Saturday, December 3, 2016

My Kind of Anarchism

For quite some time now I have had this strong discomfort with the anarchist milieu. I believe that this discomfort stems from my strong desire to belong to a community and to be together with others who see things and value things in the same ways that I do. And on the other hand, I have the sense that the others who inhabit the anarchist social milieu are in some very important ways different from me, that they believe things and value things that in some crucial ways are at odds with where I am coming from. I find it difficult to just write these people off and forget about them because they identify with the philosophy of anarchism, which for whatever reason is a label for a philosophy that I find myself very much attached to.

So it seems to me to be important to take the time and effort to spell out exactly what it is that I do believe regarding "anarchism". I am assuming that by spelling out what I do believe, I can clarify and set apart the difference between my "anarchism" and that which is espoused by others.

First off, I am assuming that every and all forms of "anarchism" out there is against all kinds of domination, that capitalism and the state are rejected by all forms of anarchism as being manifestations of domination, and that all anarchists yearn for a new world of sovereign people freely associating with others as equals, cooperating, helping each other out and sharing together as they see fit. Now, perhaps this brief definition of anarchism is simply too much, and too radical, for how many people would define the term, but I don't care. This is just a baseline bare minimum definition of the term that I am using to begin elaborating on what my own anarchist philosophy looks like.

Also, as is probably obvious by now, I really do not see anarchism as being a political thing. I see anarchism as being primarily a social philosophy. In other words, I see it as being a kind of philosophy that advocates for particular kinds of human social relationships and social organization. Anarchism is against politics-as-it-is, all politics of the existing social orders, because each and every one of these are based upon domination, not the respect of people's autonomy. Anarchism is a very radical philosophy because it goes straight to the roots of things, how people relate and organize their affairs together. Politics, all politics, is a relatively superficial matter, compared to the depth of an anarchist gaze.

My approach to anarchism has for a very long time now held this one quote by Gustav Landauer as being a touchstone descriptor for how I approach things:

"The State is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of behaviour; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently toward one another... We are the State and we shall continue to be the State until we have created the institutions that form a real community."

With this in mind, my approach to anarchism is mainly focused on what these "other relationships" will look like that would form the ideal new "real community" that is an alternative to the state and domination in general.

The primary crux for my anarchism is that coercion is not good for people. I have a strong belief that when people do things because they have a sense that it is coming from their own free choice, and not out of a fear of some kind of dire consequences that would befall them if they did not pursue that action, that that leaves them in a state where they are open to learning more and connecting with other people. When people do things out of coercion their minds are more distracted by the stress and pain that the coercion inflicts, making it all the more difficult to conjure up any kind of authentic curiosity that would support learning and connection with others.

I have mentioned a few times this phrase of "connecting with others", and I feel the need to elaborate on it some here. This is actually an element that I consider to be core to my own approach to anarchism, since it is the glue that holds people together. By "connecting" I am referring to seeing the humanity in someone else, and valuing it. It involves knowing where someone is coming from, knowing who they are and what they are about, and being able to personally relate with it in some way. And, importantly, it is having a reciprocal relationship where that feeling is mutual. If this sense of connection is not present, I don't believe that a social situation of anarchy can be real or lasting.

Another important aspect of my anarchism is that of individuals taking responsibility for their own choices and actions, and based on this being committed to continuing to develop and improve themselves in various ways. Yes, I do recognize and acknowledge the existence of social forces that impact and effect us all quite profoundly, but we can still think and make our own choices, and with that being the case, let's choose to improve our own situations.

A commitment to having an open mind, critical thinking, and continual learning would then go hand-in-hand with that of having a commitment to ongoing personal development and self-improvement. This involves having a commitment to becoming aware of and recognizing the myriad different ways that one can become encumbered by prejudices of different kinds, get trapped in ideology-based thought-prisons, or judge people, thereby resulting in narrow one or two-dimensional perceptions of them.

And in conjunction with people taking personal responsibility for their own choices, I also see the creation and maintenance of real communities as being essential. By "community", I mean that the people who you know and care about in your day-to-day in-person life also know and care about each other as well. This also pre-supposes that you know and care about a substantial number of people in your day-to-day in-person life in the first place!

A crucial part of a community of people being real and lasting is that people help each other out. We all need support of some kind, and part of the kind of community environment that I would like to see is one where people are interested and able to help each other out, out of a personal authentic desire to do so, and not because of some kind of coercion or implied threat.

And in order to have mutual aid within a community be able to actually happen effectively, you need to have ongoing substantive communication, cooperation and coordination of efforts taking place. Communication break-downs need to be tended to, the quality of communication needs to be constantly elevated, and those who for whatever reason are silent or unable to speak need to be remembered and reached out to.

So, to summarize, the core underlying principles to my own approach to anarchism are these eight things:

- Non-coercion

- Authentic connection between people

- Taking responsibility for choices

- Valuing ongoing self-improvement

- Free thinking and continual learning

- Real communities of people

- Mutual aid and mutual support

- Ongoing communication, cooperation and coordination

As a consequence of people developing along the lines of these eight principles, I foresee the concept of ownership becoming de-prioritized. Expropriation and confiscation are things that I would like to see avoided, not because I am a fan of the concept of "property", but because it involves a form coercion. And with the entry of coercion into the picture, the relationship between people is damaged, and chances are that there is a breakdown of communication between people going on as well. I do think that people's needs can be better met the less the focus is on "who owns what?", and the more the focus is instead on "how can we solve this problem?". But I don't even see people getting to the point of addressing a problem together, and valuing the needs of everyone involved, if these eight principles are not adhered to.

I have used a variety of different terms to describe my approach to anarchism in the past, from "communitarian anarchism", to "compassionate anarchism", to "buddhist anarchism". Looking at where I am at now, I think the term "humanistic anarchism" could be an accurate description of it. But, ultimately, none of these labels really matters. All too often I have seen people squabble over terminology, or circle their wagons around particular labels, thereby perpetuating "us vs. them" and "my beliefs vs. their beliefs" dynamics. Also, labels often have the tendency to start out as being tools, and then to eventually become chains. All of that is totally counter to what I am wanting to achieve with all of this. And frankly, I am just tired of all of those bullshit dynamics.

So here I am, this is what I believe, this is my approach to anarchism, all laid out for you, call it what you will. What do you think?

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Why I Voted Today

Today I went to my local polling location and voted. I voted for Hillary Clinton and all of the other Democrats who were listed on the ticket. I did this not because I am a Democrat, but because I want to stop the rampant spread of what I see as being a kind of 21st century fascism in the U.S. The act of voting was easy, it took me only a few minutes. What I foresee as being really difficult is what is coming next.

Also, at the same time, I am an anarchist, and I have been one for quite some time now. I know many anarchists who do not vote and who consider the act of voting to be a very un-anarchist thing to do. This has stirred up in me a desire to try to publicly explain myself on this.

There is a common notion among anarchists that the act of voting is one that legitimizes the existence of the state. An individual freely choosing to vote is often viewed as an individual consenting to the existence of the state. I do not see it that way.

I see voting as being a big huge collective game that many many people choose to participate in that is an adjunct to the larger social structure of the state. All of this has meaning because people choose to give it meaning, and then they act accordingly. In other words, like many things, it is a social construct that is ascribed meaning by people, and people play along with it. One can play the game and go through the motions, together with others, while also simultaneously not holding the same meanings that other people are holding. One can "be in the world, but not of it," or to use a less grandiose phrase, people can do actions without believing in what they do. (And, in fact, one could make an argument that this is indeed how most people get through life).

I see voting as being an act that is essentially value-neutral. In my eyes, there is no obligation for anybody to participate in this ritual (or anything else, for that matter). Subsequently, there is also no obligation for an anarchist to not participate in it. I choose to participate in voting because this particular ritual is one that many people believe in and use to operate the dominant social structure of the state. This is an area where for a brief amount of time one can exercise a small amount of leverage in the current social machinery that surrounds us. So, one might as well use it while one can, or, "smoke 'em if you got 'em".

And in this particular case, in this particular country right now, I think that this guy, Donald Trump, wants to become an outright dictator, no holds barred. Whereas Hillary Clinton is just your run of the mill corrupt career politician, you have seen them all before, they are a dime a dozen in a representative democracy. And I would rather have the kind of B.S. that we are used to over an outright dictator. In other words, I see there as being more happiness and freedom, to whatever marginal degree we can find it, in a bullshit society that is structured as a "representative democracy" than in a bullshit society that is structured as a "dictatorship". And the best way for us to stop a Donald Trump fascist regime from coming about, at this point, is for us to vote for Hillary Clinton.

This stance of "being in the world, but not of it" is one that I take with many different things in my life, every day of my life. It is by no means just confined to the single act of voting. I basically do not believe in much, if not most, of what I do. I do not believe in capitalism or the state, private property or ownership. I do not believe in people working jobs, using money, paying rent, going to school, driving automobiles, and the list goes on. I could go so far as to say that I do not believe in Civilization itself, and yet here I am, thoroughly domesticated as all get-out. The notions of "purity" and "integrity" are ones that I no longer believe in or strive towards. The way I see it, we are all in a cage, through-and-through, and the world that I want to live in is completely Other. A truly anarchist world is completely outside of all of this, and it is one that I can only imagine and dream of. Yet at the same time, it is worth everything to me.

That all being said, there is also the real possibility that the world as we know it now is on it's way out. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton could very well help to start World War Three (this one with the nuclear option available from the start). The bitterness and acrimony between the Democrats and Republicans, and the Left and the Right writ large, could wind up with the U.S. entering a second Civil War. And then there is always the looming possibilities of a global economic collapse, or an ecological collapse, or a technological collapse (or a Singularity). Who knows! The point is, if any of that happens, and if the human race survives the experience, perhaps then a window of opportunity will be available for people to truly leave this bullshit society behind, with all of it's egregious ascribed meanings and performative rituals that work the gears of the spectacular machine that so many people find oh-so-fascinating. Perhaps then a door to the cage will open.

Until that point, however, I will be watching the election results on TV.

**Disclaimer: I am not saying here that I think that you should vote, or that you should vote for a particular candidate. And if you read this piece and say that I am "not really an anarchist", then my response is "fuck you too"**

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Beacons of Light in These Dark Days

I notice when I look at my blog these days that I have not written any new posts at all for this year, 2016, so far. There are some reasons for this. For one, I quite frankly have been very consistently feeling very cynical and scornful regarding everything related to politics. I follow political things, both mainstream and radical, and in both spheres I feel such strong negative feelings regarding it all that I largely just keep my thoughts all to myself. Why subject my reading audience to witnessing me trashing everything? So much political commentary is already just that and I personally do not want to contribute to more of that kind of thing being put out there into the world.

Yet, I still have been following political stuff and perhaps it has been to my detriment that I have been doing so. Basically, it has been a form of entertainment for me. Similar to how people follow their favorite TV shows and professional sports, I follow politics. I find it all to be quite interesting, and at the same time, I am often left with a feeling that we are all doomed. So with that in mind, I would like to talk about some areas where I have been finding some hope and solace in the world today.

I continue to be a member of the Planetary Society and an advocate for space exploration. I do think that the kind of change-in-perspective involved in moving from Earth-focused to cosmic-focused can have profound implications in how we both view things in our everyday lives, as well as how we view political concerns on this planet. How big, bad and important we think everything to be all shrinks, shifts, or reconstitutes itself in light of this greater perspective. I like that, it does away with what I consider to be limited and arbitrary constraints, and it is a breath of fresh air (assuming that there is "air" in whatever environment we find ourselves in).

Piggybacking off of my love of space exploration is my love of Star Trek. I have really been getting into Star Trek lately. This is, for one, because it is a way to have my mind escape from the horrors of the world that we live in into one of complete fiction. But, beyond simple escapism, I am in love with the setting that the protagonists of Star Trek come from. I am referring to what is called the "United Federation of Planets", which is a diverse cosmopolitan inclusive society where everyone's needs are taken care of, where money does not exist and where individual expression, exploration and creativity are encouraged. That is awesome, and that is exactly the kind of society that I would like to have humanity be operating with in the future. (Based on this, I have also be interested in a new book that has come out this year called "Trekonomics", which explores the economics of the societies depicted in Star Trek)

When I consider my love of Star Trek, I think that perhaps I was also primed for it with my upbringing in the Baha'i Faith. The Baha'is advocate the creation of a new world that shares many of the same kind of values as expressed in the United Federation of Planets: one with international unity of all of humanity, the abolition of racism and sexism, a new economic system that sensibly attends to everybody's needs, and full support for the advancement of education and scientific inquiry. It was during my formative younger years that I was both studying the Baha'i teachings as well as watching Star Trek, so from different angles these same values seeped into my consciousness.

And in light of my feelings on politics these days, I very much have been appreciating the approach that Baha'is have on political concerns as well. For one, they hold a position that says that Baha'is should not be members of political parties, nor should they campaign or be partisans to any political causes. The reason for this is that they believe that doing these things creates too much unnecessary rancor and discord among people. When matters of common concern need to be addressed and decided upon, they instead advocate the use of a process that they call "consultation". This all seems to me to be quite respectful and considerate of the wellbeing of all, and I would love to see it grow and spread.

Regarding approaches to dialogue, I still have a great appreciation for Nonviolent Communication (aka "NVC"), as well as for NVC practice groups where people come together to intentionally develop their skills with Nonviolent Communication. Internationally, I also have a lot of excitement around the work that has been done to create a new global organization of NVC practitioners and enthusiasts. The proposal that has been made about this is now out, and those who are have helped to craft this proposal are now actively soliciting feedback on it. I like this proposal, personally, because in my eyes it allows for greater access for those who are into NVC to meet each other and work together on whatever projects that they find meaningful, as well as to help systems of mutual support become more available for people.

Anyway, these are my few beacons of light currently in these dark days for the world. What are yours?

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Circling the Sinking Ship: Reflections on 2015

For a while now I have had an annual tradition of around New Years writing up a reflection on my experience of the year that is ending. Here is my reflection on 2015.

This year began in the thick of my big international travel excursion, in Macau, China. Shortly after that we (my wife Liz and I) went to Hong Kong for about a week, and then we went on to Tonga. We were in Tonga for about five months, staying at the national center for the Baha'i Faith in Tonga, and volunteering at a local international school there. At that school I served as a librarian assistant, an English language tutor, a history teacher, a science teacher, a meditation teacher, a substitute teacher, a recess playground manager and various other odds and ends. Working there really did feel like I was working at a job, except that I was not getting paid money (just given a place to stay). This turned out to be an undesirable situation for me, since I did not believe in what I was doing, I am not a Baha'i and I do not believe in the way that education is usually done. I can do work that I do not believe in, as long as I am getting paid. That is how the world we live in usually works. Doing work free of charge does not make sense to me unless I believe in it.

If I was a paid staff at that school I suspect that I could have enjoyed the work more, settled into doing the work on an ongoing and sustained basis, and set up something of a quasi-Tongan life for myself. Tonga is a poor country, some of the amenities that we know and love in the Western World simply are not there, or are hard to come by. And my white skin and American accent immediately single me out in a crowd as being a Unique One. But nevertheless, I believe that I could live there if I had to. I doubt that I will ever return to Tonga, not because I hate the place, but rather because it is so far away and out of the way (and it may be swallowed up by the rising ocean levels anyway).

During this year Liz and I had three different experiences that were quite similar to each other, where we spent about a week or a few days in a major world city, renting a motel room, and doing tourist stuff. The three places that I am referring to are Hong Kong, Auckland, New Zealand and Los Angeles. I had been to L.A. before, but I had never previously really gotten a sense of the city. The same goes for Hong Kong, since Liz and I were there briefly in 2014 right before going to Macau. These three trips were unabashedly tourist experiences, but nonetheless they were some highlights of the year for me. One of the things that I liked about these experiences were the unambiguous nature of them. They never pretended to be anything other than standard tourist experiences.

After our bouts with tourism then began a period of me visiting various places in the U.S. that I used to live at, and people with whom I used to live with. Altogether this list includes the San Francisco Bay Area, Eugene and Portland, Oregon, southeastern Pennsylvania and central Virginia. Visiting all of these places made me feel nostalgic each and every time, and part of me wanted to live at that place again, at each old home that I visited. It was both a literal and a figurative trip down memory lane for me, and in the end I was able to reach an appreciation for the fact that I used to live at all of these different places, but that none of them are appropriate for the person that I am now and where I am at with my life currently. It was overall a very helpful, and dare I say it, a "healing" experience for me.

Three experiences stand out for me during those visits through nostalgia-land. The first is being present at my brother's wedding in Portland, Oregon. That was a very unique and special experience for me, and one that I am glad that I was able to have.

Another is my involvement with the "August Program" at Camphill Soltane this summer. I had worked at a couple of those before, but this time really felt fun, loving, and like a true (albeit short-lived) experience of community. I also got to experience first-hand some of the new forays that Camphill Soltane is doing into the world of job coaching programs and group homes for people with developmental disabilities.

And the third experience was that of visiting Open Circle Community in September. With that experience I really felt like I was returning to visit family, in a good way. I was able to help out some, enjoy the company of the folks there, and it was a nice breath of fresh air for me before returning to my life in Minneapolis.

This now brings me to Minneapolis. I have been living here since September, first at Liz' parents' house, and then in an apartment of our own. Right around the same time that we got our new apartment, I also was hired for a new full-time job and we bought a new (used) car. After that transition occurred, I have been living this life of urban-dwelling employee-renter-car owner. It is kind a bizarre way to end the year, given what the rest of the year looked like.

My job now is that of working at a group home supporting adults with severe developmental disabilities. I have done this type of work before, but not supporting people with disabilities this extreme. All of the people whom I support are unable to walk, talk or eat, and they require total care, 24/7/365. I have met and worked with a wide variety of different kinds of people throughout my life, but never people like this. And now, here I am.

In the world of media, I read a number of different books throughout this year, but the one book that stands out as my highlight of the year is that of "Ends and Means (an Enquiry Into the Nature of Ideals and Into the Methods Employed for Their Realization)" by Aldous Huxley. This is a really obscure, out-of-print book, published in 1937. I able to find a copy of this book in a used bookstore in Auckland, New Zealand. This is a very thorough, comprehensive book about how to completely re-organize society along what could be called anarcho-pacifist lines. I basically agree with what is said in this book.

But, there is a catch to all of this. "Ends and Means" was written right before the Second World War, and it shows. Aldous Huxley seemed to know that something like WWII was about to happen, and he went to the effort of writing and publishing that book as an effort to prevent it from happening. That book came into the world, was largely ignored by the world, and the world then plunged head-first into World War II. That book has since largely been forgotten, and it leaves me feeling very cynical about the prospect of brilliant, articulate and carefully thought-out pieces of writing having any substantial effect on changing the world for the better.

In the world of movies, however, my favorite film of the year is actually an animated children's movie - "Inside Out" (which is ironically about some Minnesotans moving to the San Francisco Bay Area). This movie is a wonderful exposition on internal thought and emotional dynamics, a very playful and fun way to elaborate on how complex personal experiences work. Other notable new films came out this year, namely those reviving old movie franchises (Mad Max and Star Wars), but those films were very grim and bleak compared to the essentially uplifting and positive spirit that pervades Inside Out.

This year I was also introduced to a TV show that blew me away, "Mr. Robot". I loved this TV show for the same reason that I love the 1999 film "Fight Club". But unlike Fight Club, this show takes place in the modern (as in, 2015-ish) era, and season one for that show is about eight hours in total, instead of the around two hours of the movie. So this TV show leaves one with a lot to chew on, in a very contemporary context. I eagerly look forward to season two coming out next year.

But where does this all leave me, though, with all of the traveling, lifestyle-changing and media consuming that I did throughout this year? I now live in a city that does not really excite me, but is tolerable. The same can be said for the job that I have. I feel very alienated and disconnected from the various social scenes and subcultures that I am familiar with. I spend a lot of time on the internet, probably more than what is healthy. I am not exactly happy with my life now, it is just - tolerable.

I am happy to share my life with Liz, however. She has been my partner and companion through all of these things that I outlined here. It is hard for me to imagine what my year would have been like without her.

Looking forward, I feel like everything from here on out is just a waiting game of sorts. I am waiting for Liz and I to save up money from our jobs to do something different at some point in the future. I am waiting to be able to officially take vacation from my job while still technically remaining employed with the job. I am waiting for various things to change with various different far-flung family members. I am waiting for various new projects to emerge that I could find interesting and actually want to be a part of. I am waiting for The System to collapse, and for everything to look Totally Different.

But until then, there is as least a new Star Wars movie that will be coming out each year, starting this year.

I wishing you all the best!

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

A Space for Me

I recently posted something on my Facebook account that caused some question among folks. It is:

"I am now officially a member of the Planetary Society. I actually feel better about being a part of and supporting this, moreso than any other political project that I can think of, radical or mainstream."

Behind this statement is a bunch of stuff that lead me to want to write that. Let me elaborate...

For the past few months I have been feeling increasingly disappointed, disillusioned and ultimately disgusted with the subculture, or subcultures, that call themselves "anarchist". I have already written about this before, so you may be asking, what else is new? Well, what's new are a couple of different recent incidents, including my favorite anarchist book publisher and one of my favorite anarchist authors having a very public falling-out, a big public spectacle around the purging of a well-known anarchist author for being a white nationalist, and some anarchists where I live here in Minneapolis resorting to using the powers of the U.S. federal government to resolve a dispute between them and another group of local anarchists.

This is not to say that there are absolutely no projects out there that are anarchist, or anarchistic, that I do not find to be inspiring or at least interesting. The part of the world known as "Rojava" continues to hold much promise in this regard, although in many ways it is off-limits to Westerners since going there can get one jail-time (since many Western governments officially consider the PKK to be "terrorists") and they do not speak English there anyway, they speak the Kurdish language. Also, the Federation of Egalitarian Communities seems very exciting to me nowadays, with a number of new communities forming that want to be a part of it, including a number of new forming urban communities. Neither of these two projects, however, adorn themselves with the label "anarchist".

Regarding my own affiliation with anarchism, some friends and myself recently recorded a podcast conversation where I elaborated upon my own perspectives on things, and subsequently this conversation was roundly ignored by other anarchists, except for people expressing upset about the website where this recording resides. Also, for a while now I have considered myself to be a "Buddhist anarchist", and now I see that the Wikipedia entry on "Buddhist Anarchism" no longer exists, and instead searching for that term takes one to the entry on Gary Snyder. Taken altogether, this leads me to feel as if I have no space for me within the "anarchist" subculture, that whatever space I might have had within it has been dismissed.

Coincidentally, I now have a job where much of my time and energy goes to (is sucked into) this job. Yes, this is one, among many, signs of the soul-crushing nature of capitalism, wage-slavery, civilization, what-have-you, but like what has happened to me before, having this job enables me to redirect my energy away from feeling invested in the failing project of "anarchism" and into something else, something that is actually making me some money.

I do, however, still feel a need to be a part of something and to belong with a group of people who are doing things that I more or less believe in. Just having a job, residing in an apartment building and consuming things does not meet these needs for me. Enter: The Planetary Society. I was once a member of this organization way back, like when I was a young teenager. Then my interest drifted apart from them, and I pretty much forgot about them for a long time. In recent years they have once again entered my sphere of awareness, mainly because of the new leadership of the organization, under the helm of the big charismatic media personality Bill Nye. The world of space science has been quite exciting and interesting in recent years, what with the landing on the comet that happened last year, the New Horizons probe exploring of Pluto, the recent confirmation of water on Mars, and the continuing discovery of planets that are very similar to Earth. The Planetary Society itself has also had a big success with it's recent test flight of a solar-powered spacecraft.

You may be wondering now why I have this interest in all this space stuff. The reason is that I view all life on this planet as being inter-connected, and that with human beings especially we are all in it together, with all of our actions affecting each-other, for better and for worse. We all share the same planet, and if we try hard enough, we can even transcend this planet to go on to other places as well. I see space science and exploration as being something that has the potential to unite humanity in ways that are more productive and forward-thinking than the old ways based on nationalism, political ideology and religion. Surviving and going deeper into outer space requires systems thinking and serious thought about what is necessary for life to survive and thrive. This line of thinking is also desperately needed right now regarding our own ecological situation here on Earth. I am hoping that these kinds of thoughts about other planets and such could also carry over to our thinking about our own home planet right now.

I also have to say that it is a relief for me to not be thinking so intently about various political things all the time, nor to get caught up in a vortex of self-reflective navel-gazing, and to instead think about other things in this universe above and beyond all that we know. So, that is where I am at right now.

Sunday, July 26, 2015

Reflections from traveling around the world

I recently got back from an epic trip around the world. It was by means of traveling east, first to Virginia and New York City, then to India (New Delhi, Agra, Jaipur and Dharmsala), then to Macau and Hong Kong, followed by Tonga and New Zealand, and finishing up in California and Oregon before heading back home to Minneapolis where the trip all began. The trip started in September of last year (2014) and ended a couple of weeks ago (July, 2015). Out of all of the international places, Tonga was the one that I spent the most time at (five months), followed by India and Macau where I spent a month and a half at each, followed by Hong Kong and Auckland, New Zealand where I spent a week at each.

People have occasionally asked me what I learned or gained from all of this. I am sorry to disappoint, but there are no big insights, no profound revelations, no shattering revelations, transformations, what-have-you, to pass on to you from all of this. I am still the same person today that I was when I started the trip. This is not to say that changes and insights did not occur during the trip, it's just that I have no grand story or package-of-insight to give you. Everything is all fits-and-starts, scattered and diffuse stuff.

Hands down, my favorite part of the trip was India. This is a place with a whole lot of everything: people, history, ideas, sights, sounds, smells, dangers, delicacies, kindnesses, cruelties, good and bad. We only saw a tiny smidgen of the country, with most of our time spent up in the Dharmsala area which is in the Himalaya mountain region. Of the whole India experience, my favorite part of that was my volunteering at a Vipassana Meditation course at the Himachal Vipassana Centre. This is because I felt actively engaged with something, a part of something, belonging to a group and a team with a clear mission and purpose. This provided an appropriate container for lots of weird and crazy shit to happen, and for me to be able to handle and weather it all with grace and fortitude. Such a situation could be replicated elsewhere, but since this experience occurred in India specifically, it provided me with a unique introduction to many of different aspects of Indian life, in addition to the usual profound benefits that Vipassana practice offers.

One tendency that I noticed in all of the overseas locations that we visited was for Westerners to mainly socialize with other Westerners, despite being in another foreign culture. This happened to me in India, Macau and Tonga, and I suppose that this is just the usual pattern of like associating with like. It did help me to learn more about other Western cultures outside of the U.S., but that was not my intention in going to these places in the first place. It was damned annoying, in a way, while at the same time also providing me comfort and solace as well. It did detract from me pursuing my purpose with this trip.

So what was my purpose for this trip anyway? It was basically to just get away, far away, from my regular life and routines that I had in the U.S. I quit my job and moved out of my apartment before going and then I set off to go experience places and things different from what I was previously used to in the U.S. I had already done extensive traveling within the United States before all of this, so I figured that it was time for me to see what it is like in other countries as well. The purpose was simply that of personal exploration of other places and experiencing something different from my norm. That is it.

This trip generally accomplished this goal. For example, in Tonga, where I spent the most time at during all of this traveling, I worked as a volunteer at a school with children. I had previously not worked with children or in a school setting before. This was new to me. It brought up many memories for me of my own school experiences as a child, and I witnessed much of the same bullshit there as I did when I was child going through the whole thing the first time around. The difference was that this was in Tonga instead.

That was one revelation right there: I do not want to willingly contribute to something that I consider to be bullshit, and not be paid for it. I view employment as generally-speaking being a situation where one is paid money in order to spend one's limited time on earth and scarce personal energies towards contributing to something that is more or less anti-life. But, in the hostage situation that is capitalism, at least one is being paid for it and can therefore continue to live. So, I would be willing to work at a school again, the only difference is that next time I will go in with no blinders on, no illusions of grandeur (not that I had much of these to begin with), and would be paid for my efforts.

This brings me to another topic - that of international "voluntourism". I recently came across an article that summarizes my thoughts on this topic nicely, which can be found here. The succinct summary of it all, found within this article itself, is: "without knowledge of language, local culture, societal nuances, and the economical framework of the community, this type of “voluntourism” is sometimes wasteful at best, and possibly destructive to the community at worst."

My experience with "voluntourism" overseas is that it was mainly involved in setting up systems and patterns of doing things that the local people had no interest in and most likely were not going to continue after I left. In other words, it was a nice public gesture but ultimately a waste of time and effort. The one possible benefit was that the people I interacted with, especially the children, might possibly remember me in the future and hopefully it will be some kind of a positive, constructive memory, and not just a meaningless novelty.

As far as working with children goes, I am referring here mainly to my time in Tonga, although I did also volunteer briefly in a school in India as well. I found the most meaningful experiences out of all of that to be those that took place outside of the established curriculum, where I was interacting directly with the actual sincere interests of the students. For me, this took place mainly with the subjects of history, geography, science and library science. I was not officially assigned to work with the kids on any of these subjects - I was technically assigned to work with them on their literacy skills and math. Neither me nor the kids were generally interested in those subjects when we were together, so as a result I believe that very little learning actually took place with those subjects.

One thing that stood out for me with all of these travels was how I stood out as a white person. In India crowds of people would stare at me as I went by, since I was a white guy in a sea of non-white people. I was stared at, pointed at, and publicly remarked upon as a white person in Tonga as well and frequently would hear the word "Palangi" uttered in my presence, which means "white person". My assumption is that for many people, white skin = lots of money, so people were probably looking at me as a walking moneybag from a faraway land. This experience, combined with what I said earlier about "voluntourism" leads me to think that simply giving money to trustworthy local charities is probably more effective in actually helping people than going to distant countries to volunteer there.

In all of these countries I definitely felt like I was largely running on a designated tourism track, part of some vast international Tourism-Industrial Complex. I do not necessarily see this as being a bad thing in and of itself, it is a series of jobs like any other job that people perform, an industry within capitalism like any other. Tonga was definitely the least developed country in every respect that I visited, and it's tourism industry was the least developed of them all as well. Tonga does have a number of genuinely beautiful "tropical island paradise" locations, and I think that if one wanted to go to some far off location to get away from the maddening crowds and to just read, write and meditate in peace, then Tonga would be the place to go for that (assuming you brought everything that you need for that with you).

A commonality that struck me through all of the different countries that I went to was the global rise of China as an international super-power. First off, we spent a lot of time in Dharmsala, India, which is the center of the "Tibetan Government in Exile", with a massive population of Tibetans who moved there to escape the Chinese conquest of Tibet that took place in the 1950's. Then in Macau we were there to witness the massive celebrations for the 15th anniversary of the official handover of Macau to the People's Republic of China from Portugal. And in Tonga the society there is experiencing a large influx of Chinese moving there and setting up successful businesses while the Tongan government is going increasingly into debt to the Chinese government with little hope of ever being able to pay it off. We also went to Hong Kong, which was handed over to the Chinese government from the British in 1997, and New Zealand which has received a massive influx of Chinese immigrants, the largest Asian ethnic group in New Zealand. These are all different ways and means of growing Chinese influence and dominance over the world.

Despite the rising Chinese influence, though, my being an American citizen was like a gold standard everywhere I went. It was a sure thing for people to know about the U.S., to generally appreciate the U.S., and to express a desire to me to want to visit or re-visit the U.S. if they could. I often met people from other countries who knew more about some aspects of U.S. culture than I did. The desire for U.S. cultural products was prevalent everywhere I went, and I had no worry about being kept up-to-date on the newest movies coming out of Hollywood.

I had an eye out for anarchist groups everywhere I went, and was basically unsuccessful everywhere I went, with the one notable exception of Hong Kong. In Hong Kong I visited two different anarchist cultural spaces, a bookstore and a collectively owned cafe. This was nice except for the fact that everything was in Chinese so I had very little understanding of the particulars of what was going on there. In Auckland, New Zealand I had the address for an anarchist social center, and when I went there I found an abandoned empty space that was up for sale or lease. India, Macau and Tonga were complete blank slates as far as anarchist activities goes. I do believe that the potential exists in these different countries, if one were to go there with an anarchist missionary zeal and was able to speak the local languages. I, however, went to these places with neither of those.

As far as international traveling itself goes, this is something that I am interested in pursuing again in the future. I would want a more clearly defined intention and purpose before setting out, however, and the vague do-gooding "voluntourism" methodology is not something that I would want to pursue further. I would also want some different destinations as well, to see some places that are new to me. But the desire for more travel and to see more different things is still there.

Also, the fact that I did these travels together with my wife, Liz, is a significant factor in this whole trip. It adds a whole new dimension of richness to be able to experience things together in partnership with someone with whom you are close with, and for this I am very grateful to have been able to do this traveling together with her.

One thing that I do realize upon returning to the U.S. is how odd this experience makes me in comparison to so many others who have not had comparable experiences themselves. This general phenomena is nothing new for me, but it is something that I find to be somewhat sad. It is not at all unique to the U.S. either, since I met many people in India and Tonga for whom the idea of doing big international travel trip was completely out of the question for them. A lot of this has to do with financial concerns, I realize this, but nonetheless I do find it to be sad. It has been said that historically one of the biggest motivators for international travel for people has been war and displacement. My desire is for a world completely different, where this was not the case, and where people could view world travel as being a realistic and desirable option for them, among other things. Ultimately, though, I do think that we need a whole new world in order for most people to be able to go out and see the world. I'm down for that.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?

There has been an ongoing debate, or controversy (depending on one's frame of mind), that I have been aware of pretty much the entire time that I have been an anarchist, and at various points it has even had some big effects on my own life. I am referring here to the infamous debate between the “anarcho-capitalists” and the “regular” anti-capitalist anarchists.

This debate has been taking place in some form continuously since the 1990’s when the internet first started becoming a big thing. I have yet to find any evidence that this debate was taking place before the internet, which leads me to suspect that this is essentially an internet phenomena. Nevertheless, this is certainly taking place now and this has been having a big effect on online discussion spaces that are adorned with the label “anarchist”.

The issue is this: in the 1960’s, about one hundred years after “regular” anti-capitalist anarchist started up, a radical laissez-faire economics philosopher in the U.S. named “Murray Rothbard” decided to create a new ideology by fusing together the individualist anarchist philosophy of Benjamin Tucker and his “Liberty” magazine cohorts with the philosophy of classical Liberalism and the political-economic approach of the “Austrian school of economics”. As a result of this, various friends and disciples of Murray Rothbard generally started adopting the label of “anarchist”, and more specifically, the label of “anarcho-capitalist” came into existence. That trend has continued on to this day, and it appears to be growing, although there is no way to accurately assess numbers on this. This social milieu of “anarcho-capitalists” mainly appears to stay within the social venues adorned with the label “Libertarian”, but with the advent of the internet they have been found in online “anarchist” discussion forums as well. And that is where the conflict begins.

To summarize the problem, imagine the philosophy of “anarchism” as being a kind of big family, comprised of different distinct yet related ideologies all living together under the same roof. Then imagine “anarcho-capitalism” as being a distant cousin to that family, related, yes, but through a common relative who passed away long ago whom most family members forgot even existed. Now imagine that this cousin is somebody who talks a lot, and loudly, and who behaves in a way that most of the family members view as being both strange and irritating. This cousin now wants to come over to the house all the time, they invite themselves over to every family gathering and Sunday dinner, and also have invited some other cousins in who are similar to him. This is basically what is happening with the “anarchism” vs. “anarcho-capitalism” debacle.

Philosophically-speaking, anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are on the same page in that both are ostensibility anti-state and for purely voluntary, consensual relationships and free association. The world of industry and corporations as we know them have always existed because of the strong support of the state, and the world that the anarcho-capitalists argue for has technically never existed. And there lies a big source of the conflict - what the anti-capitalist anarchists and the anarcho-capitalist anarchists are advocating for has never really existed in either case. Some small, temporary, fleeting examples may have existed long ago in the past, but there are no good real-life examples of what they want to see in the world to point to in either case. In their arguments with each other they each try to hit the other over the head with examples that do not really represent what the other is actually advocating for. In the case against the anarcho-capitalists, the horrors of global corporate capitalism are given. In the case of the anti-capitalist anarchism, the atrocities of the various “communist” regimes are listed. Neither of these really apply, because what each side is arguing for is a castle in sky - a fantasy that has never existed in reality.

Then there is the recurrent topic of “What would an anarcho-X society look like?” I want to point out that all speculation about these ideal future anarchist societies is essentially just science fiction. It is the same kind of gee-whiz mentality about how humans can be in future worlds. Which is not a bad thing, but it is not in any way indicative of "the way that things will be" in any kind of anarchist society. I say that a "future anarchist society" will be a crazy unpredictable thing, because human beings are often crazy and unpredictable. What I believe a real anarchist society would look like, if one were to ever be created, is whatever the people involved with it would want it to look like. This could be anything. The future is completely indeterminate and unpredictable. To have it be enforced to look any one particular way is to have a state in place.

I would like to see less emphasis being placed on the imaginary future utopian society that our valiant armies of anarchist revolutionaries (or insurrectionaries, or organizers, or agorists, or whatever) are supposedly fighting for. Also, less emphasis on the dystopian hell-holes that our supposed enemies are scheming to imprison us in. Instead, I would like to see more focus on the world that we live in here and now, the current trajectories that it is set on, and our options within it.

When it comes down to it, the actual real-life practice, or praxis, of anarchists of all stripes is not all that different. The anti-capitalist anarchists like to paint the anarcho-capitalists as all being well-funded and on the payroll of the large corporations of the world, and likewise the anarcho-capitalists all like to paint the anti-capitalist anarchists as having the armies of Stalinist Russia all laying dormant waiting at their beck and call. The reality is that both sides are comprised of some rather unspectacular people. We are all pretty much working class people from Western countries, with the surveillance state and law enforcement looking on at our every move. We are also all marginalized, misunderstood weirdos, as far as how our political beliefs relate to those of mainstream society. What we do in response to all of that, in terms of real-life anarchist projects of subversion and survival, is where we have much to learn from each-other.

For example, the anarcho-capitalist concept of Agorism, or “counter-economics”, of living financially outside of the state’s economy, could be of much benefit to anti-capitalist anarchists. Likewise, the anti-capitalist practice of having cooperatives and collectives to live outside of the corporate system and to do away with having bosses could be of great benefit to those who want more freedom in their lives. Can we have counter-economic cooperatives, perhaps?

One of the basic arguments against working with the other side is that they are all a bunch of assholes. It’s hard to argue with that, since you should work with who you want to work with and not be forced with anyone you don’t want to be with. Having some degree of affinity and trust with those whom one is working with is essential towards projects of any kind being successful. That being said, I have met a number of complete jerks and assholes among BOTH the anarcho-capitalists and the anti-capitalist anarchists. I can honestly say that neither side holds a monopoly in this area. Likewise, I have also met a number of different really awesome people in both camps, and I think that both “sides” contains some really talented and intelligent folks.

The incessant debating and arguing can still happen, and probably will continue on until the end of time. The important thing is that the quality of these interactions change for the better. For example, are people learning anything new from these exchanges, or are preconceived views just becoming further entrenched? Is any kind of creativity or innovation taking place, or are old arguments just being rehashed and recycled? Is any kind of mutual understanding being developed, or is each person just focusing on their own particular opinions and perspectives on the world? Interactions between people can be toxic and lead to dead-ends, or they can help lead to the positive growth and development of those involved in them.

What I would like to see come out of the continued interactions of the anti-capitalist anarchists and the anarcho-capitalists is NOT seeing one side acquiesce to becoming a bunch of ruthless capitalists or control-freak communists, but to rather have those engaged become individuals who have more capacity and skill at living free lives, which hopefully can develop into an inter-connected culture of more effective resistance to the state and all of the different forces that would have us not be free. I can only hope that this particular culture clash between two peoples that are so seemingly strange and alien to each other can be a learning ground for better navigating all of the different social attitudes and cultures that exist among people throughout the world. Differences exist between people, both in this world now and in whatever future utopian society our imagination is preoccupied with, and the sooner we learn how to more productively and harmoniously deal with these differences, the better off we will be.