But these aren’t policies, but are my life. Policies are structures created within a larger social structure to allow for smoother interactions with others outside of your immediate social group.
Acknowledging that there are structures outside of ourselves that shape our lives is not denying agency full stop, it’s acknowledging that there are forces outside of our control to some extent, that includes systems of force that deal with different people differently. In order to change those, you need large numbers of people willing to agree on an agenda and to change the system, with pressure from the outside - civil rights is one example of how this happened historically.
It seems like you are acknowledging large scale structures that impact us all. I’d argue that dropping out is turning away from that. For “dropping out” to be effective, you really need large scale action. That means including people outside your immediate circle.
I think you’re arguing that we need large scale turning away from our current coercive systems of power and I don’t think that line of thinking is entirely without merit, but people act within the system for a reason - it’s created certain benefits that are rewarded by the system. Its not entirely coercive, frankly.
You don’t have to identify with something for it to actually exist… Sure, the nation-state is an “imagined community”, but because something is imagined doesn’t mean its powerless or lacking in influence on our lives.
My ability to exert power stops outside of my direct circle. If wish to widen that, I widen my circle. I can connect with other like minded individuals, or I can work to make a broad based society that accepts difference and is less coercive.
Not as such. I think that there isn’t really an “us all” in the first place, there are just many different overlapping networks of people, but no cohesive totality.
[quote=“Mindysan33, post:61, topic:45332”]
I’d argue that dropping out is turning away from that. For “dropping out” to be effective, you really need large scale action. [/quote]
I know that this is closer to what most people think of by “dropping out”. My interpretation is fairly contrary to this, with it being a reference to how much people are willing to directly participate in their society. Expecting large anonymous groups of people to do everything is precisely dropping out, because this is how individuals avoid their responsibility for creating the cultures they live in.
Which system? There can be (and are) any number of systems. Saying that I am rewarded for being part of a totality is indeed a coercive idea. As you have pointed out elsewhere, such a totality offers no “outside”. So for some people, it is as appealing as being compensated for rape. Devising systems is what people do, so the more options to choose from, the more robust the results IMO.
I suppose so. But my experiences with large-scale structures is that they tend to be inherently coercive. The roots in aristocracy, religion, economics and colonialism suggests to me that pursuing a reform this fundamental can easily (but not necessarily) become a fool’s errand. There has never been a totality which is fair to all. It seems more realistic and fruitful to encourage an ecology of many smaller (even overlapping) systems. When people can create social structures based upon affinity, the cause of coercion mostly ceases to be an issue.
I don’t disagree, actually. But democratic practices can work to undermine the coercive elements and make them less effective as coercion. Plus, how people are bullied depends on how society constructs them, giving more freedom to elites, which in the US has historically been white men.
Again, I don’t disagree. But… see below.
Except when these overlapping systems clash when they have mutually exclusive ideologies that underpin them… what then? What when the Republic of KKKlanstanian decides that Multi-culture-ville across the river is pissing them off, by existing at all. Not all forms of identity and social structures will be mutually workable, even in parallel forms.
Except what we do in our lives does not just work within our own social circles, it has a wider impact, that is the result of global interconnectedness. The internet is just one, highly visible form of global interconnectedness. Trade is another. There is currently a union of dock workers on the West coast who are in negotiations for better wages. They have been foot dragging (employing “weapons of the weak”, in other words) and as a result, goods are piling up. this has an economic impact of the rest of the American and global economy. Goods are not getting to market, and this impacts the price of goods, among other things. They are not acting in a vacuum, although their goals are local in nature.
I agree with this…
Not necessarily with this. In the modern world, large scale structures shape our lives, whether we like it or not. the ability to create parallels is often connected to who you are. When Fred Hampton tried it, it got him killed. He had made a dent in local violence, and was key in bringing warring factions together to work out a peace deal for the good of the community. The FBI killed him for it. Again, not all of us can create parallel structures that by pass the systems of social, political, and economic control, because there are consequences for that. Women in groups like SDS and in more radical organizations learned this when they were consistently relegated to the position of book, secretary, wives, fuck buddies - but no where in positions of power within their social circles.
You keep saying this, but on this topic, I find you vague… you keep pointing out that there are alternative social structures to the current globalized consumerist economy, but what exactly are those alternatives? You say creating parallels, but what, precisely does that mean. Even here, on the net, we are constrained by the fact that we are engaging on a mass media platform which evolved with the Cold War and that was funded by the state and corporate interests. Dropping out and going underground are only really acknowledgements that there are systems of power that constrain our independent actions.
And even creating parallels, we are still constrained by how we imagine reality, both individually and together. While you may see the world differently from others, how they view the world impacts how they interact with you and as such, it does impact you. Unless you only interact with individuals who think exactly like you on all things, something that’s highly unlikely, you are going to bump up against others and come to points of disagreements. Reality and social structures is collectively conceived, I think. I agree we should work on ways to create a society without coercive structures, outside of the dominant structures set down during the enlightenment, but we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking that the only position that matters is our own. You have to, at some point, be able to recognize the needs of others and to accommodate that. If you think that is coercion then so be it, but I don’t believe that it is.
This works best I think by decoupling government from geography. As crypto-countries, KKKlanstanian and Multi-culture-ville could be in the same area but never need to know it. Not unlike how a person anywhere could subscribe to either the KKKlanstanian and Multi-culture-ville Yahoo Groups or Facebook pages - or even possibly both of them. It also seems trivial to build conditions into charters where a person who subscribes to a dictatorship, for example, would not be able to simultaneously join a commune.
This is also something of a symptom of contemporary nation states in that their charters depend upon strengthening influence, being either the cause or result of the relentless drive to manipulate the affairs of their citizens and other countries. Organizational charters which are strengthened by minimal impact on others can reduce ecological and ideological problems. If an organization exceeds a threshold of influence, the charter dissolves. This doesn’t stop any participants from starting their own, or joining others.
This runs strongly against my ideals and experience. Reputation and cults of personality tend to be fairly insubstantial. People who are swayed into participating in status games exhibit little capacity for effective communication or organization. Their instinctive/personal problems seems inversely proportional to their capacity for self control.
Consequences might be the best possible reason to try! Who wants their life to be inconsequential? I think it’s more accurate to say that all people can create parallel structures, but that most of them simply don’t. Oppressors have an easier time dealing with one Hampton, but the oppressors tend to be a minority. The FBI might not fair so well against a network of a thousand “Hamptons”. Just because there is risk does not mean that one can’t.
Pretty simple. It seems vague because there is no grand all-encompassing system. That’s the idea! Groups run by and for the participants.
Going along with them or dropping out are both equally reactionary. You don’t seem to be able or willing to avoid modeling society as a monolithic singular entity, which drastically limits the options available. What makes these “systems of power” any better than those of other groups, or your own? Isn’t internalizing them reactionary? I don’t see that it has anything to do wit independence, as such. You could be a member of zero social networks or thousands of them.
Precisely my point. So people need to be recognized as able to create and use social structures as needed. Somehow you seem to be suggesting that getting over this “current globalized consumerist economy” must be a selfish motivation. This is contrary to my position of encouraging people to freely organize.
