Why we are right and you are wrong

"Just like any effeminate middle-class liberal. When the going gets tough, he runs straight home." "These lifestyle anarchists don't care about anything other than themselves. Don't they understand that if everyone lived like they do, there wouldn't be a system for them to cling to?" "If they don't adhere to the decisions of the Speakers' Council, they have no place here. I think it would be better if they stayed at home and did nothing than to mess up our protest like that!" "How can you ____ without ____? If you really cared about ____ you would ____! (like me)" "I don't want to be an activist, anarchist or part of any of that if it means I have to..."

Can we get along? Even for those of us who would prefer to be outsiders, there is no issue more important today than this. The answer will determine the fate of our species and our planet. We cannot avoid this dilemma. Any revolution, any redistribution of wealth and power will be short-lived without a fundamental change in our relationships. Social structure is an expression of these relationships, not a factor that stands outside of them. Revolution is then not a single moment, but a way of living: anarchy and hierarchy always coexist in different relationships and the important question is simply which relationship you maintain in your own life.

We are ill-equipped to reconstruct human relationships if we don't even try to get along - and nothing seems to generate disagreement and division more than these attempts. It often seems that the people who know the least about how people treat others are the self-proclaimed activists who are determined to help them. But these conflicts are not an inevitable consequence of human nature, but rather an example of cause and effect - what can and must be changed. This is intended as an approach to consider what the challenges are that this company brings with it and why we have had such a difficult time to date.

In a world where free creative acts are difficult to live in, we all feel impoverished, cheated of the experiences and feelings that we know should be ours. We compensate as best we can and often this compensation only serves to maintain our misery. We seek status in wealth, power, strength, beauty, prestige, anything that can soften the blows of wasted days. We compensate even when we seek another kind of status: feelings of superiority - a status in our own minds.

We live in a society that teaches us that we lack all the valuable tools for free movement, including self-assertion. People on television or in books are portrayed as more important, nobler, more attractive than the rest of us. We grow up in households where our parents don't have enough time for us; we are sent to schools that use a grading system that allows only a handful to be distinguished and dumped into a market that enriches a few of us while the rest are exploited or abandoned. We internalize the values ​​of this system. We get into the habit of determining our worth by comparing ourselves so we can determine whether we are better. We throw ourselves into contempt for others, their plans and ideas, habits and beliefs, in order to reassure ourselves that we have value of our own. When we should recognize everything that is positive, we denounce and criticize - just to calm ourselves down! The most insecure among us can't even enjoy movies or music anymore because having select tastes is so important to them. They don't understand that if they manage not to enjoy something, no one loses more than they do. If you want to get anything out of a movie or a song or an interaction (so that you don't waste time on it), you have to take responsibility for finding ways in which they can benefit you or how you can enjoy them.

In advanced stages, this hypercritical desire for status can combine with a spectator mentality: from a distance, the critic votes for or against the efforts of others, unable to recognize that things like art, activism, community depend on what he or she makes of them - and that he or she has to do something at all to get anything out of these things. This spectator mentality reinforces the feeling that everything another person does is uninteresting or unintelligent - hence the feeling of superiority that the spectator so desperately needs. You rarely meet a truly concerned/active person who feels the need to present their own actions better than those of others. But in the viewer's lack of production, any expression of self-assertion, even the most generous and positive, can be interpreted as an incursion, an attack1. Every achievement is something that is rebelled against, attacked, ridiculed - as if we didn't already feel worthless, abused, hunted enough!

Those of us who would fight this system of scarcity often face additional challenges. Many of us have emerged from conflict and struggle to this resistance, and this sense of struggle is still evident in the way we approach our activities. Because we have been abused, neglected, harassed, and have had to fight our own kind, parents, teachers, bosses, and the police, we see self-assertion as something that has to be fought for. We think that being radical is like war - the more wars we fight, the more radical we have to be. We feign intent to create peace, but the only tools we possess are weapons. No wonder this leads to a battle among ourselves.

“With a little hard work, you can make yourself feel alienated from everything.”

Scarcity thinking and the destructive insecurity it promotes have played a large role in shaping our notions of justice2. Making judgments can be the ultimate compensation for one's own weaknesses. It's very easy to become complacent about another person's mistakes, inconsistencies, etc. After all, we all have them. The more we focus on other people's weaknesses, the less we worry about our own. Witch hunters who believe they have discovered a real criminal (racists, lifestyle anarchists, class traitors, etc.) can take comfort in the fact that they have isolated the pathogen and no longer have to worry about it (just like in the movies) - and the clearer their denunciation of the enemy, the more afraid everyone else is to admit what they have in common with him.

Again, we live in a violent world. Blaming any person for being colonized by this violence is as sensible as blaming the sea for being polluted. The question should not be whether an individual is guilty - we all are, at least through complicity - but rather how all individuals are empowered to confront and transform the violence and ignorance within themselves. To be able to trust that a person is interested in understanding with you, often nothing can help more than offering to forgive them; This makes it easier for that person to let go of their defensiveness and acknowledge what you have to say. That's not to say we shouldn't defend ourselves by any means necessary whenever we need to - but let's do so for practical reasons, not out of a thirst for revenge and superiority.

Objective thinking, on which our deficiency-oriented, authoritarian civilization is based, demands that there is only one truth. According to this line of thinking, those who want to explain human behavior or overthrow capitalism should make various suggestions about how best to achieve this and debate them until the “right one” is chosen. So it is that in the ivory towers, intellectuals and desk revolutionaries debate incessantly, never coming closer to agreement, developing ever more exclusive technical language, while the rest of us work to make something happen. Subjective thinking assumes that there is no “one” reality and concludes that every “objective” reality must simply be a subjective reality that is institutionalized as truth by those in power. Subjective thinking recognizes that people have arrived at their particular beliefs and behaviors as a result of their individual life experiences. This has an important impact on how we treat each other, especially in our efforts to change the world. Different people will have different beliefs, tactics, goals. Accept that. They don't necessarily think differently because they aren't as intelligent or experienced or sensitive as you are - they may be your equals on all of these counts, but come to different conclusions based on different insights from their own lives. Respect that while offering whatever perspectives you can offer.Realize that the less you have in common, the better it would be for you to listen instead of talk. When a person tells you their point of view on something, you don't have to immediately start debating who is right. Instead, try to think of projects you could do together that would further your shared interests. Whatever ideological issues need to be worked out, people can work them out in practice, if at all possible - they will undoubtedly not be resolved by another contest of egos disguised as theoretical debate.3

Since every life experience is unique, it is obvious that no one person can impose laws on everyone else. However, you can offer your own experiences and explanations so that others can do what they will do. When you can honestly speak for yourself, you will notice that you have also spoken for others. This could be seen as patronizing by those who believe there is only one right way; but those who attack you for offering your own perspective or analysis on the grounds that it doesn't apply to them (or isn't relevant to all people, e.g. starving mothers in Somalia, transgender community, etc.) are still operating within the scarcity model.

Remember: every value you have, every decision you make, you make it for yourself. People influenced by scarcity thinking will attack you as if you were a one-size-fits-all - don't fall into the trap of their way of thinking by presenting your own methods and ideas as universals. Simply emphasize that you act according to your own conscience and hope that you can integrate your attitude into that of others - just as they should do with you.

Those who still hold that there is such a thing as “objective” truth generally feel compelled to convince others of their truth. This is the self-perpetuating consequence of the power struggles that exist in the market of ideas. As in any economy based on the reproduction of scarcity, this market is characterized by competition among capitalists who strive to maintain and increase their power over others.

In our society, ideas function like capital4. Individuals who succeed in getting others to buy into their ideas achieve a disproportionate degree of control over their environment; Large conglomerates (the Catholic Church, the Communist Party) can, just as corporations, come to dominate large parts of the world in this way - indeed, without ideological capital, there can be no entrenched political or financial power. A few “start-up companies” of competing ideas can enter the market to challenge such monopolies. Sometimes someone dethrones the dominant creed to introduce the new dominant paradigm; but as in any capitalist system, power tends to flow upward to the summit of a hierarchy from which the rulers qualified to wield it decide matters for everyone else. And just like in financial capitalism, it is ultimately not the ruling class but the competition itself that is in control. In this climate, everyone who has a value or a belief must rush to sell it to others before they are put out of business.

It is difficult to imagine from here what a world free from this war of ideologies would look like. Obviously, this world would also have to be free of similar wars (for money, power, self-assertion), because it is silly to insist that everyone can think as they want while some plans to design the cosmos are punished by exclusion or embargo. Those of us who fight for freedom from the power of gods and rulers would benefit from fighting the dictatorships of ideology - any ideology - that always accompany and release their power.5

If we look at the plethora of public relations representatives, self-help gurus, and other fanatics and salesmen competing to convert them, the hesitation that the population shows when it comes to joining any kind of social movement is actually a healthy self-defense mechanism. Accordingly, the greatest challenge for those who want to achieve revolutionary change together with others is how to avoid making them defensive in the process.

Radical politics today leaves Westerners feeling defensive - this is a greater obstacle to social transformation than corporate control or government repression. And in large part it can be attributed to the attitude of the activists themselves: many activists invest in their activist identity at least as much out of a compensatory act as out of a genuine desire to make things happen - for them, activism serves the same function as other machismo, fashion, popularity. Activists who still serve the constraints of insecurities tend to alienate others - they may even unconsciously want to alienate others so that they alone are seen as the righteous vanguard. When people who don't have the same insecurities see these activists in action, they assume that activism has nothing to do with their own lives and needs.

Whenever we have an idea for a “revolutionary” project, we must ask ourselves: Are we sure about our motives? Will our words and our actions mobilize and activate, or inhibit and deter? Are we trying to put on a spectacle of our agency/compassion/education, to establish our status as revolutionaries/leaders/intellectual theorists, to assert our moral high ground, to win the childish competition of who is most oppressed (as if suffering were quantifiable!), still seeking power and revenge in the form of liberation? People notice when you're putting yourself above them or playing a role, just as they sense when you're acting out of honesty or joy. They are much more likely to act on it because role-playing and rivalry already occupy enough space in their lives.

It would be better to abandon the crusade to reprogram "the masses" - with all the patronizing implications that they would be lazy, blind, weak, victims in need of guidance. Instead, we should first turn to those who are/were in similar situations to us. Those with whom we have the most in common are where our perspectives can be most useful.6 Second, we can find people in other communities who are already active, who share our values and goals, and work with them - this is far preferable to entering other communities and trying to "organize" them according to the teachings of outsiders.7 Third, we can strive to defend others from the influence of power and ideology - and extend to them the tools we have developed in our own struggles. to apply them outside of our agenda.8 Ultimately, we can identify common causes among people who already do and feel "antisocial" things: theft, vandalism and graffiti, "laziness," rebelliousness, general nihilism, compassion.

This is the true meaning of a radical propaganda that shows indulgence in the "glorification" of theft, adultery, etc.: not that stealing itself is revolutionary, but it creates connections to the everyday life and resistance of individuals who do not yet act out of an articulated desire for revolution. The radical significance of a statement lies in the effect of making it and not in whether or not it represents an “objective” truth. Because of the private longings and frustrations that people feel (their hatred of work, the joy in their insubordination that they share with young people and anarchists, the instinctive distrust with which they view all totalitarian systems), a resistance can be built that is based on the individual motivations and views of those who make it up, rather than on the demands of political parties and dogmas. This is the only kind of resistance that can protect us from authoritarian rule and authoritarian ideology.

When it comes to perspectives being “poorly represented,” remember that it is not your job to “represent” them the way politicians “represent” us. Rather, try to do your best to represent yourself and encourage others to do the same, for example by listening to those who are already represented. Some people may avoid your perspective (as "middle class", "reformist", "extremist", etc.), but there are no perspectives that are illegitimate - the only thing that is illegitimate is behaving as if a perspective is not legitimate. Often those who are not necessarily underrepresented themselves speak on behalf of the underrepresented (a simple trick!). Don't be intimidated - You can be sure that if you feel something, another person feels it too and needs to know that they are not alone.

In any resistance movement, conflicts that transcend strategy (“violent” versus “nonviolent,” etc.) will unfold, during which different individuals will develop their own analysis and test it in practice. Contesting this diversity rather than taking advantage of it is like wanting everyone to have the same life story and perspective. Teenagers find different things liberating than middle-aged librarians do - but both have a part in liberation and must be part of every possible struggle for them. Those who want to tame the wild and set rules for the irregular deny not only the complexity of people, but also that of the revolution we want to carry out.

Others will always have different attitudes and goals towards you. The challenge isn't teaching them your own strategy (because couldn't they know better what's really good for them?), but rather finding ways to integrate disparate methods into a mutually beneficial whole. Whether you like it or not, if you believe others have an ineffective or counterproductive tactic, it is up to you to find and add the missing ingredients that can make it effective - otherwise all the energy they put into the effort will not only have been wasted, but will also be directed against them and everyone else. In such circumstances it is much easier to point fingers and blame. But that doesn't lead to anything.

Views of life that speak clearly for some people can alienate others - even and especially those who call themselves activists (although the last people that any given approach has to reach or please are people who are already radicalized). In these cases, it's important not to feel too threatened, since you probably haven't been either - and to be aware that with the significant diversity of life on this planet, we need a similarly diverse arsenal of connections to the outside world. In other cases, approaches that seem to contradict each other can form a complete symbiosis: as in the relationship between masked rioters and the distinguished, articulate advocates of social change. No ruler would pay attention to the recent resistance without the previous one standing behind it (imagine Martin Luther King's nonviolence without the included threat of Malcolm X's confrontational stance). Without “decent” support, rebels can easily be marginalized and destroyed. In these situations, everyone involved should remember that others may have to deny their tactics, even publicly, in order to effectively carry on with their part;9 when this happens, there should be no special feelings about it.

Undoubtedly, it can be difficult to work alongside people whose beliefs are completely different from yours - and you should never work with people who you fear will betray you or sabotage your work to further their own agenda. But here again, ask yourself: are your positions important to you as positions (possessions, status symbols, identity badges) or as generalizations that exist to help you create more satisfying life moments? It is common sense to combine the different tactics of people who share a common goal. It's even harder, but just as important, to let go of the need to convince everyone else of your opinions and instead work to create harmony between different individuals who live in completely different worlds. There may never be perfect harmony, but it is a nobler goal than any unity imposed by standardization.

Just as every band needs musicians who play different instruments, healthy associations will not constrain their participants with “compromises” that force them to limit themselves to similarities, but will integrate their differences into something greater than the sum of their parts. Working and living in such associations, in which each person is aware that he or she is responsible for the functioning of the projects and the relationships, helps those involved to learn to see themselves as part of the network of human relationships and not as an automaton against the world. Under these circumstances, the wishes of others must be taken just as seriously as your own. This can even allow an individual to be a more complete person, as his or her comrades can represent parts of themselves that they would not otherwise express. This makes sense since everyone is ultimately a product of the same world. We are all connected - all apparently different aspects of the same interaction of forces. Without this insight, collaboration and community can only be incidental and accidental.

Finally, it becomes possible for the individual experienced in communal life to view the entire cosmos as a vast, albeit faulty, collective. The problem is simply how to better suit its function to people's inclinations. This does not mean that the fascists, sexists, etc. can continue with their lively work and become “part of our collective” - they would be the first to stubbornly refuse to do so. The main argument of fascism and reactionary thinking has always been the mutual exclusion of cooperation and autonomy. People have to be controlled and obey orders so that they don't get lazy and kill each other. The better we can demonstrate that this is not true, the less attractive their claims will be.

_Perhaps the most important thing you can do in this struggle is to be there for others, to help them believe in themselves, to offer genuine compassion (not the condescension of charity) when there is a need. However, there is no formula for this. Compassion takes forms that are least predictable and comes from sources least expected. It often takes a person who has suffered something similar to be able to offer real help to a person who is suffering or struggling. That's another reason why it's good that we've all chosen different paths and endured different things, even circumstances that seemed to isolate us - that's why there's a place in this fight for spoiled rich kids, homeless drug addicts, and lovers who've lied and betrayed each other: who else could relate to people in such difficult situations, who else could offer them guidance and hope?

When you recognize how your own misery has prepared you to help others, it may make sense to do so with experiences that seemed impossible to justify. At the same time, it can help you see the value in people who previously seemed worthless to you.

We often have our hands full dealing with our own pain. We are filled with too much bitterness and confusion to be able to offer anything to others - least of all compassion. That means it's even more crucial not to miss our opportunities to be good to others - whether they deserve it or not, whether we understand them or not, whether we think it makes a difference or not._

We would-be revolutionaries very often present our project with warlike labels: “Fight Racism,” “Destroy Fascism,” “Destroy Capitalism,” “Eat the Rich.” This enables us to see ourselves as noble fighters and, more importantly, to recognize that we have opponents, thereby confirming our righteousness. This confirmation is apparently more valuable than the success of our efforts that it replaces and prevents. It will last at least as long as we have not yet felt this success. We must always remember that our enemies are not people: our enemies are the conditions that make us enemies.

A world completely devoid of enemies is impossible - in most cases it is not even desirable - but for capitalist society war is just business as usual: Exxon vs. Shell, U.S.A. vs. Iraq, communists vs. anarchists, lovers vs. lovers, and parents vs. their child. Even if we could kill every last rapist, politician, cop, and fellow non-washer, the violence would remain in the world as the spite and anger of its survivors (without mentioning how these murders would leave their mark on us). Revolution is what happens when you create situations that make the old conflicts - all the inertia of resentment, uncertainty and hostility - unimportant.

Of course, sometimes it is necessary to wage war. We must fight against all efforts that involve us in fighting with one another, and for some of us that means resorting to violence. But as the venerable sage said, “When it comes to you standing alone against the world, you can bet on the world.” So many of us alienate ourselves from others completely unnecessarily. Ultimately, some abstraction of a spirit of comradeship is built upon (“the working class”, “the imminent uprising”) until all flesh and blood comrades have disappeared. Or worse, you conclude that cooperation is simply impossible - when history shows that it is possible, just not for you until you are willing to be more patient, more considerate, more humble, more forgiving. If you can be generous enough not to attack others for their incoherence, selfishness, bad ideas, mistakes, or even violence, you can recognize what they have to offer you. If you can enact a form of justice that takes responsibility for making things right, you can heal instead of helplessly doling out blame and glory. If you can be patient with impatience, if you can resist contempt, if you can refrain from being complacent - even and especially with complacent people - then you can do your part to free us all from captivity.

Doing things you enjoy will help you avoid unloading your frustrations on others - just as working with people you like whenever you can will help you.10 There's nothing noble or revolutionary about sacrificing yourself "for the cause," especially if it results in you being out of focus. At the same time, it's not always possible - nor should it be - to surround yourself with people who see things like you. Be willing to leave your comfort and bring a generous heart with you.

This is dedicated to all those who have behaved this way over the years, who have taken it for granted that people with other backgrounds and different tactics actually had a desire to live alongside and work with them: the working-class women and men who took the time to explain to civic activists how they alienated them, even when the latter couldn't listen at first; the women who not only demanded that men recognize the presence and impact of their sexism, but also acknowledged the fears and concerns they felt; the survivors of abuse who continued to give advice to both the victims and the perpetrators. Without them we would have surely torn ourselves to pieces. It's scary to let your guard down, it's hard to swallow your pride (even if holding on to it would mean betraying yourself), but it's the only way to help others do the same. Until they can, we live in this barren world of shields and swords, each of us an island unto ourselves.

Don’t be intimidated by the colossal challenge of “saving the world.” There are as many worlds as there are people. Save yours, which is formed by the life you share with the people around you. Where one flower blooms, millions more will follow.

I want to be a person who doesn't feel like they have to be ashamed of any part of themselves. I want to be able to perceive what others are doing without feeling threatened by them or becoming defensive (even if they are being defensive towards me), so that I see others in the context of their lives and not my own. I want to know how I can limit my limitless reliance on others without risking losing my respect for them. I want to be able to look opponents who should be allies in the eye and say to them, "Whether you like it or not, this is me. This is what the world has made of me, and we all have to deal with the consequences. I cannot feel, believe, or act differently than I do unless the past period of my life that shaped this of me changes. I don't want to compete with you for the moral high ground or anything else. Unless you are prepared, otherwise, in order to endure this impasse of hostility indefinitely, you will have to accept me on the basis of my own considerations, as I hope to do with you. You are as responsible as I am for allowing something positive to arise between us - or for the world of strife in which we will otherwise live.

From 'Mass Murderers Grow Flowers' No. 6

The other expression of the same deficiency is hero worship, in which people project all the qualities they find admirable onto others. This is, of course, similarly unhealthy and inevitably leads to the same hostility and contempt. The only thing you can do with individuals or groups you have put on a pedestal is to push them down. ↩

The sense of justice of complacent activists is derived from the same source as the justice system that fuels today's prison industry: a Christianity that emphasized individual responsibility over the cause and effect of social conditions, inventing, presenting, and selling the ultimate scarcity religion. In a state where relationships are of real mutual benefit, threats of imprisonment and hellfire would be unnecessary - the threat of removal from the community would be frightening enough. ↩

When you take sides against others, you may forget that positions are fluid; Forcing a person to choose a side can lead to them becoming trapped in identifying exclusively with that side. ↩

Ideas – like other forms of capital – are considered private property and protected by law, for example in cases of counterfeiting and copyright infringement. ↩

This statement, paradoxically, is itself based on ideological assumptions - but perhaps this self-contradiction is the first, necessary step in the disarmament of ideology. ↩

"I grew up as a middle-class rebel, a punk. When I gave up trying to push reform through mainstream agendas and started organizing with others around me, I realized what a tremendous, untapped power this life had to offer." ↩

"We were blown away to discover that just a neighborhood over in the Latino community was a group doing similar things, just using different words for the same ideas. When we were at one of their meetings, we realized how much more we could do." ↩

"As the locals began to join the street fight, we showed them how to make mask hats out of shirts so the police can't identify them and how lime juice can be used to protect themselves from the tear gas. This is anarchist leadership in action, or what we have instead: sharing our experiences with others - distributing skills rather than concentrating them." ↩

As the black-masked, corporate-window-smashing protester shouted at the law-abiding liberal protester who tried to hold him back: "It's not your job to stop me from making your cause look bad, it's to distance yourself from what I'm doing as much as you have to in order to gain the respect of the person you're trying to reach! It's my job to make something happen here so that they even have to fucking listen to you!" ↩

Organizing based on consensus can sometimes cause unnecessary conflict and disruption. Autonomous organization—a free connection whenever it doesn't work otherwise—can give you the freedom you need to work well with the people around you without having to resent them. Revolution can involve learning cooperative ways of living and acting. This doesn't mean that everyone has to become friends with each other. ↩