Positivity
(Article to appear in the next edition of Ceasefire.)
It is useful when thinking about activism to break it down into three components: (a) what’s wrong with what we have now; (b) what we want to replace it with; and (c) how we get from (a) to (b). This applies whether you are talking about reforms within the confines of the prevailing system or more extensive root and branch change (revolution).
When we look around the world today there is no shortage of evils which could fall within the realms of (a) and as such, there has been a tendency amongst activists to focus on this, sometimes at the expense of (b) and (c). You can go into any bookshop and find a wealth of books critiquing racism, patriarchy, imperialism, heterosexism, imperialism etc, but far fewer suggesting alternative systems or describing how we can get there.
An examination of the previous editions of this fine publication [i.e. Ceasefire - Dk] demonstrates that the Peace Movement is as guilty as anybody. Fortunately this focus is not total. Scanning through the last edition [available here as a pdf] one discovers an article by Andy Burrell on “direct local democracy” and a debate between Hich Yezza and Catherine Taylor on the merits of mass demonstrations. Nevertheless the fundamental point remains.
One possible consequence of this focus on the negative (what is wrong) rather than the positive (what we want) is a sense of powerlessness. If we have no idea of what we want or how to go about getting there it is easy to conclude that there is, indeed, no alternative. If there is no alternative, it follows that there is no point in seeking to alter the way things are and hence no point in getting involved in political movements.
It is clear, therefore, that those of us involved in activism, whether against imperialism, capitalism, racism or whatever, should seek to articulate a view of the kind of world we want to see and how we go about getting there. We don’t need to describe every single detail of this world, but we do need to set out comprehensive, convincing alternatives to the institutions we oppose with at least an outline of how we propose to get there. In the short to medium term this means that activists should vigorously debate possible alternatives, testing and critiquing them in order to establish which is best. Hopefully the final session of the Peace Conference, which will have speakers putting the case for Participatory Economics, revolutionary socialism and federalism, will play a role in igniting this vital debate.
We must also think long and hard about how we realise this new world (or even achieve small victories in the meantime). This is important, not only to demonstrate that the world we would like to see is genuinely achievable, but because it is far too easy to do things simply because that’s what we’ve always done, regardless of whether it is moving us towards our goal. This was one of my major criticisms of the Stop the War Coalition who manoeuvred themselves into a hegemonic position within the anti-war movement but seem to have no conception of strategy. Instead they call one national demonstration after another in the vain hope of repeating the undoubted success of February 15, 2003.
Attentive readers will note that this article ironically (perhaps even hypocritically) avoids offering any positive suggestions of its own. This is certainly true, but it is to be hoped that it will get people thinking and encourage others (perhaps even you!) to put pen to paper and start talking about what they want. Answers on the back of a postcard!
It is useful when thinking about activism to break it down into three components: (a) what’s wrong with what we have now; (b) what we want to replace it with; and (c) how we get from (a) to (b). This applies whether you are talking about reforms within the confines of the prevailing system or more extensive root and branch change (revolution).
When we look around the world today there is no shortage of evils which could fall within the realms of (a) and as such, there has been a tendency amongst activists to focus on this, sometimes at the expense of (b) and (c). You can go into any bookshop and find a wealth of books critiquing racism, patriarchy, imperialism, heterosexism, imperialism etc, but far fewer suggesting alternative systems or describing how we can get there.
An examination of the previous editions of this fine publication [i.e. Ceasefire - Dk] demonstrates that the Peace Movement is as guilty as anybody. Fortunately this focus is not total. Scanning through the last edition [available here as a pdf] one discovers an article by Andy Burrell on “direct local democracy” and a debate between Hich Yezza and Catherine Taylor on the merits of mass demonstrations. Nevertheless the fundamental point remains.
One possible consequence of this focus on the negative (what is wrong) rather than the positive (what we want) is a sense of powerlessness. If we have no idea of what we want or how to go about getting there it is easy to conclude that there is, indeed, no alternative. If there is no alternative, it follows that there is no point in seeking to alter the way things are and hence no point in getting involved in political movements.
It is clear, therefore, that those of us involved in activism, whether against imperialism, capitalism, racism or whatever, should seek to articulate a view of the kind of world we want to see and how we go about getting there. We don’t need to describe every single detail of this world, but we do need to set out comprehensive, convincing alternatives to the institutions we oppose with at least an outline of how we propose to get there. In the short to medium term this means that activists should vigorously debate possible alternatives, testing and critiquing them in order to establish which is best. Hopefully the final session of the Peace Conference, which will have speakers putting the case for Participatory Economics, revolutionary socialism and federalism, will play a role in igniting this vital debate.
We must also think long and hard about how we realise this new world (or even achieve small victories in the meantime). This is important, not only to demonstrate that the world we would like to see is genuinely achievable, but because it is far too easy to do things simply because that’s what we’ve always done, regardless of whether it is moving us towards our goal. This was one of my major criticisms of the Stop the War Coalition who manoeuvred themselves into a hegemonic position within the anti-war movement but seem to have no conception of strategy. Instead they call one national demonstration after another in the vain hope of repeating the undoubted success of February 15, 2003.
Attentive readers will note that this article ironically (perhaps even hypocritically) avoids offering any positive suggestions of its own. This is certainly true, but it is to be hoped that it will get people thinking and encourage others (perhaps even you!) to put pen to paper and start talking about what they want. Answers on the back of a postcard!
posted by Disillusioned kid at 9:05 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home