Monday, Sept. 29, 2003 - 1:43 a.m.

Lenin

I just got back from a potluck dinner hosted by some people I barely know. You never know what you’ll get when you show up at a party full of people you never met before, so I was ready to encounter the unknown. It turned out that everyone there (or at least everyone I talked to) had been a student at ProtoTista and was an intellectual of some sort or another, and conversant in complexity theory.

The most interesting person I met was a university professor who had immigrated from Russia a decade ago. His English was excellent, and his Russian accent was thick. I shall dub him “Lenin” for the purposes of this diary, because he looks just like V. I. Lenin, except with messy hair.

I began chatting with him and some other people on the back deck. I mentioned I was an anarcho-pacifist. Lenin asked if I knew of others. I said Tolstoy. He brought up Kropotkin, Bakunin, and Proudon. “Shee-it,” I thought, “Lenin really knows his anarchists.” He asked me how my nonviolent anarchism compares to the violent anarchism of Ward Churchill. Lenin brought up former anarchist Noam Chomsky’s idea that we must support big government because it is the only force strong enough to stand up to the big corporations. I introduced my countervailing idea that corporations exist because they are chartered by governments and depend on governments for corporate welfare, favorable regulations, and police protection, etc., so if you take away the State, the corporations will collapse as well, unless, of course, if the corporations form their own police/militaries, in which case they have become de facto states, so it would be consistent to oppose those states too. Then I launched into an explanation of my whole philosophy, which I intend to expound upon in my forthcoming book, FunSmart 1.0, an integration of anarchism with Nonviolent Communication, complexity science, and the basic ideas of Buddhism. The host of the party deftly whipped out a copy of the Nonviolent Communication book, so we could conveniently have something to point at as we talked. I explained how Marshall Rosenberg’s ideas were the most profound embodiment of anarchism I had encountered. I talked about how he contrasts the way our dominator-model culture operates with the alternative he posits—a culture in which no one sacrifices themselves for others, and no one makes demands that others sacrifice themselves. I said how all motivations, even motivations for so-called “selfless” acts are motivations arising from within, and hence ultimately selfish, but how since all people possess an innate desire (at least somewhere deep inside) to live in harmony with others, be a part of some kind of community, and contribute to the well-being of others, the full expression of their holistic selfishness will feature pro-social acts of very enlightened self-interest. I explained my approach to abolishing the State and other authoritarian institutions: reminding the people participating in them that at every moment they are making choices. They are free to obey orders, or do something else. People in positions of authority might be able to hurt you, but they can never make you do anything. Someone asked what about the people who actively choose to do bad things like join the military, because they like the feeling of power, and the prestige, and the challenge, respect, and pay. I said that while that strategy might meet several of the soldier’s needs, it’s certainly not meeting all of them. I demonstrated how if I was speaking with such a soldier, I might first empathize with them about how well their career was meeting those needs. Then I might talk about my own worries about the soldier being hurt, hurting other people, and serving a system I think oppresses and exploits people. I said how Nonviolent Communication is inherently relativistic and amoral, so I can’t presume I’m right and the other person is wrong. Each person is pursuing the best strategies they know of, but more effective strategies might be possible.

I started to feel pretty smug. Here I was being decently articulate, and adroitly countering every objection raised. I started to think I was sitting on a veritable powder keg of paradigm shift. I’ve really got to get these ideas out there, I thought. This approach is profound, internally consistent, practical and immediately helpful, and so much more effective than the piecemeal strategies for change which are so prevalent today. Maybe the time for false modesty is over. Anarchy Man and I know how to save the world, and we need to tell the people.

Later on, in another group conversation, Lenin was going off against capitalism. He was talking about the proletariat are virtually the slaves of the owning class, and how the capitalist system only exists to serve the few at the top. As I listened, I was thinking that sure, capitalism is bad and all that, but between his goatee and his accent and his forceful anticapitalist rhetoric, I was filled with fear and loathing as I imagined the fields of corpses brought about by his Bolshevik namesake.

He said how we need a government to restrain the excesses of free enterprise and protect the interests of the workers. “I would gladly give my life to bring about the kind of world you described,” said Lenin emotionally to me, “but anarchism can never work.” He went on to explain how the ideal society would strike a pleasant balance between the extreme of totalitarianism, with its deplorable oppression but desirable order and the extreme of anarchy with its admirable freedom but deplorable chaos.

I grew angry. “So you’re saying you’d like a kinder and gentler State that kills fewer people and oppresses people less than it does today?” I asked accusatorily.

Lenin said that was exactly what he wanted.

“Even though you know about how systems spontaneously self-organize?” I queried.

“Yes,” said Lenin confidently. “The State is the result of that self-organization. Your anarchism would just be a return to tribalism, and those tribes would quickly get swallowed up by the strongest conqueror.”

I was furious. Lenin was trying to legitimize a homicidal institution, and was claiming that authoritarian hierarchy is the only means to order. Lenin’s American friend jumped in, ranting about how Eugene’s volunteer-run organic food buying co-op (which I’ll call The Inconvenience Store) sucks in comparison to the slightly nicer organic grocery store he shops at because the latter is commanded by a hierarchy and motivated by profit. He said that lots of people willingly supported Communism and fascism because it worked for them; they got the orderliness they wanted in life and the trains ran on time.

I was at a loss for words. Should I bring up the anarchist revolution during the Spanish Civil War as proof that anarchism can work? Well, that example is actually plagued with its own crypto-statism, so I don’t really want to use it. Should I expound on the virtues of local self-sufficiency as a means to autonomy from both the State and the capitalists? Should I defend the notion of returning to primitive tribes, since as more people embrace anarchism and try to bring anarchy into their daily lives, I bet they’d be likely to choose to live in human-scaled community groupings? Should I argue that a strong culture of individual autonomy and nonviolent resistance, like in the novel The Fifth Sacred Thing, is the best way to prevent getting assimilated by would-be conquerors? Should I say that there’s more important things in life than trains running on time? That with the profound satisfaction you’ll feel living in a partnership-model culture, you won’t notice a little disorder and late trains? Or no trains at all, if people decide they don’t want trains any more?

Or do I suck? Do I need better arguments, and better examples to prove my points?

Or should I try to hear the feelings and needs behind what Lenin and his American friend were saying?

That was an epiphany. Here I was caught up in the game of Who’s Right?. I was so caught up in trying to convince them I was right, I didn’t notice that they were providing me with a wonderful gift. That gift was telling me what their unmet needs were. They were feeling frustrated and hopeless because they were needing order, effectiveness, and safety from conquerors. In the best way they knew how, they were asking me for reassurance. Here they were telling me what I could say to better persuade them and others, and I had foolishly resented them for it. In the Maoist tradition of “from the people, to the people”, they were educating me in how to make more convincing propaganda. Now all I need to do is come up with some compelling arguments for how an anarchist way of life would be more orderly, effective, and safe from conquerors than what we have now. I believe I can.

But what if I can’t? Well, that’s fine too. I really want to give up playing Who’s Right? and instead start playing How Can We Make Life Even More Wonderful?. Hell, maybe anarchism won’t “work”. I can’t imagine for the life of me how a violent State is the best way to make life more wonderful, but I can’t claim to know everything or be infallible. Most importantly, I can’t pretend to have answers to questions when I don’t.

And holy shit, Lenin said that he was willing to die to bring about an anarchist utopia! I didn’t even ask him to. He wants it that bad, and I almost missed that important bit of information because I was on the defensive. Lenin could be the most ardent exponent of anarchism ever in history, if only I can reassure him that it will work to meet all his needs.

newest archive guestbook email rings profile Diaryland