concludes "Decreation":

It is necessary not to be "myself," still less to be "ourselves."
The city gives one the felling of being at home.
We must take the feeling of being at home into exile
We must be rooted in the absence of a place.

To uproot oneself socially and vegetatively.
To exile oneself from every earthly country.
To all that to others, from the outside, is a substitute for decreation and results in unreality
For by uprooting oneself one seeks greater reality.

Conclusion
Because she was a philosopher, much of Simone Weil's writing is difficult and challenging. Because of her unique experience of politics, work, war, and spirituality, her writing is also complex and charged with her personality. Weil falls into no easy category. But that she so quickly and comprehensively evolved a role for solitude in her life and thought suggests a compelling reason for pursuing her thoughts as far as possible.

¶


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
Some of the more representative works of Simone Weil are her First and Last Notebooks, translated by Richard Rees. Oxford: Oxford university Press, 1970; Gravity and Grace. Putnam, 1952; Oppression and Liberty, London: , New York: Routledge & K. Paul, ? The most representative anthology is The Simone Weil Reader; edited by George A. Panichas. Wakefield, RI: Moyer Bell, 1977.

http://www.hermitary.com/solitude/weil.html

Weil on Plato's cave



The cave is the world

The fetters are the imagination

The shadows of ourselves are the passive states which we know by introspection.

The learned in the cave are those who possess empirical forms of knowledge (who know how to make predictions, the doctors who know how to cure people by using empirical methods, those who know what is going on, etc.). Their knowledge is nothing but a shadow.

Education, he says, is, according to the generally accepted view of it, nothing but the forcing of thoughts into the minds of children. For, says Plato, each person has within himself the ability to think. If one does not understand, this is because one is held by the fetters. Whenever the soul is bound by the fetters of suffering, pleasure, etc. it is unable to contemplate through its own intelligence the unchanging patterns of things.

No doubt, there are mathematicians in the cave, but their attention is given to honors, rivalries, competition, etc.

If anyone is not able to understand the unchanging patterns of things, that is not due to a lack of intelligence; it is due to a lack of moral stamina.




In order to direct one's attention to the perfect patterns of things, one has to stop valuing things which are always changing and not eternal.

One can look at the same world, which is before our eyes, either from the point of view of its relation to time, or from that of its relationship to eternity. Education means turning the soul in the direction in which it should look, of delivering the soul from the passions.

Plato's morality is: Do not make the worst possible mistake of deceiving yourself. We know that we are acting correctly when the power of thinking is not hindered by what we are doing. To do only those things which one can think clearly, and not to do those things which force the mind to have unclear thoughts about what one is doing. That is the whole of Plato's morality.

True morality is purely internal.

The man who has left the cave annoys the great beast. (Cf. Stendhal: 'All good reasoning causes offence.')

Intelligence offends by its very nature, thinking annoys the people in the cave.

If one stays in the cave, however easily one will be able to observe all the external rules of virtue, one will never be virtuous. Intellectual life and moral life are one.

What Plato calls the world of what passes away, these are things in so far as one thinks of them in relation to our passions.

One must not say: 'I am incapable of understanding'; one should say: 'I can turn the eyes of the soul in such a way that I will understand.' This equality of minds is a duty, not a matter of fact. (Cf. Descartes.)

The wise have to return to the cave, and act there. One has to reach the stage where power is in the hands of those who refuse it, and not of those whose ambition it is to possess it.

Plato's aim is to find out what forms of knowledge are the right ones to educate those who want to get out of the cave. These are: Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy, Music.

Plato's statement about all forms of knowledge:

'They are divine images and reflections of things that are true', so things as they appear to us are appearances of appearances; at least they are this as long as we stay in the cave.

Those who devote themselves to geometry, to the mathematical sciences, grasp what is but as it were in a dream.

So, there is a higher form of knowledge than mathematics which gives an account of the process of thought itself. This is dialectic (Greek word deleted). Unfortunately Plato does not tell us what this higher form of knowledge is. He only states what qualities the dialectician will have: he must be hard-working (physically and mentally), he must hate lying and falsehood.

http://rivertext.com/weil4.html