Some Thoughts on Democratic Revolution

(This blog post is a pre-write for/forerunner to something else I've been working on) 

I recently read an article on Infoshop called "Do 'Leaderless Revolts' Contain the Seeds of Our Own Failure?." The article cites Anti-Austerity protests in Greece, as well as the revolutionary movements of Egypt and Spain. The strengths and weaknesses of these revolutions, which are addressed by the article, have mostly to do with the unique, technological nature of today's revolutions, but are also indicative of problems revolutionists have pondered for centuries.

In any revolution, dozens of fundamental questions need to be asked: What is the structure of the new society? Is this structure stable, and how do we maintain stability while maintaining the most possible liberty and equality for citizens? How do we deal with reactionary counter revolution? How do we prevent power hungry demagogues from taking advantage of the power vacuum? We can narrow all of these questions down to "how do we make sure a democratic revolution stays democratic?" 

There are countless ways a revolution can go wrong and ultimately put power into the hands of someone just as bad as, if not worse than, the previous ruler. A group might use coercion claiming to be acting in the name of the people, as with the Jacobins. A group might promise to ensure a smooth transition by fighting off counter-revolution, as with the Bolsheviks; or a group might simply have some other form of power with which to fill the power vacuum, as it is looking like it might be in Egypt.

Any sociology textbook will tell you that dissent is maximized and more likely to lead to action when people are able to communicate their grievances to one another, and when some kind of leader can articulate those grievances into some kind of plan. Social media, in these revolutions, has allowed for communication of grievances between individuals the likes of which have not been seen since the advent of the printing press (which is extremely important, though the media has played up social media's role in order to downplay the revolutionary fervor that had to have existed to begin with).  The result has been exacerbated dissent and efficient organization on a massive level that is mostly leaderless.

When any power structure is being removed, it is done so through at least one of two kinds of power: Counter-Power, the belief in specific goals or a specific structure as a replacement for the old, and Anti-Power, the basic desire and capacity to remove the current structure (I did not come up with counter/anti power, however the blogs I read about it on didn't cite anyone).  Organization through social media makes it possible to amass a great deal of anti-power; however, being leaderless the exacerbated dissent is without a sense of direction and without long term goals. After the removal of the old structure, confusion and lack of structure are left. This power vacuum can then be easily exploited by the private power of corporations or the violent power of a military. 

Clearly, of course, both anti-power and counter-power are necessary. A revolution by counter-power alone will never take off the ground except through military coup (which ultimately leads to more tyranny), and a revolution by anti-power leaves behind confusion to be exploited by demagogues (which ultimately leads to more tyranny). 

The anti-power we see in the Middle East and other countries in the 21st century, however, is very unique and may very well hold a solution to its own problem. We saw in these revolutions (particularly in Egypt) an enormous capacity for organization: means of passing information, committees and councils all came into fruition almost organically. Driven by simple common goals, people were capable of creating temporary structures through which to organize the revolt. Is it at all unreasonable, then to hope that counter-power and anti-power do not have to be separate? If these organizational structures can emerge organically among dissenters in the streets, they can be an example, or the beginnings, of a post-revolutionary structure.

Counter-power can grow organically from anti-power, creating goals and structures custom made for, and by, the people. It would be purely democratic.

Atlas Needs Us, We Don't Need Him - Addendum

While waiting for a prescription at the pharmacy, I got into an argument with my mom. It started with my mentioning a book I got at a thrift store called Organization Theory, and progressed into an argument about relations between management and workers. Her point was that the union in the company she works for (Dyncorp International) promotes hostility between corporate and the workers and, instead of cooperating toward the same goal, the workers are preoccupied with trying to leech as much as they can from the company.

My point was that the conflict of interest inherent in the setup precedes the existence of unions. The company's goal is maximum profit, where the workers' goal is making a decent living. One goal comes by the detriment of the other; even the higher paid airplane mechanics make nothing close to the value their labor creates. The union forms because the company has an enormous advantage in the pursuit of its goal, having absolute power through the ownership of capital, and the workers require some kind of leverage in the pursuit of their goal. This leverage comes from their numbers, and the fact that it is their labor that creates the company's wealth and allows its accumulation of capital and power.

Her argument reminded me of my earlier post, Misconceptions Addressed: The Need for the Rich. She claimed that that workers are not qualified for management, and that there must always be some hierarchal structure to maintain order and ensure everyone is working toward the same goal.

Even if this were true, and workers are incapable of management, why should person A. who is qualified for management make as much more as he does than person B. who is qualified for building airplanes? Even if managing the workplace does require qualified hands, why should that position be one of so much more power and importance than that of designing, building and shipping the products? Being qualified to manage does not make you superior to one who is qualified to run machines, build airplanes, build houses or any other job as vital to the creation of value as any other.

If managing does require high qualifications (and you'll find, in many cases, it doesn't), why couldn't the workplace still be run democratically with those oh so qualified people acting as consultants and explaining which decisions would be detrimental to the well being of the organization, and which would be beneficial? If this were the case, the qualified consultant having no position of power or ownership, his/her advice would be unaffected by the incentive of profit and would actually be for the benefit of the workers.

This is all assuming the need for management is legitimate. After all, what purpose does it serve other than ensuring the workers are working toward the company's goal: profit? Degrees in Business Administration primarily teach capitalist economics, accounting and the psychology behind motivation and productivity, the focus of which is profit for the owners of capital - something incompatible with cooperative and democratically run business. Productivity is still important, but when workers are paid more closely to the value their labor creates, motivation for productivity is hardly a problem.

For about a year and a half I worked at a small restaurant. The "manager" was the owner of the property and, after my first couple of months working there, had practically disappeared except when collecting her profits.  The half a dozen or so of us who worked there managed everything ourselves: schedules, bills, supplies, menus and even the health department. We knew what needed to be done and how it needed to be done much better than the owner did because we knew how a restaurant worked first hand; we were more than capable of managing ourselves. Ms. Sparling knew nothing, but she still reaped the profits at the end of the day. Imagine how things could have gone if we were working for ourselves and each other, instead of the owner?

Of course, not every workplace is a restaurant, and sometimes some knowledge about accounting is required, but for this I refer you back to my question about consultants; this person still does not deserve a position of authority over others whose jobs are as vital to the creation of value and the functioning of the workplace as his/hers.

Many claim "entrepreneurs" are necessary for the creation of jobs, that without profit they would have no incentive to create the jobs and that, because they took the risks and invested the capital to do so they deserve to reap exorbitant profits at the expense of the workers' labor. However, as I addressed in the first part of "Atlas Needs Us," the demand for products and the need for innovation exists independent of the profit motive. If people need it, people are going to make it; if some new innovation is required, someone is going to provide it. In fact, without the profit motive as a factor, these innovations are more likely to be made based on what is most needed and efficient, rather than what is most profitable. The capital "entrepreneurs" provide is usually accumulated from other endeavors in which profit was made from others' labor (and is usually a product of class and racial privilege), rarely is it accumulated from that person's own work (I've also addressed Meritocracy).

Crucial to the maintenance of capitalist exploitation, as well as to the perpetuation of false consciousness and the rationalization of any authority is the belief in the champion who is smarter, stronger, more creative, harder working and more rational than the rest of us: the person whose benevolence and moral superiority provides us with what we have and should be grateful for. This godliness makes him deserving of power over us and makes his exploitation of us not only justifiable, but morally right. We're taught to accept and rationalize his injustices while scrutinizing the shortcomings of our own brethren, all the while convincing ourselves that, if we can impress him and work the hardest for him, we too can become like him. This is a sentiment very much at odds with the principles of democracy. This is a sentiment of self loathing.