Socially-acceptable forms of social change entail:
1) Refusing to question structures of power, leaving them exactly as they are
2) Asking those with power within those structures to behave a certain way.
3) When that fails, then adhering to the (rigged) rules of the game, to try to acquire official power oneself, which is costly, time-consuming, and likely to fail.
That's it. And given the fascism of the 2020s, those forms of social change will fail.
Aaron
in reply to Aaron • • •Aaron
in reply to Aaron • • •My critique of democratic socialism) and how I see my democratic socialist friends trying to engage with social change) is this:
There is an inherent belief that the power of the people is an effective force for change *only because* the people can affect or take over the state apparatus.
Thus, in this theory-in-action there is not a belief in the power of the people as an ends in itself. The power of the people is a means to the real source of power, which is state power.
Aaron
in reply to Aaron • • •But what happens when the best-funded and most violent (violence is a form of power) levels of the state--the federal level--works to destroy that the mechanisms by which others can take over the state?
That's where state-centered theories of power and social change fall apart.
I think a lot of people feel helpless right now because they understand, even if they haven't articulated it, that these theories are kaput.
We need to be building and leveraging other forms of power.
Aaron
in reply to Aaron • • •One set of antidotes to this powerlessness, this broken theory of social change, would be anarchist lenses on power.
The power of the people is inherent. The were many millenia when the people maintained societies without nation states.
The state is a necessarily-problematic power dynamic; it creates and enacts socially-accepted violence against minority populations and those who stand in the way of the state's conception of progress.
The nation state is not essential to human civilization.
Aaron
in reply to Aaron • • •The nation state as an entity and the nation state system itself is an iteration of empires and the colonial system, respectively.
The underpinning philosophies and theories of value that enabled slavery, colonial theft, genocide, and land theft were all left intact when we became nation states. The ruling class just patched it up with things like human rights, workers rights, protections for migrants, and other things that have clearly fallen by the wayside since.
Aaron
in reply to Aaron • • •So there are two ways forward:
Colonialism 3.0, where we try to patch the whole thing together yet again.
Or we could actually build a new system which emerges from the wreckage of the old, which pulls people and resources in, electively, as nation states fail further.
This, however, would require imagination and a historical and anthropological lens on how humans could organize themselves, and how they have organized themselves.
Aaron
in reply to Aaron • • •