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.

Cost Of Tax Cuts For America's Rich Exceeds Value Of Budget Cuts

As part of a law passed late last year, the Bush-era tax cuts for the richest Americans were extended for two years. The estimated cost to the government of that portion of the tax deal, $42 billion this fiscal year, exceeds the stated $38 billion value of the savings from the federal budget cuts lawmakers 

So even with the 60 or so billion that was originally to be cut, really only 18 billion dollars would have been actually cut. That’s not to say this is a zero sum equation, but you get the idea.

On top of the spending on tax cuts (yes, tax cuts are spending), most corporations are barely paying taxes as it is, if at all, because of countless loopholes and preferential rates for capital gains.

In the meantime, the majority of what is to be cut to save our deficit and protect future generations, based on Ayn Rand worshiper Paul Ryan’s budget proposal, is made up of necessary services and means tested programs (often conveniently confused for entitlement programs) that are relied upon by the poor, unemployed, disabled and elderly, not to mention Federal Financial Aid for low income college students.

I’ve been told by yuppie libertarians before that “those things aren’t a legitimate function of government.” My answer: “who gets to decide that?”

Because, as I’ve explained countless times before, the survival and safety needs are the legitimate function of government. What’s not legitimate is out of control military spending on imperialistic, neo-colonial endeavors. 

What’s not a legitimate function of democratic government is taking power away from the people and giving it to the privileged.

What’s not a legitimate function of government is depriving people of the things they need to feed economic and social power.

As American as Apple Pie

Over the last few months I’ve come to realize that many anarchists and socialists in the U.S focus a great deal on the radical traditions of Europe (Spain, France, Russia, Greece, etc) while ignoring the fact that the United States has a very rich Socialist tradition. In fact, many on the right seem to ignore or are unaware of the fact that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist, and that the song “This Land is Your Land” was not only written by a socialist of sorts, but has strong social justice overtones.

Consider the many acheivements of our labor movement, the influence over politics and culture that early 20th century anarchists had, the leftist influences over the Civil Rights movement and the Anti-war movement, and all of the folksy radicalism of the depression era. Hell, even the term “redneck” was originally a name for striking (more like coup-attempting) coal workers in West Virginia who wore red bandannas on their neck to show solidarity.

As we speak, inner cities are full of people dedicating their time to making their communities better places to live and organizing community members in collaboration with local unions, as well as young people dedicated to fostering class concsiousness through direct action. Campuses are full of students dedicated to social justice, or at least to educating others about it.

Why shouldn’t there be such a rich radical tradition in the U.S? This is, after all, the world’s beacon of neo-colonialism, corporatism, plutocracy and bourgeois dominance. Considering that, it’s a breath of fresh air to think about how consistently present the people’s opposition to power has been in this country. Even a number of our “founding fathers” had the basic ideals (or at least claimed to) that leftism draws from: democracy, equality and liberty. Some, particularly Madison, even proposed agrarian reform very early on.

Pundits and politicians paint the Capitalist system as source of American Pride, and all forms of socialism as somehow anti-American. This is a myth perpetuated by the oligarchy who has a great deal to gain from that reactionary sentiment among the people. Really, though, if Capitalism were so American, why would its opposition be such a huge part of our history, just as old as the Capitalist system itself? It’s knowledge that threatens their power

Capitalism and democracy are incompatible, because freedom becomes another commodity to buy and sell, because corporate controlled media prevents a well informed electorate, because the rich have more influence over lawmakers than ordinary people, because tyranny through property is not somehow more free than tyranny through government power, because resources people need to live should not be commodities.

If we just up and got rid of the government, just threw it into the fucking Pacific, and there were no publicly controlled entities to replace it, we would all be living in a fascist state. I would be living in Walmartopia and you would be living in McDonaldsville, we’d be making pennies an hour, buying our processed flour (with what’s left after paying rent to Walmartopia and McDonaldsville) from the company store and driving on toll-roads through toxic waste-dumps and burned down slums where the residents couldn’t afford to pay for fire protection.

The profit motive unchecked by the public interest in some form IS tyranny. It is Machiavellian control and rampant power-grabbing. There is no conscience, there is no justice.