m of care – oct 26 23
THE STATE WE’RE IN (PART 1): WHAT IS THE STATE? – [https://museum.care/events/the-state-we-re-in-part-1-what-is-the-state/]:
Across the world people often try to use the powers they have been granted by the state to bring about social change. And sometimes they strive to go beyond the state to create autonomous enclaves. And sometimes they strive to go beyond the state to create autonomous enclaves. In this session facilitated by Corinna Lotz, Paul Feldman will discuss what is the contemporary state. A brief summary of some of David Graeber’s writings on the state will be given by one of Museum of Care’s members.
For the discussion, find 1\ here and here some excerpts about the state & democracy from the writing of David Graeber, Paul Feldman, and Bob Jessop and an introduction below:
16 min video – So what is the state? from paul feldman’s course: rethinking our future – unmasking the state (2022) – [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNOOBXPJI4]
In collaboration with [Real Democracy Movement]
[notes/quotes from these excerpts and video at bottom of page.. notes/quotes from p2: m of care – nov 23 23]
_________
notes quotes from meeting:
paul feldman: 3 aspects of this state questions: 1\ what do i mean 2\ interdependence of state and c 3\ significance of state question to activists
p: 1\ what is the state: vary from country to country.. i’m dealing w form in major capitalist countries.. rep democracies.. bob jessop summary: ‘define/enforce collectively binding decisions in name of common interest of an imagined political community id’d w that terrority’.. has monopoly on use of violence.. has power to rule over us.. socially accepted/embedded in society
p: state as a whole has life of it’s own.. govt’s come and go and state assists as it evolves over time.. we might not recognize the state.. but it recognizes us.. elections one way of reinforcing this acceptance..
p: graham gill: state has essence in puruit of aims.. via sovereignty, B structure and monopoly of coercion’
p: 2\ how state and c relate to each other and are interdependent.. building of transport/energy even if privately financed.. ie: during 2008 crash.. bailed out some banks.. et al.. all goes toward perpetuating ie: existing class relations.. act as a permanence that there is no alt.. state reproduces the relations of c.. very important function.. econ activity produces state revenues.. rely on econ.. so c and state mutual
p: 3\ significance of state question for activists.. some see as benefit.. others.. like me.. see it as a barrier.. actions limited/constrained by that social (econ) relationship..
p: if aspire to non hierarchical society.. rep democracy is past its used-by-state.. a state w/o a state is possible.. what we aim for.. ie: dissolve present state as power that suppresses society
p: all forms of social power lead to class domination are fragile, unstable, provisional, temp.. continuing struggles needed to secure class domination.. overcome resistance..
q&a: look forward to what mark has to say about david’s thought on non state society
christian: wondering how much ‘state’ ness is relevant anymore.. maybe as a local mech for keeping up class structure.. power moved to corp level and corp’s are international
p: has to be a transition.. can’t go toward another state.. have to be working toward dissolving.. as a process.. so would only be a beginning..
until now..
p: depending on state for resources.. can’t set own objectives.. constantly struggling for money.. this is a conflict people are enduring everyday in diff forms.. daily conflicts a part of this whole system where don’t have control or access to power..
p: i think state is relevant (to christian).. orgs/corps finance by states.. state has become more of a facil of globalization.. w/o state no dereg of finance.. state enablized financialization process to take place.. so.. state is there.. important for neolib econ to flourish..
bob: if think of state as structure of dm.. it’s the form and make up of elements we need to change.. excludes us of that dm structure.. need ie: citizens assemblies.. if proper democracy rule by people.. decisions at local level either everyone or a sortition system.. where reps rep area.. and regularly replaced.. not a perfect system.. but would be better than elite group making decisions on behalf of rest of us.. i sit on trade justice scotland coalition..
nah.. need to let go of dm
mark fuller: state via docs michael suggested as reading beforehand.. ie: fragments one of first/second books graeber wrote.. anarchist/social theory as an academic discipline.. ‘what anarchism needs is a low theory’ so proposal for anarchist theory 1\ another world is possible 2\ have to reject any trace of van gardes.. need to be breaking walls in time/space.. our culture vs other cultures.. modern/primitive.. et al.. anthro would want to explore the state
m: in debt.. 2011.. interdisciplinary anal.. modern state brings money into being.. taxing to maintain army
m: fragments.. many entities used to seeing as states are not.. then what are they.. and what does that imply about political possibilities.. ? elim of borders et al? not just consensus
paul in chat: Unmasking the State by Paul Feldman can be found at realdemocracymovement.org and going to publications
m: doe ch 10 – book in itself.. after ie’s of early states.. have 3 form of dom .. control of knowledge.. control of violence.. and (?).. turns out.. state not a constant of history at all.. modern states simply one way where 3 principles of domination come together.. but not inevitable.. rethink very idea of politics itself. ways of dismantling the mythologies we’ve been fed.. d&d show the spaces in between.. present world is not inevitable.. dg: don’t always know what we’re thinking or where we’ll go.. keeps doors of imagination open..
q&a after mark:
penny: tools from d&d ie: inevitability et al.. helpful but not definitive.. because have to deal w state we’re in
until now.. ie: need means (nonjudgmental expo labeling) to undo hierarchical listening as global detox so we can org around legit needs
michael r: we have to be careful talking about state naturalizing itself.. one thing graeber good at.. giving places where people didn’t imagine the state.. because not really there.. pretends to be what it is.. also large dm forms not part of state.. ignored dual power.. doesn’t matter what politicians you get.. because state is a structure that is there all the time.. on building new structure w/in the old.. i would also pitch the readings of this.. when we do this again.. more readings on democracy.. helpful in how we step past the state
christian: mixed emotions about that.. about dismantling mythologies.. one ie of mythologies coming apart in lifetime.. was soviet union.. might be seeing something like this in us.. where american dream is basically dead.. doesn’t seem to be controversial for most today.. last point.. there is no left anymore.. people org’d and activists.. and i respect them because most do nothing.. but nothing beyond the resurgence of nationalism ..
rahila: to christian.. ie: revolution in ne syria.. rojava.. attempting to be grassroots/stateless democracy.. do need admin functions of state.. ie: how to make sure resources distributed.. need a body to coord all of that.. but it’s a question of where the power lies.. people org-ing at grassroots level feel they can hole the state accountable.. however.. rojava at war and need centralization for that.. but attempt was state to org but power of masses over that
paul: important discussion.. because there is this crisis of state.. esp in us.. breakdown of political process.. important to see in historical context.. states do come and go.. not permanent.. new visions/prospects.. all now very possible.. as david said.. it’s the breakdown of the old we’re living thru now.. now have to create the new..
michael in chat: One of the things that David Graeber And David Wengrow do is to show circumstances where people’s political experience is expanded because they are put in one system and then another. If we only experience state hierarchical and majoritarian democracy it becomes hard to think other possibilities. When people experience multiple systems it becomes obvious that there are alternatives
michael: next event about democracy.. speaker going to talk about what happened in chile.. didn’t work so will talk about what happened.. readings.. of david on democracy.. we’ll ask.. what are alts.. what can we build..
mark: dg did think rojava was a revolution that occurred.. i think it’s short term to think nothing happening.. i think there’s hope
fiona: but rojava quite vulnerable.. because turkey throwing everything at it now
stas in chat:
ir’s rather loud at my place right now but i wanted to expand on the topic of the state as “only an overarching structure”
isn’t that similar to Chavin in the “Dawn of everything”. ITs bureaucractic mode of state.
?sitio in chat: Turkey has the permission of the Western countries to crush teh Rojava revolution
michael in chat: https://realdemocracymovement.org
corinna: question of democracy and territorialism is huge today.. state is rearing its ugly head as we speak
_________
_________
________
_________
_________
__________
notes/quotes from excerpts
1\ 123 pg pdf [https://museum.care/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Further-reading-Graeber-on-StateDemocracy.pdf]:
For a discussion of ‘State’
Excerpt: pp.62-71 ‘Tenets of a Non-Existent Science’
Graeber, David (2004) Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology Chicago:
Prickly Paradigm Press
fragments of an anarchist anthropology:
62
most of little utopias in madagascar.. eventually gobbled up.. which leads to question of *how to neutralize the state apparatus itself.. in absence of a politics of direct confrontation..
661 [63]
what cannot be destroyed can be diverted, frozen, transformed, and gradually deprived of its substance.. which in case of states.. is ultimately their capacity to inspire terror.. *what would this mean under contemp conditions.. more likely it will happen in ways we cannot even *anticipate
**rather.. we can’t anticipate.. just have to trust us.. (if legit free)
the merina rice farmers described in the last section understand what many would be revolutionaries do not: that there are time when the stupidest thing one could possibly do is raise a redo black flag and issue defiant declarations.
[64]
sometimes the sensible thing is just to pretend nothing has changed, allow official state reps to keep their dignity, even show up at their offices and fill out a form now and then, but otherwise, ignore them
yeah.. for sure.. (that was our pilot year stage) but.. we’ll never get a global change that way.. because it has to include everyone.. even the inspectors of inspectors et al
huge.. today can hasten this (62-64) aka; global leap.. which need for sync ness
[65]
tenets of a non existent science
areas of theory an anarchist anthropology might wish to explore
1\ a theory of the state – dual character.. 1\ institutionalized raiding/extortion and 2\ utopian projects.. first reflects way states are actually experienced.. second .. how they appear in written record.. for most part.. states were ideas.. ways of imagining social order.. models of control.. this gave utopianism a bad name (the word ‘utopia’ first calls to mind image of an ideal city.. w perfect geometry.. harkens back to royal military camp: a geometrical space which is entirely the emanation of a single/individual will.. a fantasy of total control)
graeber violence/quantification law .. of math and men et al
why no architects to make nika’s space (rowley way).. just trust letting go of what is already .. iwan baan ness
@Jackpwilliamson The Rowley Way became a handbook, if I may say so, of how people could live together. Meanwhile, we are surrounded by the history of capitalism from bourgeois rich houses to miserable housing for the poor.
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/nikadubrovsky/status/1480863335470059523
693 [67]
on having kings/nobles.. w/o having state.. one should think this might be of interest to all those political philosophers who spill so much ink arguing about .. theories of ‘sovereignty’.. sovereign’s person a power replaced by a fictive person called ‘the people” allowing the bureaucracy to take over almost entirely..
and of course the evolutionist framework itself ensures that such structures are seen as something which immediately precedes the emergence of the state, not an alt form.. or even something state can turn into.. to clarify all this would be a major historical project
on evolution ensuring linearity.. opposite of dawn of everything (book) ness
704 [68]
2\ a theory of political entities that are not states –
question becomes how do we theorize a citizenship outside the state
citizen ness is state ness.. both sv embed
[69]
in fact there is no consensus among historians that either were states at all
ha.. no consensus.. perhaps where truth/alive ness is
chiefdoms? just don’t have intellectual tools to talk about such things..
need: idiosyncratic jargon free dom ness
[70]
3\ yet another theory of capitalism –
[71]
at very least need a proper theory of history of wage labor.. after all, it is in performing wage labor, not in buying and selling, that most humans now waste away most of their waking hours and it is that which makes them miserable
bullshit jobs – dg et al
733 [71]
earliest wage labor contracts we have on record appear to be really about the rental of slaves.. ..we could easily.. argue that modern capitalism is really just a newer version of slavery.. selling/renting us/selves out
743 [71]
4\ power/ignorance, or power/stupidity – academics love foucault’s argument that id’s knowledge/power and insists that brute force is no longer a major factor in social control.. they love it because it flatters them: the perfect formula for people who like to think of selves as political radicals even though all they do is write essays likely to be read by a few dozen.. in an institutional environ.. of course if any of these academics were to walking to their uni library to consult some volume of foucault w/o having remembered to bring a valid id.. they would discover that brute force is really not so far away as they like to imagine..
Excerpt: pp.46-52 ‘State and Credit Theories of Money’
Graeber, David (2011) Debt: The First Five Thousand Years London,
Brooklyn: Melville House
Excerpt: pp.359-370 ‘Why the State has no Origin’
Graeber, David and David Wengrow (2021) The Dawn of Everything UK:
Penguin Random House
10 – why the state has no origin – the humble beginnings of sovereignty, bureaucracy and politics
longest ch.. almost 100 pgs
the quest for the ‘origins of the state’ is almost as long standing and hotly contested a s the pursuit of the ‘origins of social ineq’
on this (rudolf von ihering’s – first attempt) defn.. a govt is a ‘state’ if it lays claim to a certain stretch of land and insist that, w/in its borders, it is the only institution whose agents can kill people, beat them up, cut off parts of body or lock them in cages; or as von ihering emphasized, that can decide who else has the right to do so on its behalf..
360
marxist offered one (defn): states make their first appearance in history to protect the power of an emerging ruling class.. officially to protect property rights.. to preserve their advantage.. but.. how to define exploitation..
361
(another defn).. basically all it says is that since states are complicated, any complicated social arrangement must therefore be a state..
actually almost all these ‘classic ‘ theoretical formulations of last century started off from exactly this assumptions: that any large and complex society necessarily required a state.. the real bone of contention was why?
among small ‘heroic’ societies of surrounding foothill, which were averse to very principle of admin and as a result.. don’t seem to quality as ‘states’ either
362
are there not more interesting/important questions we could be asking?
yeah.. what are conditions for 8b legit free people (ie: short findings restate)
in which we lay out a theory concerning the three elementary forms of domination, and begin to explore its implications for human history
3 freedoms: 1\ to move 2\ to disobey 3\ to reorg
3 dominations: 1\ control of violence 2\ control of info (B) 3\ individual charisma (democracy) (365)
363
property: legal right to keep anyone else off it.. landed property is not actual soil et al.. it is a legal understanding.. maintained by subtle mis of morality and threat of violence.. state’s monopoly of violence w/in a territory
366
3 principles of domination become basis for institutions seen as foundational to modern state
on B and secrecy and surveillance
367
just as access to violence, info and charisma defines the very possibilities of social domination, so the modern state is defined
structural violence et al
370
on aztecs, in ca and maya (and then also spaniards)
379
in which we offer a digression on ‘the shape of time’ and specifically how metaphors of growth and decay intro unnoticed political biases into our view of history
381
w hindsight, it’s easy to se just how much these chronological schemes reflect their authors’ political concerns
gray research law.. sinclair perpetuation law.. et al
383
on politics as sport: the olmec case
385
in some parts of the americas, competitive sports served as a sub for war
386
chavin de huantar – an ’empire’ built on images?
392
on sovereignty w/o ‘the state’
399
how caring labour, ritual killing and ‘tiny bubbles’ all came together in the origins of ancient egypt
402
when sovereignty first expands to become the general organizing principle of a society, it is by turning violence into kinship.. or to put another way.. a ritual designed to produce kinship becomes a method of producing kingship
steiner care to oppression law
408
perhaps this is what a state actually is: a combo of exception violence and the creation of a complex social machine, all ostensibly devoted to acts of care and devotion.. paradox.. caring labour is very opposite of mechanical labour.. it is about recognizing… what’s needed to provide what they (people) *require to flourish..
*we have no idea .. what we need is to get out of sea world in order to get back/to legit needs
caring labor et al..
409
in which we reflect on the differences between what are usually called ‘early states’ from china to mesoamerica
410
so do early states have any common features: all deployed spectacular violence; all depended on patriarchal org of household; stood on division into classes..
413
more on 3 forms of domination – all present to diff degrees.. just that 2 crystallized into institutional force
414
in which we reconsider the egyptian case in light of our 3 elementary principles of domination, and also revisit the problem of ‘dark ages’
416
when talking absence of charisma.. certainly not speaking about an absence of individual personalities.. ability of monarchy to mobilize sentiments of caring nature and abstract terror at same time.. in monarchy .. children are crucial because of lineage
417
whenever state politics broke down.. heroic politics returned.. ‘i am the hero w/o equal’
418
in which we go in search of the real origins of B and find them on wha appears to be a surprisingly small scale
419
on dunbar ness large societies need ‘chiefs to direct and police to ensure rules kept.. this not being true.. ie: turns out farmers are perfectly capable of coordinating very complicated systems..
420
archaeo suggests first systems of specialized admin control actually emerged .. in very small communities
423
of course danger of such accounting procedures is that they can be turned into other purposes
426
over course of book.. 3 freedoms.. also note word free derives from germanic ‘friend’ since unlike free people, slaves cannot have friends because they cannot make commitments or promises.. the freedom to make promises is about the most basic and minimal element of our 3rd freedom..
oh my.. promise and commitment as good?
427
how can *freedom to make promises/commitments and thus build relationships .. be turned into its very opposite, ie: slavery.. as money is to promises.. B is to care..
i don’t see *promises/commitments building relationships (outside of sea world)
in which armed w new knowledge, we rethink some basic premises of social evolution
428
our present situation regularly leads people to make ‘scientific’ assumption about how we go here (planet covered by states) that have almost nothing to do w the *actual data
not to mention.. even if we did have even *actual data.. none of it would be legit for free people.. because all of it to date has been on whales in sea world
431
philip abrams ‘the state is not the reality which stands behind the mask of political practice. it is itself the mask which prevents our seeing political practice as it is’
which.. is.. all in sea world.. so hari rat park law et al
if anything is clear by now it’s this.. where we once assume ‘civilization’ and ‘state’ to be conjoined .. that came down to us as historical pkg.. what history now demos is that these terms actually refer to complex amalgams of elements which have entirely diff origins and which are currently in the process of drifting apart.. seen this way, to rethink the basic premises o social evolution is to rethink the very idea of politics itself
again.. we just needs to get out of sea world.. we’re not us.. until we’re out.. so all speculation/anal/history is non legit for free people and for an alt way for legit free people to live
432
coda(concluding passage): on civilization, empty walls and histories still to be written
latin civilis.. refers to qualities of political wisdom and mutual aid that permit societies to org selves. thru *voluntary coalition.. if mutual aid, social coop, civic activism, hospitality or **simply caring for others are the kind of things that really go to make civs.. then true history of civ is only just starting to be written
*aka: voluntary compliance.. so many red flags.. ie: *not caring.. more like structurally violent help\ing ness (steiner care to oppression law et al).. jensen civilization law.. et al
433
most important findings of modern archaes are these vibrant and far flung networks of kinship and commerce.. as we’ve been showing.. moral communities.. w/o permanent kings, Bs or standing armies they fostered the growth of mathematical and calendrical knowledge..
oi.. sounds like trying to get school credit for an outside of school project.. of math and men et al.. we need to let go of any form of m\a\p.. which includes anyone gazing back at our past actions as whales in sea world for findings
a moment’s reflection shows that women, their work/concerns/innovations are at the core of this more accurate understanding of civilization
again.. makes no diff if all still in sea world.. ie: women are just doing the same thing in diff form.. (still leading, priesting, counciling et al – 438) .. all forms of people telling other people what to do.. doesn’t matter if it’s male or female.. we need to let go
434
women and their concerns reamined at the core of things
not deep enough.. 8b legit free people have to be at the core .. new everyday.. we can get there.. via non hierarchical listening
women regularly depicted at a lager scale than men, a sign of political superiority in the visual traditions ..
oi.. same song.. perpetuating myth of tragedy and lord
439
3 principles in which power can expand: sovereignty (violence), admin (B), and competitive politics (democracy)
more than almost any other form of human activity, painting on walls is something people in virtually any cultural setting seem inclined to do
440
as evidence accumulates.. for large settlement and impressive structure in perviously unsuspected locations.. we’d be wise to *resist projecting some image of the modern nation state on to their bare surface, and **consider what other kinds of social possibilities.. ***they might attest to
rather *let go of all data to date.. (realize it’s from whales in sea world).. and **consider all the possibilities ***8b people hear in their soul .. everyday
need: means to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature
For a discussion on ‘Democracy’
Excerpt: pp.82-95 ‘Democracy’
Graeber, David (2014) Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology Chicago:
Prickly Paradigm Pres
fragments of an anarchist anthropology:
82-92
[82]
this of course brings up the ‘who will do the dirty jobs’ question.. one which always get thrown at anarchists or other utopians.. peter kropotkin long ago pointed out the fallacy of the argument.. there’s no particular reason dirty jobs have to exist.. if one divided up the unpleasant tasks equally, that would mean all the worlds’ top scientists and engineers would have to do them too; one could expect the creation of self-cleaning kitchens and coal-mining robots almost immediately..
rather.. wouldn’t create ie: robots to clean.. would be living in ways sans waste.. so dirty jobs et al irrelevant
from david is funny:
2:06 – kropotkin: only reason don’t have techs (to do dirty jobs) is that rich people don’t really need them
all of this is something of an aside though because what i really want to do in this final section is focus on:
3\ democracy
(on ie’s of ‘this is what democracy looks like’ – ‘anarchist-inspired organizing’ – during protests et al).. first cycle of the new global uprising – what the press still insists on referring to, increasingly ridiculously, as ‘the anti globalization movement’..
[83]
beginning w zapatistas’ rejection of idea of seizing power and their attempt instead to create a model of democratic self org.. rejecting very idea that one could find a solution by replacing one set of politicians w another.. the slogan of the argentine movement was from the start, que se vayan todas – get rid of the lot of them
yeah to ie: graeber model law et al..
moten abolition law – can’t model same song and get something diff..
moxie on democracy – yay
858 [83]
instead of a new govt they created a vast network of alt institutions.. starting w popular assemblies to govern each urban neighborhood.. hundreds of occupied worker managed factories.. a complex system of ‘barter’ and newfangled alt currency system to keep them in operation.. in short, an endless variation on the theme of direct democracy
i think there’s so much wrong with all that.. so much poison in all that democracy ness.. i think in holding onto all that ie: managed factories, barter, currency, et al has kept us from legit change..
saying you’re not just replacing politicians is spot on.. but goes for ideas as well.. ie: why barter/currency.. we need to let go of any form of measuring/accounting.. not just replace them with nicer (more self reliant) sounding ideologies/practices
all this happened completely below the radar screen of the corp media, which also *missed the point of the great mobilizations.. the org of these actions was meant to be a living illustration of what a truly democratic world might be like, from the festive puppets to the careful org of affinity groups and spokecouncils.. all operating w/o a leadership structure.. always based on principle of consensus-based direct democracy.. **it was the kind of org which most people would have, had they simply heard it proposed, written off as a pipe dream..
*missed pt.. which was what any form of democratic admin would be (is) like.. which to me is missing the point of legit free people..
**oi.. yeah in sea world.. where we just offer finite sets of spinach or rock ness.. oi oi oi..
add pages.. redo deck.. this is false.. via decade long deep dive.. like you saying human history is false (in doe).. via decade long prolonged convo
yeah.. i see consensus et al as just replacing rep ness et al.. same song ness
and.. to the careful org of affinity groups.. we can do so much better.. ie: imagine if we just focused on listening to the itch in 8b souls.. first thing.. everyday.. and used that data to connect/coord us..
[84]
but *it worked and so effectively the police depts of city after city were completely flummoxed w how to deal w them.. of course, this also had something to do w unprecedented tactics (100s of activist in fairy suits tickling police w feather dusters, or padded so well .. impervious to police batons).. which completely confused traditional categories of violence and nonviolence
so great.. but that’s not *it working (toward global change we all crave)
giant puppet ness
868 [84]
when protesters in seattle changed ‘this is what democracy looks like’.. they meant to be taken literally.. confronted in a way which demo’d why the kind of social relations on which it is based were unnecessary..
yeah.. not when they’re still using some of them.. again not knocking the great protests/activism.. just saying.. not diff enough.. ie: we need to now look like democracy.. we need completely diff social relations
this is why all the condescending remarks about the movement being dominated by a bunch of dumb kids w no coherent ideology completely missed the mark. the diversity was a function of the decentralized form of org.. and this org was the movement’s ideology
again.. great.. but not decentralized/diff/diverse enough
org we need.. 2 convers as infra.. org around legit needs
878 [84]
the key term in the new movement is ‘process’ by which is meant, decision making process
oi oi oi.. decision making is unmooring us law et al.. and why it’s never been deep enough to get to root of problem
that key term is the key part we need to let go of.. only way we’ll have legit and ongoing diff/diverse/decentralized ‘social relations’
ie: curiosity over decision making.. that finite set of choices in decision making.. is killing us .. daily curiosity.. could cure us.. help us get back to the dance
[85]
(then goes into ‘good consensus process’) one should not even try to convert others to one’s overall pov.. the point of consensus process is to allow a group to decide on a common course of action
maybe we let go of ‘common courses of action’.. maybe those aren’t natural..
public consensus always oppresses someone(s)
instead of voting proposal up and down, then, proposals are worked and reworked, scotched or reinvented, until one ends up w something *everyone can live with..
*not gonna happen.. again.. pcaos.. huge.. we need to let go of any form of democratic admin.. any form of m\a\p.. that insight from decade of deep dive..
point is.. this is diff dind of direct democracy.. but still sucks energy .. as noted in mid page.. oi oi oi ..
? why.. why can’t we all live w diff things? (today we can actually facil/welcome/dance-with that chaos)
and again – public consensus always oppresses someone(s) and is huge energy suck.. as noted mid page ie:
when it comes to the final state, actually ‘finding consensus’ there are two levels of possible objection: one can ‘stand aside’ which is to say ‘i don’t like this and won’t participate but wouldn’t stop anyone else from doing it’ or ‘block’ which has the effect of a veto.. one can only block if one feels a proposal is in violation of the fundamental principle or reason for being of a group
why waste our time on all that?.. not to mention that it changes us.. so that we’re not us
brown belonging law: the opposite of belonging.. is fitting in.. true belonging doesn’t require you to change who you are.. it requires you to be who you are.. and that’s vulnerable.. –Brené Brown
one might say that the function which in the us constitution is relegated to the courts, of striking down legislative decisions that violate constitution principles
yeah.. how’s that working for us
is here relegated to anyone with the courage to actually stand up against the combined will of the group
so.. voice is only heard if stronger than the will of the group.. seat at the table ness is not legit voice et al.. and maté trump law will ongoingly keep legit us from that
888 [85]
one could go on at length about the elab and surprisingly sophisticated methods that have been developed to ensure *all this works: modified consensus for large groups; consensus working so that don’t bring before large group unless have to as means of ensuring gender equity ([86] – in n america consensus process emerged more than anything thru feminist movement)
i guess the question is *all what.. because it hasn’t (and won’t) work toward a more antifragile, healthy, thriving world.. the ecosystem we keep longing for.. what the world needs most is the energy of 8b alive people
consensus ness won’t wake people up to that energy
898 [86]
the main diff was that the dan process was so much more formalized and explicit.. it had to be.. since everyone in dan was just figuring out how to make decisions this way.. and *everything had to be spelled out.. whereas in madagascar.. everyone had been doing this since they learned to speak..
yeah.. whales ness goes all the way back.. we need to quit thinking things are natural if even go way back and seem more peaceable et al.. we have no idea what legit free human being ness is like.. and we keep missing it
*this too is why takes a lot of work ness comes to be.. not natural.. the lot a work is a huge red flag we’re doing it/life wrong
in fact, as anthropologists are aware, just about every known human community which has to come to group decision has employed some variation of what i’m calling ‘consensus process‘ every one, that is which is not in some way or another drawing on the tradition of ancient greece. majoritarian democracy, in the formal, roberts rules of order type sense rarely emerges of is own accord.. it’s curious that almost no one, anthropologists included, ever seems to ask oneself why this should be
let’s ask too.. why we need to have group decisions.. if we re org’d our social relations.. that would become irrelevant ie: org around legit needs (which we’ve not yet done in human history.. so we have no idea)
go one deeper (beyond beyond roberts rule)
901 [87]
an hypothesis: majoritarian democracy was, in its origins, essentially a military institution
what wasn’t?
that would be ridiculous.. clearly must have been egal societies w some kind of procedure for *coming to decisions for matters of collective importance.. (thinking primitives didn’t find way for all voices in collective dm) .. perhaps what’s ridiculous is assumign a need for collective dem.. ie: ue
perhaps rather.. *what’s ridiculous is assuming a need for collective dm.. ie: undisturbed ecosystem et al
912 [88]
the arguments never make sense. but they don’t really have to because we are not really dealing w arguments at all here, so much as w the brush of a hand.. the real reason for the unwillingness of most scholars to see a sulawezi or tallensi village council as ‘democratic’.. (well, aside form simple racism, the reluctance to admit anyone westerners slaughtered w such relative impunity were quite on the level as pericles) .. is that they do not vote.. admittedly an interesting fact.. why not? if we accept idea that a show of hands or having everyone who supports a proposition stand on one side of plaza and everyone against on other.. are not really such incredibly sophisticated ideas that they never would have occurred to anyone until some ancient genius ‘invented’ them then why are they so rarely employed?
not voting = not democratic
beyond beyond raising hands or stepping to alt sides of room.. as majorian roberts et al
923 [88]
over and over across the world, from australia to siberia, egalitarian communities have preferred some variation on consensus process (rather than voting/democracy)..
only because offered ie: spinach or rock.. we have no idea what legit free people would do
public consensus always oppresses someone(s)
[89]
the explanation i would propose is this: *it is much easier, in a face to face community, to figure out what **most members of that community want to do, than to figure out how to convince those who do not to go along w it.. t
*actually easier to figure out (globally.. 8b).. what .. all of us want to do.. than anything else.. because if do that .. all the takes a lot of work of work ness of any form of democratic admin becomes irrelevant.. ie: undisturbed ecosystem ness
**most members is not enough.. still structural violence..
what we need is curiosity over decision making ness – beyond consensus of some finite set of choices
moxie on democracy – yay
so imagine if we just focused on that.. on figuring out what *all people want to do – has to be all or it won’t work..
imagine if we just focused on listening to the itch-in-8b-souls.. first thing.. everyday.. and used that data to augment our interconnectedness.. we might just get to a more antifragile, healthy, thriving world.. the ecosystem we keep longing for..
what the world needs most is the energy of 8b alive people
listen & connect to undo our hierarchical listening ie: 2 convers as infra
perhaps we can have tech w/o judgment ie: tech as it could be
*consensus decision making is typical of societies where there would be no way to compel a minority to agree w a majority decision– either because there is not state w a monopoly of coercive force, or because the state has nothing to do w local decision making. if there is no way to compel.. then the last thing on would want to do is to hold a vote: a public contest which someone will be seen to lose..
*still structural violence.. still coercive.. still people telling other people what to do
voting ness
what is seen as an elab and difficult process of finding consensus is, in fact, *a long process of making sure no one walks away feeling that their views have been totally ignored
consensus over voting.. yeah.. i hear you.. still not buying consensus.. public consensus always oppresses someone(s).. would still be compelling/silencing someone(s)
seat at the table ness is not enough
*and long process ness it adds is suffocating us.. killing us.. sucking all our energies.. into making us think it’s freedom.. legit voice.. et al
huge – and we’re missing it
934 [89]
majority democracy, we might say, can only emerge when two factors coincide: 1\ telling that people should have equal say in making group decisions 2\ *a coercive apparatus capable of enforcing those decisions..
*i see consensus as such an apparatus
945 [89]
for most of human history, it has been extremely unusual to have both at the same time. where egalitarian societies exist, it is also usually considered wrong to impose systematic coercion.. where a machinery of coercion did exist, it did not even occur to those wielding it that they were enforcing any sort of popular will
still same as in 1st 10 lines on page – (figuring out what most want to do.. rather than how to convince those who don’t want to to go along with it).. any form of democratic admin is not about legit free people.. is not about org-ing around legit needs
maté trump law et al
[91]
this in turn might help explain the term ‘democracy’ itself, which appears to have been coined as something of a slur by its elitist opponents: it literally means the ‘force’ or even ‘violence‘ of the people.. kratos, not archos. the elitists who coined the term always considered democracy not too far from simple rioting or mob rule; though of course their solution was the permanent conquest of the people by someone else.. and ironically, when they did manage to suppress democracy for this reason, which was usually, the result was that the only way the general populace’s will was known was precisely thru rioting, a practice that became quite institutionalized in, say, imperial rome or 18th cent england
wow.. yeah that..
democracy – as structural violence.. like graeber violence/quantification law et al.. gotta let go of that quantification ness of control.. admin..
956 [91]
all this is not to say that direct democracies – as practiced for ie in medieval cities or new england town meetings – were not normally orderly and dignified procedures ..
orderly and dignified as structural violence
though one suspects that here too, in actual practice, there was a certain baseline of consensus -seeking going on ..
and in that.. still the coercion going on .. ie: maté trump law
still, it was this military undertone which allowed the authors of the federalist papers.. to take it for granted that what they called ‘democracy’ by which they meant, direct democracy – was in its nature the most unstable, tumultuous form of govt, not to mention one which endanger the rights of minorities (the specific minority they had in mind in this case being the rich).. it was only once the term ‘democracy’ could be almost completely transformed to incorporate the principle of representation – a term which itself has very curious history, .. since as cornelius castoriadis..
(several breaks like this when red letters stop)
representation so too as structural violence
in a sense then anarchists think all those rightwing political theorists who insist that ‘america is not a democracy; it’s a republic’ are quite correct. the diff is that anarchists have a problem w that.. they think it ought to be a democracy. though increasing numbers have come to accept that the traditional elitist criticism of majoritarian direct democracy is not entirely baseless either..
?
[92]
i noted earlier that all social *orders are in some sense at war w themselves..t
*carhart-harris entropy law et al
those unwilling to establish an apparatus of violence for enforcing decisions necessarily have to develop an apparatus for creating and maintaining social consensus (at least in that minimal sense of *ensuring malcontents can still feel they have freely chosen to go along w bad decisions)..
*why.. wtf?.. showing same song in broad daylight.. no?.. consensus (any form of democratic admin) and graeber man with stick law et al
967 [92]
as an apparent result, the internal war ends up projected outwards into endless night battles and forms of spectral violence.. majoritarian direct democracy is constantly threatening to make those lines of force explicit..
and consensus still makes the lines.. explicit or implicit or invisible.. but still there.. still violent
for this reason it does tend to be rather unstable: or more precisely, if it does last, it’s because its institutional forms (medieval city, town council, gallup polls, referendums) are almost invariably ensconced w/in a larger framework of governance in which ruling elites use that very instability to justify their ultimate monopoly of the means of violence.. finally, the threat of this instability becomes an excuse for a form of ‘democracy’ so minimal that it comes down to nothing more than insisting that ruling elites should *occasionally consult w ‘the public’ in carefully stated contests, replete w rather meaningless jousts and tournaments – to reestablish their right to go on making their decisions for them
spot on.. well said.. but for all of life..(all that we’ve seen so far).. always some form of people telling people what to do.. of supposed to’s of school/work et al .. for for e v e r
*where we get that false voice ness.. and why we need a means to undo our hierarchical listening
[93]
it’s a trap. bouncing back and forth between the two ensures ti will reaming extremely unlikely that one could ever imagine it would be possible for people to manage their own lives, w/o the help of ‘representatives’..
representation ness
trap is that we’ve always been in sea world
it’s for this reason the new global movement has begun by reinventing the very meaning of democracy.. to do so ultimately means once again, coming to terms w the fact that ‘we’ – whether as ‘the west’ (whatever that means) as the ‘modern world’ or anything else – are not really as special as we like to think we are; that we’re not the only people ever to have practiced democracy; that in fact rather than disseminating democracy around the world ‘western’ govts have been spending at least as much time inserting themselves into the lives of people who have been practicing democracy for 1000s of years and in one way or another.. telling them to cut it out
which would be a good thing.. (to cut it out).. just need an alt that’s legit free.. (i’m guessing i’m the only one that thinks we’re never gotten this life thing right (on rereading notes here.. this sounds like dawn of everything (book))– but – it’s making me think all this history/navel gazing.. is killing us.. even the best us-es of us).. but book – or at least what we all seem to be taking from it.. is still focusing on and flapping about history rather than ie: org around legit needs
977 [93]
one of most encouraging things about these new, anarchist-inspired movements is that they propose a new form of internationalism.. older, communist internationalism had some very beautiful ideals, but in org terms, everyone basically flowed on we way..
[94]
it became a means for regimes outside europe and its settles colonies to learn western styles of org: party structures, plenaries, purges, bureaucratic hierarchies, secret police.. this time.. the second wave of internationalism one could call it, or just anarchist globalization. – the movement of org forms has largely gone the other way.. it’ snot just consensus process: the idea of mass non violent direct action first developed in s africa and india.. the current network modes was first proposed by rebels in chiapas; even the notion of the affinity group came out of spain and latin america.. the fruits of ethnography – and the techniques of ethnography.. could be enormously helpful here if anthropologist can get past their – however understandable – hesitancy, owing to their own often squalid colonial history, and come to see what they are sitting on not as some guilty secret (which is nonetheless their guilty secret and no one else’s) but as the common property of human kind..
987 [95]
anthropology (in which the author somewhat reluctantly bites the hand that feeds him)
the final question.. is why anthropologists haven’t, so far? i have already describe why i think academics in general, have rarely felt much affinity w anarchism..
it’s all a little odd.. anthropologists are after all the only group of scholars who know anything about actually existing stateless societies; many have actually lived in corners of the world where states have ceased to function or at least temporarily pulled up stakes and left.. and people are managing their own affairs autonomously; if nothing else, they are keenly aware that the most commonplace assumptions about what would happen int eh absence of a state (‘but people would just kill each other’) are factually untrue
why then?.. well. a number of reasons..
997 [95]
if anarchism is, essentially, an ethics of practice.. then meditating on anthropological practice tends to kick up a lot of unpleasant things..
Excerpt: pp.150-207 ‘ “The Mob Begins to Think and Reason”: The Covert History
of Democracy’
Graeber, David (2014) The Democracy Project New York: Random House
Spaces In-between’
notes from pp34-80 in 123 p pdf:
38
In reality, OWS is anarchist-inspired, but for precisely that reason
it stands squarely in the very tradition of American popular
democracy that conservatives like Continetti have always staunchly
opposed. Anarchism does not mean the negation of democracy—or
at least, any of the aspects of democracy that most Americans have
historically liked. Rather, anarchism is a matter of taking those core
democratic principles to their logical conclusions. The reason it’s
dicult to see this is because the word “democracy” has had such
an endlessly contested history: so much so that most American
pundits and politicians, for instance, now use the term to refer to a
form of government established with the explicit purpose of
ensuring what John Adams once called “the horrors of democracy”
would never come about.
need something sans any form of democratic admin
45
Still, this conclusion seems rather disingenuous. What his account
makes clear is it was not the irrational passions of “the mob” that
frightened Morris, but precisely the opposite, the fact that so many
of New York’s mechanics and tradesmen could apparently not only
trade classical references with the best of them, but frame
thoughtful, reasoned arguments for democracy. The mob begin to
think and to reason. Since there seemed no way to deny them access
to education, the only remaining expedient was to rely on the force
of British arms.
oi.. intellectness as cancerous distraction we can’t seem to let go of.. there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental expo labeling).. to facil a legit global detox leap.. for (blank)’s sake.. and we’re missing it
60
Democracy was not invented in ancient Greece. Granted, the
word “democracy” was invented in ancient Greece—but largely by
people who didn’t like the thing itself very much. Democracy was
never really “invented” at all. Neither does it emerge from any
particular intellectual tradition. It’s not even really a mode of
government. In its essence it is just the belief that humans are
fundamentally equal and ought to be allowed to manage their
collective aairs in an egalitarian fashion, using whatever means
appear most conducive. That, and the hard work of bringing
arrangements based on those principles into being.
In this sense democracy is as old as history, as human intelligence
itself.
oi
63
Democracy, then, is not necessarily dened by majority voting: it is,
rather, the process of collective deliberation on the principle of full
and equal participation. Democratic creativity, in turn, is most
likely to occur when one has a diverse collection of participants,
drawn from very dierent traditions, with an urgent need to
improvise some means to regulate their common aairs, free of a
preexisting overarching authority.
if any form of democratic admin.. any form of m\a\p.. not legit free
The easiest way to explain anarchism in either sense is to say that
it is a political movement that aims to bring about a genuinely free
society—and that denes a “free society” as one where humans only
enter those kinds of relations with one another that would not have
to be enforced by the constant threat of violence.
would have to be imagine if we ness.. esp: itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & used that data to determine who’s together in a space
Excerpt: pp.329-374 ‘There Never was a West, or Democracy Emerges from the
Spaces In-between’
Graber, David (2007) PossibiliƟes: Essays on Hierarchy, Rebellion, and Desire
Oakland, Edinburgh: AK Press
possibilities – there never was a west – lots of notes.. both places
2\ 14 pg pdf [https://museum.care/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/For-discussion-STate-Graeber-Jessop-Feldman.pdf]:
Excerpt: pp.8-12 ‘The Mystery of the State’
Feldman, Paul (2008) Unmasking the State Lupus Books
Excerpt: pp.62-71 ‘Tenets of a Non-Existent Science’2
Most people understand what is meant by the term
“government”. This is made up of men and women who
are said to govern the country. Yet the prime minister and
ministers are part of a wider, much more significant body –
the state. Governments come and go but the state itself not
only lives on but evolves and adapts to new circumstances
expressed through the actions of government.6
Over time, specialists in ruling like top civil servants, generals and
judges have come to dominate affairs and have given the state a certain
operational but relative autonomy. In this way, the state, rather than
serving society, stands above and aloof from the population and is
insulated from popular pressures. This adds to the impression that
the existing state system is independent, neutral, normal and, above
all, irreplaceable. This alienation is itself a reflection at a political level
of the fact that people, both individually and socially, are deprived of
the result of their own labour and the wealth produced by society as a
whole.7
The state also plays a key ideological role in conveying notions that,
for example, capitalism is really all about “individual freedom” and
“consumer choice”, that the state governs in the “national interest”,
Graeber, David (2004) Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology Chicago:
Prickly Paradigm Press
fragments of an anarchist anthropology
Excerpt: pp.8-12 ‘The state and state power’
Jessop, Bob (2009) in Sage Handbook of Power Sage12
In short, in order to initiate the analysis rather than pre-empt
further exploration, the core of the state apparatus can be defined as a distinct
ensemble of institutions and organizations whose socially accepted function is to
define and enforce collectively binding decisions on a given population in the name
of their ‘common interest’ or ‘general will’ (Jessop 1
notes/quotes from video:
16 min video – So what is the state? from paul feldman’s course: rethinking our future – unmasking the state (2022) – [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNOOBXPJI4]:
listened.. but no notes taken
__________
day before reading don’t fear invoke anarchy p 194:
The German-speaking anarchist Friedrich August Reinsdorf (1849–1885) argued that, if the “people’s state” maintained the same kind of coercive apparatus, like the criminal justice system, to enforce its laws as was relied upon by the capitalist class, then it would be a “police state” rather than a “people’s state” that the Social Democrats would be creating.
will happen as long as any form of m\a\p
_________
_________
________
________
________
________
be you. 