2. What is to Be Done?

I just finished a book on the Russian Revolution of 1917, and though it was inherently biased from an American perspective, it did give a good background of the events of the revolution, from the 19th century through the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. It rails unendingly against Lenin and his preference for "dictatorship over democracy," and though I take it with a grain of salt, I believe more-or-less that the criticism rings true.

Marxist-Leninists (of which Lenin would be the first) have a dangerous characteristic, that of self-appointment as the leaders (or vanguard) of revolutions.

No one elected Lenin, nor Mao, nor Fidel, to lead them to peace, freedom and communism.

They decided themselves that they alone were fit and able to vanquish capitalism for all.

The creation of any dictatorship saps the control and power of the people - the very population the revolution is fought for and by, no matter how wise, commited, and humanitarian the dictator may be.

Moreover, it creates a dangerous precedent of internal power struggles, factionalism and purges... and a window for opportunists and thugs like Stalin to come to power and destroy everything that the revolution was supposed to be about.

So how can a revolution achieve what it actually promises and avoid becoming what it yearns to destroy? This is the crucial challenge to all socialistic/humanistic political movements.

Of course, the typical anarchist response would be to criticize further and decide that it is folly altogether to even attempt to overthrow or replace the government and the state - these do not need new leadership but rather they are inherently oppressive and evil, and must be destroyed.

But there is a counter-argument which must be answered.

Until oppressive capitalist institutions (including the state of course) are destroyed everywhere - we will be free nowhere.

An historical example comes from the Spanish Civil War. When the people of Catalonia rose up and collectivised the land and industries for popular, rather than private, ownership, they created a social revolution. Yet, because their anarchist leaders decided to dissolve the governments of Barcelona and other areas, and failed to create a meaningful organization for defense and oversight, the fascists easily reconquered them and reinstituted private property and repression to a degree far worse than originally existed.

In other words, we can't be so intent on making small differences that we lose sight of the bigger picture. My vegetarianism or my bike riding are great for my ego and as an inspiration for others, but inspiration is not enough. My individual actions cannot destroy the Death Star, even if multiplied by a hundred or a million or a billion. We have to blow the thing up before we can even talk about freedom for myself or anyone else.

So, with fear of entering into a centuries-long debate beginning between Marx and Bakunin, I humbly suggest that the only way to overcome our oppression is not merely to free ourselves on a local basis, but to work nationally and globally as well, and destroy capitalism everywhere. As long as evil exists, it will return and conquer all.

In short, both anarchism and communism/socialism are lacking. Neither represent a real possibility of freedom.

What is needed is not another ism, but a new model of struggle. Here are a few ideas of what it has to look like...

First, whatever entity leads a revolution must be organized in a democratic fashion. Leaders, to the extent that leaders are necessary, must be chosen from below and not from above.

Second, dogmatism must always be challenged, no matter how true the dogma. Thinking and doubt must at all times replace certainty. Truth must be allowed to develop from one's own experiences - yet free from the capitalist brainwashing that overpowers society today.

Third, and most difficult, people must be organized to simultanesouly work for the freedom of themselves and their surroundings, as well as the freedom of the whole of humanity and life in general. There must be a balance between self-determination and solidarity.

I don't have the answers for how to do that. No individual does. It will take trial and error, but always expressed through our passion for a better world.


The reality is that revolution is going to occur in most of the world in the fallout of peak oil, and that very likely includes the great big monster of North America. I look forward to that day with terrible impatience always. But reading the book on the Russian Revolution, I fear the return of "vanguard parties," who promise freedom yet deliver nothing but an oppression equal to or exceeding what exists already.

And how can we prevent that? How can we bring forth a REAL revolution, which will fundamentally alter the relationship between human and human, man and woman, white and black and brown and yellow, straight and gay, and species and planet?

It's the same question, but no one yet has an answer - how can we save the planet?

1. The Power of the Written Word

Bethlehem - a graveyard of industrial capitalism.


Chatted today with Peter and Jason about my thesis ("The Third Great Transition - Peak Oil and Post-Industrial Political Economy").

Underlying theme: the transformative power of ideas and discussion.

Discussion can change lives dramatically, and empower individuals and communities to take amazing changes that had previously been ruled out as impossible.

During the 1960s, the mere introduction of the discussion of the problems facing poor, "hopeless" black communities led to empowerment, organization, activism and ultimately rebellion when their neighborhoods were threatened by development.

Today all three of us felt empowered simply by talking about peak oil and the impending collapse of the global industrial capitalist system. Simply by sitting around and chatting, with a political topic on the mind, we scanned the problems, posed solutions, and began to feel hopeful, that there are all kinds of potential positive outcomes in the fallout of capitalism's demise, and that we could do something to foster those outcomes.

Tonight, reading Sartre's "Marxism and Existentialism," I was again struck with the importance of ideas. While recognizing the necessary imposition of economic and social relations upon the "superstructure" of ideas, Sartre points out that even this "determinism" of Marx contains tremendous emphasis on the power of human consciousness, and in particular, class consciousness. Without ideas, humans could not be human. The ability to shape and form our own thoughts and feelings is in essence the most human power that we possess.

Without acknowledgement and awareness, there can be no change. Thus the revolution cannot occur until we recognize ourselves as workers, wage-slaves, the oppressed, but once we begin to do so, anything is possible.

What Sartre was interested in was how to reconcile Marxism and Existentialism, a dilemma I sometimes find difficult. It is more properly stated as the contradiction between understanding objective reality or history, and understanding concrete subjective reality or life. The external vs. the internal. The universe vs. the individual. Whereas one appears as an immense otherly force with no goal or intention, just cold deadly cause-and-effect and/or random chaotic noise, the other is experienced through freedom and meaning.

Any philosopher is struck by this jarring discrepancy between the objective and subjective, and either ignores the dilemma and focuses on only one of these arenas (Kierkegaard), or tries to fit the one with the characteristics of the other (Ayn Rand). But Sartre finds that "the truth is that subjectivity is neither everything nor nothing; it represents a moment in the objective process, that in which externality is internalized, and this moment is perpetually eliminated only to be perpetually reborn."

In other words, there is an inseperable relationship between objects in-themselves and consciousness-of those objects. As in quantum mechanics, it is impossible to observe an unaltered process because every observation changes the observed.

Simply by speaking the truth, or not, reality is altered. Words have power, and the most powerful weapon of the capitalist-imperialist system is its ability to dominate and manipulate our thinking, to maintain hegemony over our very ideas and keep them within a safe, mainstream, impotent, obedient framework.

As such I was led to form this blog, and we'll see if it fulfills its worth. If in any way it can further the raising of consciousness and aid in the construction of a new society, then it will have proved time well spent. Even if it only serves to further my own understanding of this immense crossroads at which humanity finds itself, that may be good enough.

Peter, Jason and I agreed that the most important thing is that discussions like ours happen with much greater frequency, and involving many more people. Discussion, as a social activity, introduces a much more powerful element into the exploration of ideas, which is essentially a social element. Through discussing with others, we not only gain understanding, we also gain mutual trust and social efficacy - the ability to make changes beyond our own individual lives. In communicating our own beliefs and observations, and having those validated by others, we begin to recognize the social and political aspects of our oppression, perhaps for the first time, and we therefore also begin the process of social and political change.

When people begin discussing the end of capitalism, we can start building our new world.