Sometimes an essay, sometimes some notes
(this time mostly just notes, mostly on vocabulary and basic concepts used in The R-Word)
"Direct action is a matter of acting as if you were already free."
-- David Graeber
If you’ve been reading The R-Word, you’ll notice that sometimes I publish some slightly ragged, rough and loose essays here, while other times I share my notes — by which I mean I just loosely sketch out my current thought process on the topics and themes I’m writing about here. In this ‘article’ I will be sharing some notes in process. And my intent in doing so, in part, is to offer an aide to those who are reading here who may be holding some questions about what it is I’m gradually assembling within The R-Word.
Initially, in these notes today, I want to begin to provide some partial answers to those readers who are in varying degrees skeptical of the notion that a non-violent and non-insurrectionary revolutionary movement of the kind I’m describing in these pages could become large and powerful enough to transform our world.
— By calling these words ‘notes’ I give myself permission to be fluid, spontaneous, wandering, exploring, playful, thinking out loud…. And I give myself permission to be a little rough in my writing and to set aside the notion that everything I publish must be a polished essay or article. —
— First some background and context, then some further notes. —
**** (All underlined words here can be ‘clicked’ on. They are web links.) ****
Some vocabulary and concepts I use:
As I have made clear in my writings here so far, I’m advocating for a kind of social and political theory and praxis which is commonly known as prefigurative politics.
Prefigurative politics are the modes of organization and social relationships that strive to reflect the future society being sought by the group. According to Carl Boggs, who coined the term, the desire is to embody "within the ongoing political practice of a movement [...] those forms of social relations, decision-making, culture, and human experience that are the ultimate goal". — Wikipedia, Prefigurative Politics
Generally, prefigurative politics manifests as direct action of a very particular kind, which is direct action which is not aimed at influencing the behavior of the state. And by “the state” I do not mean to limit this term to central governments, such as Washington D.C., as (e.g.) the headquarters of the USA’s national government. By “the state” I mean any manifestation of the state at all of the scales of its functioning. As such, a city council in a smallish city is fully within the state system. The local government of my USA county and city was ultimately sanctioned by, and is part of, the USA government. I also distinguish between the words government and governance. Governance can occur in myriad ways, shapes and forms outside of government. But I use the word ‘government’ to refer exclusively to the state and its doings.
I found it necessary, at some point, to construct the term “normal politics,” in order to distinguish between these two:
politics which is aimed at influencing government policies
politics which is aimed at directly shaping communities and places without appealing to government
I treat the phrase “normal politics” and “state politics” as synonymous. Normal politics is the politics of the state. Normal politics is “public” in the usual sense — which is a sense provided and shaped by the convention of dividing socio-political space into a public / private dyad — such as in the phrases “public sphere” and “private sphere”. (I have proposed that we begin to liberate our political discourse, theory and praxis by re-mapping it into a conceptual space which is triadic rather than dyadic. The proposed triad would be a triangle with each side of the triangle having these words: public, private and communal written upon them. See: If I say 'politics' ... - by James R. Martin - The R-Word (substack.com)).
The class 2 form of politics (above) is rarely acknowledged as a form of political engagement in American culture — which I mention here only because I live in the USA and have not travelled outside of the USA. I’m not particularly familiar with the political discourse outside of the USA. But here, in America (USA), if somebody utters the word “politics” it is simply assumed they are referring to normal, or state politics — the politics of the state.
Turn on a radio, open a newspaper, flip on the tv news and commentary, and political discourse here (USA) is just always assumed to be about the business of the state, as if there were no politics outside of the state (!).
And I suppose this would be fine — if the state had not essentially fused with big business, the corporate world, the ideology of capitalist industrialism, consumerism, … all of which is essentially anti-ecological… and if we are honest we will have to acknowledge that, in general, the state (most any state) is a kind of enemy of the people, too. The state does not at all appear to be on the side of democracy, freedom / liberty, social justice / economic justice or even the long (or near) term integrity of the biosphere. This is what we ought to expect of “the state” if the state had fused with, and thus become identical with, corporate capitalist “interests”.
The state, in simple terms, wears a mask. It pretends to be democratic, but it is not. It pretends to attend to our needs — and the needs of our living planet — but it consistently ignores those when any of these get in the way of “doing business,” making a profit, growing the economy….
And there is ALWAYS a tension (to say the least!) between “doing business” and caring for people and ecosystems / the biosphere / our living home: Earth.
It is my understanding that “the state” co-evolved with corporate capitalism, and the ideology of the state is the very same ideology as that of the corporate world’s ideology.
The state’s function is to grow the economy at any and all costs. And it has no problem at all if the cost of “doing business” is planetary ecocide and rampant human misery.
This is why we require a revolution.
And a violent revolution would fail — and would be misdirected, anyway, since the problem (at root) is not government but culture and ideology.
This culture and ideology problem needs to be directly addressed in any viable theory and praxis of politics.
I’ve identified four basic kinds of prefigurative direct action political praxis.:
1. Obstructive
2. Destructive
3. Constructive
4. Instructive
These four categories are described here: Can a leopard change its spots? - by James R. Martin (substack.com)
To amplify our existing movements such that it becomes politically effective would require an immense amount of work on category 4: Instructive direct action. The R-Word, in Substack and in its other emerging venues is meant primarily to help catalyze a process of amplification of Constructive and Instructive direct action as political praxes.
What I mean here is that our politics has long been constrained to Normal Politics, in which we must continually meet and confront our enemy in the form of the state, which always has interests other than ours. It has only business interests — as it is business itself. It is all about business — about the marketplace, buying and selling, “development” as GDP / GWP — money and power. It has always (essentially) sided with money and power (concentrated, centripetal power). Its measures of “success” and “progress” are not our measures. It doesn’t care about us. It’s a machine, after all. It’s discourse doesn’t include communal values. It excludes these from its discourse. It shapes our imaginations in order to keep us in step with its wishes, its desires, its wants.
We cannot possibly alter the course we are on without a new way of speaking, thinking, imagining…. What we must re-think, re-imagine, re-invent… is politics. And democracy.
So, yeah. The revolution I hope for may seem impossible now. But we can make it possible by coming together in dialogue, conversation, … by talking (differently) together. And when we talk differently together we see that there is this vast, wide open space that Business and its State cannot control, cannot oppress, cannot use as a prison for us. We are already free!
"Direct action is a matter of acting as if you were already free."
-- David Graeber
Only a step at a time, a little by little, will this freedom come to mind and heart. But I’m here for you. For you I would do most anything. You are as family to me. We are kindred. And this kindredness is revolutionary. For love is the revolution. The revolution is love.