More notes on Proudhon

I went back to the library after I had returned What is Property?, and transcribed all the notes I had made in it. For some reason I am going to post it up here. While I was scanning it, I forgot to make a picture scan, so it's just a pdf and available here. So that's that.

The New Age and Sherman Alexie's Reservation Blues

I have endeavoured to make a post every month for this blog. Today, I have finally gotten around to picking something up to publish on this blog. This is an essay I wrote in an independent study. Since I don't really make a distinction in my school work and my political activity and thinking, I think it's be fine if I published this here.
I was once part of the New Age movement. I was a Wiccan and performed rituals (Mainly sabbats at the end of the year). I then became Asa Tru and believed in my interpretation of the Norse Gods. I then became a materialist, first a deist, then what I called an Apatheist - convinced that spiritual beliefs are purely cultural and psychological, and that the existence of a spiritual being didn't matter to anyone. I now identify as a Secular Humanist. Since the cop didn't know what a Secular Humanist was, it says on my first arrest report than I am an Atheist.
So, in writing this, I was casting away the New Age that had made a strong impact on my development.
P.S. I still am interested in Norse mythology and the allusions to it in poetry are very easy. I recommend the Poetic and Prose Eddas, as well as the sagas and lays that form the litereary manifestation of the Norse. It's good reading.

The New Age and Sherman Alexie's Reservation Blues 28 March 2011

By Ian W Schlom

Reservation Blues by Sherman Alexie has a theme that addresses the New Age movement. In it are Betty and Veronica, two white women from Seattle who are obsessed with what abounds in the New Age movement – an Indian Fetish.ⁱ This can be very insulting and harmful to Native Americans. For instance, in one point of the book, Thomas Builds-the-fire, after hearing a song by Betty and Veronica, collects all that he has in his house and puts it in a pile to watch and make sure no one else steals anything from him any moreⁱⁱ (Alexie 1995 pg.296).

Walking in a New Age aisle of a book store one can find a shelf of prominent New Age gurus discussing the deceased tribes and how the special wisdom of those Native Americans can enhance your livelihood, power, finance, sexual prowess, and save the world as we know it. This is often condescending, as if selling the idea of their culture and establishing an 'Indian' idol,ⁱⁱⁱ as if forming a new New Age cult stealing from tribal customs can be considered reparations or earn forgiveness. Stereotyping of Native Americans began with the first encounters. First the Puritan conception of the 'Ignoble Savage', the barbaric murderer who scalps women and children and burns the villages of innocent whites. Then with the wave of European romanticism came the 'Noble Savage', who's intimate knowledge of the wilderness gives him a spiritual connection and becomes the first conservationist.^iv Respectable yet dumb, the noble savage usually plays the side-kick to the white hero who gleams the info from the noble savage's interesting lessons from the tribe.

Trying to assume the identity of the idolised Native Americans is a failure at the beginning. Many whites find out they might have had Native American ancestry and spend a vacations at reservations, calling themselves Indians.^v As Sherman Alexie remarks through several of his key characters, “You can't be an Indian unless once you wished you weren't.” This suggestion strikes the heart of the 'Indian fetishist' tendency in the New Age, which proclaims as Betty and Veronica did “My skin is white/ But I'm Indian in my bones.” (295) This movement that acknowledges the genocide against their idols ignores the insensitivities of its worship, putting forth the idea that 'anybody can be an Indian', just as anybody can be an ancient Celt or German, assuring New Age customers of their legitimacy and authenticity.

This brings me to the quote of the 'Cavalry Records' businessman, which exemplifies the propellant of this Indian Fetishism: “...There's been an upswing in the economic popularity of Indians lately...” (92) With large companies recognising the genocide that took place, and the rediscovery of their cultures, they capitalise on this opportunity and give consumers a chance to give their lives meaning by supplying the 'Tool-kit to be Like the Hopi' and the 'Little Big Book of Indian Wisdom'. Given the unfulfilling lifestyles of today, access to an alternative lifestyle for a short time supplies the illusion of meaning and the impression that your life is interesting and worthwhile. Thus Indian Fetishism is used to escape from and invent meaning within Capitalism, which has in general alienated its members, instead of directly challenging the system and raising the Social Question. Indian Fetishism, along with other currents that exoticise foreign cultures, presents the façade of anti-capitalism because it is alternative.

This industry fuels and solidifies the cultural colonialism that is Indian fetishism. Idolisation and fetishism is still part of the colonial enterprise to destroy and assimilate Native cultures, perhaps inadvertently, by generalising, glamorising^vi, as well as inventing Native cultures, the truth of those cultures becomes twisted. Also, making these generalisations allows for a fabrication of myths and imposed culture, for both native Americans and New Ageists to enter and adopt, for instance Builds-the-fire and Victor's attachment to an eagle feather when boarding an aeroplane. In an article, Sherman Alexie writes that “after reading such novels, I imagined myself to be a blue-eyed warrior nuzzling the necks of various random, primitive and ecstatic white women. And I just as often imagined myself to be a cinematic Indian, splattered with Day-Glo Hollywood war paint as I rode off into yet another battle against the latest actor to portray Gen. George Armstrong Custer.”^vii The loss of true and original cultural traditions are replaced by the mythical/stereotypical and fabricated traditions. It is in this way that the New Age Indian Fetishism assimilates Native Cultures.

Throughout the novel the characters are harsh towards New Age believers. Both Chess and Builds-the-fire repeat “You can't be an Indian unless once you wished you weren't,” and other characters also repeatedly make fun of Betty and Veronica, asking where their crystals were, exposing the general hostility towards the New Age movement. This may be just ridicule of the New Age movement, not exclusive to those Native Americans, but the antagonism is made clear the way Sherman Alexie crafts the story. Take the above mentioned part, where Builds-the-fire collects his things to prevent them from being stolen. When the band and Betty and Veronica meet, Veronica is surprised to find that the idol she'd been praising as an holy or grand thing, coerces her into performing a sexual act (43). Veronica's case can provide the omen that the Indian Fetishism does not provide the meaning or satisfaction it's supposed to for those in the New Age movement, and obviously provides inaccuracies through stereotypes.

Ultimately, this Indian Fetishism is harmful and insulting to Native Americans, and it does not serve to actually give meaning to those who would seek it through Indian Fetishism. This is one of the points provided in Sherman Alexie's Reservation Blues. The best way to go forward from here would be to stop searching for meaning through sensational avenues, cut off the demand for those sensational avenues, and harness some manner of sensitivity and awareness of how behaviours and actions can effect the flesh behind the idol.

iI will be referring to the New Age stereotyping and idolisation of Native cultures as Indian Fetishism and actual American Indigenous peoples and cultures as Native Americans.

iiAlexie, Sherman. Reservation Blues. New York, NY: Grove Press, 1995. Print.

iiiBy which I mean an idol to the idea of their culture.

ivBarnes, Michael. "1665-1860: The Development of Two Savage Stereotypes." Authentic History Center. The Authentic History Center, 17 Sep 2010. Web. 27 Mar 2011.

vOne website declares the benefits of Native American ancestry, taxation exemption. "Uncovering your Native American Ancestry Entitles You to Tribal Benefits." Native Net. Native-Net.Org, 2011. Web. 27 Mar 2011.

viThat is by making the human “Indian Chief” into some kind of messiah.

viiAlexie, Sherman. "I Hated Tonto (Still Do)." Los Angeles Times 28 Jun 1998: n. pag. Web. 24 Mar 2011. .

Bibliography

Alexie, Sherman. "I Hated Tonto (Still Do)." Los Angeles Times 28 Jun 1998: n. pag. Web. 24 Mar 2011. .

Alexie, Sherman. Reservation Blues. New York, NY: Grove Press, 1995. Print.

Barnes, Michael. "1665-1860: The Development of Two Savage Stereotypes." Authentic History Center. The Authentic History Center, 17 Sep 2010. Web. 27 Mar 2011.

"Uncovering your Native American Ancestry Entitles You to Tribal Benefits." Native Net. Native-Net.Org, 2011. Web. 27 Mar 2011.

Proudhon - 1840 - What is Property

Proudhon is the philosopher who coined the term "anarchy" as most anarchists today understand it. Although Godwin founded the tradition of political anarchism, Proudhon gave the movement its title and its socialism.
So although he says "I can claim no merit save that of priority of utterance," he cannot even claim that. Nonetheless, his book, What Is Property?, is worth reading, especially if one would like to be well read in the anarchist tradition and history. Since prior formatting is annoying, with horizontal lines in the middle of a sentence, or the pains in reading a Google Book (although they can be cool! what with being scans of ancient books stuffed in old libraries), I have decided to format a PDF of this book. It's uploaded in my files and available for viewing here.
In chapter five, he discusses anarchism, and defines the new term.

Said the Pot to the Kettle

This is one of the first zines I read about anarcha-feminism.

Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill - Anything New?

BP is just another oil company, a capitalist corporation with its capital as oil production/refinery. What is the cause of this oil spill? It is the lack of safety precautions and disregard for regulations that caused the leak. If BP had bought and installed the precautions that would have costed next to nothing for them, we would not have an ecological disaster such as this.
Obama says he is angry at BP for the oil spill. Then why did he not drive for enforcing the safety protocol and regulations that would have prevented this tragedy? The aggression and avarice coupl;ed with the indiffreence towards the survival of the planet as long as their mansion remains uneffected, being allowed to run amok is also the fault of our failed attempt at a Welfare State.
Resolutions from the most collaborationist to Revolutionary:
1-Perhaps this will serve as a wake-up call to the State to remind them of how Privatized Tyranny running amok leads to discontents in the populace, particularly that most affected. Which will lead to a few more safety regulations and restrictions on how said tyrannies will play a role in oil production and extraction.
2-Perhaps this will serve as a wake-up call to the populace to put stresses on the State and the Oil Bourgeoisie to do the functions mentioned above.
3-Hopefully this will serve as a wake-up call to people that States and Corporations are never to be trusted, and that any good is done by the will of democracy, real authentic democracy. And this wake-up call will lead to a bit more of authentic democracy.
4- Maybe this will help point out that Capitalism is a dangerous system, and when looked at from the point of view of the decent human being, a flawed system, as it gaurantees an extreme imbalance of wealth and power, and will culminate towards the desctruction of the Neoliberal-Capitalist regime and the creation of the democratic and egalitarian society everyone longs for.
Who knows? Maybe nothing will happen.

Wage-slavery

Wage-slavery is what is wrong with capitalism. It deprives a worker of who she is, and what she could become. Workers are always at odds with eachother, competing to sell the only resource available to them (us), their labor. This is why wages can be so small, and struggles are made to survive on them, particularly in 'the third world' where labor law is pretty much non-existant and unions have been eradicated along with what semblance of a republic was remaining there. Wages are only as high to allow for the worker to still be a worker, that is to keep her alive and docile to serve her master, the capitalist.
Mean while... As the worker suffers from the plight of political disenfranchisement, an absence of economic liberty, a continual drop in her focus by the charade of the mass media, and ultimately a humiliating defeat for her dignity, the capitalist who owns her, reaps the benefits of her labors as a capital, and enjoys the luxuries of that capital through economic subsistence, political power, a decent education, and an elevation of his status. In this setting, we see the likelyhood of the persistence of class, that is the inheritance of the class a child was born into. The child of the worker has fewer chances of a decent and excellent education than the child of the capitalist.
Surely someone will respond alike Milton Friedman and attempt to quote Adam Smith out of era (18th century, and 21st century are different centuries) to say that the worker has as much freedom as the capitalist and has the option to quit her job from the capitalist if he treats her unfairly. Regarding the former, to consider the material conditions of the worker, and the wealth of the capitalist, this is a ridiculous and condescending lie. Regarding the latter, Bakunin said it best,
"Easier said than done. At times the worker receives part of his wages in advance, or his wife or children may be sick, or perhaps his work is poorly paid throughout this particular industry. Other employers may be paying even less than his own employer, and after quitting this job he may not even be able to find another one. And to remain without a job spells death for him and his family. In addition, there is an understanding among all employers, and all of them resemble one another. All are almost equally irritating, unjust, and harsh." (Bakunin)
So it is seen that the worker is always in a sort of serfdom to her masters, the capitalists. No matter the turbulance of the economy, the worker suffers more than the capitalist.
Someone may say, yes I see that capitalism can be oppressive, but is it true to call it 'slavery'? Again, Bakunin says it best,
"M. Karl Marx, the illustrious leader of German Communism, justly observed in his magnificent work Das Kapital2 that if the contract freely entered into by the vendors of money -in the form of wages - and the vendors of their own labor -that is, between the employer and the workers - were concluded not for a definite and limited term only, but for one's whole life, it would constitute real slavery. Concluded for a term only and reserving to the worker the right to quit his employer, this contract constitutes a sort of voluntary and transitory serfdom. Yes, transitory and voluntary from the juridical point of view, but nowise from the point of view of economic possibility. The worker always has the right to leave his employer, but has he the means to do so? And if he does quit him, is it in order to lead a free existence, in which he will have no master but himself? No, he does it in order to sell himself to another employer. He is driven to it by the same hunger which forced him to sell himself to the first employer. Thus the worker's liberty, so much exalted by the economists, jurists, and bourgeois republicans, is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realization, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. The truth is that the whole life of the worker is simply a continuous and dismaying succession of terms of serfdom -voluntary from the juridical point of view but compulsory in the economic sense - broken up by momentarily brief interludes of freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is real slavery." (ibid.)
I admit that times have changed, and that technological advances and class mobility has increased, but it must not be forgot, that class mobility in one country, is at the expense of class mobility in another.
Hopefully I have helped to clear away the delusions of liberty and equality in Capitalism. But what hope does the worker have in achieving her liberties and rights? A Social Revolution would be most appropriate in gauranteeing the rights of all, maintaining that it is led by the people and not a vanguard (such as a militia or a party).

Bakunin, Mikhail. "The Capitalist System." Anarchy Archives. Pitzer College, 28 oct 2001. Web. 9 Dec 2010. .

The Capitalist System by Mikhail Bakunin

Fuck The Police

The Root

If you read the article, you'll see how the police and the city care nothing about its inhabitants. The DA has put the incident off, and plans to postpone serious investigation for a while. Sadly, police brutality and thug persecution against the LGBT community, or any community is not surprising. Power easily corrupts, and this is evident with the entirety of history. When racists and homphobes, in essence, fascists, are given weapons to fully embody fascism, and serve the interests of the State or the Bourgeoisie, what else can be expected? Pig violence against people is what some might call, institutional violence, or institutional terrorism. The established institution, that of the police department, whether directly satisfying their own fascist instincts, or assaulting people based on a bourgeois' whims, uses the powers that it has available to attack and persecute the people.
Personally, I deny that any kind of police should have a right to exist (I'm not saying that the individual police officers should be slayed regardless of action, that should be saved for the climate of the cool and objective court). An institution that gives weapons and the right to assault is an evil institution, and I would oppose such institution even in the Post-Revolutionary Order, because that institution would inevitably become its own aristocracy, or obedient to the aristocracy that gave them the power to be professional thugs.
I am sure that someone will say to me, "Sure, power corrupts, but I have met police officers that have been courteous to me and reasonably fair and kind to me before. Not all cops are pigs." I agree. Not all cops are pigs. But those cops who aren't pigs, aren't real cops. [The policeofficer's job is to keep the rabble in line. A "liberal police officer" is not quite qualified for the job. Ergo, they are not necessarily real cops/pigs.]
I personally believe that there should be no institution as the police, and that people can handle themselves without the meddling of trigger happy thugs. I am absolutely sure someone woulkd respond "Don't be a fool! Police can be aggressive, but they are a necessary evil for the other thugs, the drug pddling gangs that also patrol our streets!" The latter is true. But what I suggest, a quake of democracy to rid our cities of the tyranny of the institutional terrorists, why should such a quake stop at the destruction of the police department? First of all, the drug peddlers are their own underground capitalists, as capitalists and thugs, uncaring to the damage they cause to the people. No, this quake would destroy every institution of tyranny that plagues the Human Race.
"But how would be deal with our conflicts, as assuredly we would have them."
Certainly, conflict is a part of human nature (as is any criminal act). I propose that we use forms of mediation and courts of reasonable democratic and objective jurors, courts in the immediacy of the incident. Accountability and punishment, will be minor (or major, according to the severity of the crime), amounting mainly to dialogue with the victim (with the consent of the victim of course) and forms of rehabilitation.

(Legitimate) Authority in anarchy: for dummies

Anarchy in the very make-up of the word maintains that coercion, hierarchy, and authority are destructive, harmful, wrong, against Liberty, completely adverse to Equality, and dismissive of Fraternity (solidarity).  However, this staunch conviction on the part of Anarchists everywhere has created a few myths that misinform people and bring them to ridiculous and completely unrealistic ideas as to what an Anarchist would like to see in the world.  Some people seem to believe that Anarchists are against all forms of authority, such as a parent's authority over its child (usually justified), or even someone facilitating discussions (Anarchist panel discussions exists BTW).  This is an angering and infantile myth.  A myth so apparently strong, I am forced to explain it away by an examination into pseudo-abstract Anarchist philosophic thought regarding Authority and Legitimate Authority.

First I will write about destructive evil Authority and the need to challenge all forms of authority, including a parent's, a facilitator's, and (especially) every police officer's authority.  Challenging authority is obviously necessary and important, as well as a tenant of Anarchism.  If there was no one to challenge authority life would be a slave-like misery (worse than today, I mean).  For some, challenging authority means keeping those in power in check and assuring he rule of law (this includes challenging written law and refers to the ethical humanistic law that resides within us  and our culture).  For an Anarchist, or at least me, challenging authority also means finding out which institutions of authority can legitimate their existence and determines whether they should be altered or destroyed.

If an authority can make a case for its legitimacy, such as a parent (or any member of society) preventing a child (or any member of society) from using heroine, or a facilitator needed for any discussion to provide any sense of clarity (facilitators really don't have that much power), or a patrol of common folk to make the neighborhood secure against pigs.

Anarchists don't try to hijack events (depending on whether the anarchist is one of those closet commie assholes that wants to control everything...) when another has already organized everything (asking if they could help is nice though).  Organizers are given an authority ver creating the unfolding events, but they are legitimate because they fulfill a function necessary to the movement (transparency when possible is moral though).  just as a parent or a facilitator performs a function necessary to society.

Then there are people with authority from subjects like knowledge/expertise over mechanics, philosophy, current events, even cooking.  These people who hold these skills have a predominant authority when a situation demanding these skills arises.  It is pressured that these people explain and share these skills (teach them/distribute knowledge) to others.  see: Ithaca Free Skool and Skill Shares

For example, should a group discover a fresh carcass, the cook and the hide-tanner (let's pretend they're meat freegans) would thus become the leaders of the following actions, cooking he eat and tanning the hide.  This an Anarchist takes a somewhat tribalistic approach.  However, the rest of the group would be involved in the actions, giving them insight into those skills, making the entire group cooks and hide-tanners, eliminating any division of labor.  In this way, the "tribe" becomes informed of the variety of skills needed (excluding particular situations where the specifics are important, like medicine, some science, and engineering), limiting the need for authority.

Anarchists, from challenging authority, find most forms of authority coercive, power-hungry, evil, illegitimate.  Therefore Anarchists seek to destroy the institution of authority and replace it (or not) with a better institution.  Some authorities, such as full-time representatives are not legitimate and therefore should not exists.  Police definitely fall into this category.

To quickly sum up and dispel them easily, Noam Chomsky says that should your child run into the street with oncoming traffic, should you not use forceful coercion, grabbing them (authority) to stop them?

(A) Necessaries for Life: Energy (Fuel)

Nationalizing Energy: I had an idea once of putting control of energy and power in the hands of the state paid for by our taxes.  This takes energy control out of the hands o f the private sector, allowing am industry controlled by politicians (or and association of technicians) and maintained by workers (plants).  I thought this would make the people afford cheaper energy and would help business develop and spur on the economy.

But the ideal never works out as planned, and material limitations and reality must always be kept in mind.  I don't know if Nationalized Energy would work or not.  Maybe the Sate would be more responsive to the masses than the capitalists (I think we can see this evident in any welfare state).  Without their capital, energy capitalists (fucking NYSEG) will not be able to lobby congress or the government in whole.  That just leaves the Automobile industry.  Sounds like Marxist-Reformism, yet keep in mind that lobbyists would never allow for such a policy to enter into discussion in the first place.

For the sake of discussion, let's just imagine that some decent radical politicians are elected (ha!) and manage to stay radical and decent politicians (HA! ha!).  One thing that could happen is that the energy control is shared between the State, an association of technicians, and the cities and regions.  Funded by the State by its tax revenue, the technicians negotiate and study the city and regions to create the energy options/potential as well as the demands/requests needed to be reached.  This would allow for the power plants to be transformed from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, making pleas to the city from its populace more potent, realizing indirect democracy.

Or, the State will just be in control without the sovereignty of the city or association of technicians.  Here the city sends its complaints directly to the State and the State may or may not send someone who may or may not fulfill the city's request.  This second case mimics the situation of the Soviet Union.  In this case the people's needs are not met by red tae and the heartlessness of the State.  So it is an issue of caring for it in the birthing process, of whether it becomes bottom-up or top-down (bottom-up being the preferable option).

There is also  third case without the State as an intermediary.  In the existing conditions there could be a case of one or three technicians who have a group of volunteers devoted and willing to the cause who develop the renewable energy infrastructure (which would be maintained and owned collectively by the community)of the region/community.  Or the other case of post-Revolution where there becomes an association of technicians responsive to the Communes/collectives of the federation/Network.  Obviously as an anarchist I fully support and wish for the latter of the three, but I do endorse the Welfare State option 1 creation.

p.s. I'll just describe that the post-Revolution energy systems will be owned by the Commune and not necessarily by the technicians that created them.  The technicians will be employed by the Commune/collective and the technicians may be a part of the Commune/collective, but the ownership will be in the Commune's, which will mean it is owned by the entire community, or group of communities.

'Petty-Bourgeois, Praise the Coming of the Organic Reformation!'

The Organic Reformation. This post will possess a background of a Marxist belief that industrialization of a country is dependent on the bourgeois form of society, e.i. capitalist production/exploitation. [On this note I am tempted to speak of the industrialization of other previous third world countries like India, Brazil, and Venezuela being semi-non-dependent on fossil fuels and that the old capitalist/imperialist superpowers are a dieing breed to be extinct by the horizon of the new world, however beautiful the idea, it is not completely so.] Today the profit motive has touched the values of Organic manufacture. Organic production demand has risen over the past few years. Of course, supply follows demand. Organic producers and retailers have monopolized on the opportunities of Organic production.
Yet, the Organic movement has turned into some kind of pompous status to use in the power complex. Our culture assigns some kind of dignity to purchasing Organic foods (that may not be produced with harmful chemical additives, but most assuredly with the more successful, are produced with the labor of classical capitalist exploitation) that the poor are not as able to purchase. The Organic Reformation has turned into the hypocritical social strata despotism that it was started to defeat. The petty bourgeoisie are the only ones that can afford the organic food prices, thus giving them the delusion that they are better than the true proletarians who are too desperate to bother buying the high prices necessitated by the bourgeois system.
The Organic Reformation is growing though. Demand keeps growing as the supply becomes more available, spurred on by the opportunities provided by the growing demand of the organic produce markets, increasing the supply, lowering the prices brought on by the competition essential to bourgeois production, increasing demand, increasing supply, lowering prices, increasing demand, etc. until the organic produce markets begin to be equal to the artificial produce markets and is accessible by the proletariat. This is bourgeois development. Once the Organic Reformation completes, the organic produce markets have spread to numerous industries and the market has become large enough to trump the artificial markets, the Social Revolution would place organic production under the worker's control, networked by industry associations, creating the anarchist economy.
I see this as very possible and good. I also see the Organic Reformation possible under Anarchist production. It just amounts to a question of which method would be best. In my opinion I think the Organic Reformation would happen faster under Anarchist production. Someone else may see Anarchist production as too unstable or hectic to allow such a progress in as fast a time as bourgeois production. Nobody really knows because the problem with theory is that it is based off of fact ascended into speculation.