Theses for the coming crises

2022-07-05

The following is an early draft of an essay I wrote about several concerns I had at the start of 2020, just before the COVID-19 pandemic truly blew up. Much of what follows would look pretty outdated right now. Hell, it was already outdated by time I was looking into getting it published either by Bandilang Itim or Ill Will Editions. I'm posting this here for the sake of posterity. -- Butingtaon, 2022-07-05

I.

Alienation is the enemy. Oppression is merely a byproduct of alienation.

Counterpoint: Isn't Oppression a byproduct of material conditions and your relationship to the means of production?

Yes, that's correct, and we call the current relationship of the working class to the means of production as "Alienation."

They are unable to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
They are unable to direct the manner of their labor.
As a result, they are unable to realize their potential through their labor.
And because of the valorization of competition, the working class fights against itself instead of uniting to fight for their own interests.

In the place of Alienation, we choose to fight for Joy!

... the individual’s complete availability to themselves, the possibility to express themselves absolutely freely, breaking away from all models, even those considered to be fundamental and indispensable such as those of production.

Alfredo M. Bonanno, Armed Joy (1977), IV.

At the end of the day, commodity production and the ceaseless pursuit of profit, or "Growth" in the case of "socialist" nations like Mao's PRC and the USSR, cannot be pursued without the sale of one's health, one's soul, or one's Earth. Oftentimes, all at the same time.

Counterpoint: This is anthropocentric! Climate change is threatening all life on Earth! We have more important struggles to fight!

Yes, Climate Change is going to cause a crisis of such scale never seen before. All life on Earth is affected, and none will be spared. We've seen a glimpse of what would happen in the future in the massive caravans of Hondurans and other Central American people marching towards the US looking for safety and jobs. Safety and opportunities which the American Empire has taken from them in the form of military and exploitation. The Syrian Refugee Crisis demonstrate us how the spectre of nationalism made the nations of Europe build walls instead of sheltering them, or even reaching out to them and helping solve their problems at home. And those that they do allow inside are usually interred into camps not even fit for human housing .

But what we have to recognize is that the ecological destruction we're seeing today is not because of some arbitrarily destructive "human nature." What does exist, are human relations which themselves translate into ecological destruction.

Whether it's a real-estate tycoon buying up agricultural land for "Prime development," factories churning out electronics, the components of which were strip-mined out of a destabilized African nation, or a full-scale war leaving the countryside blasted like the surface of the moon - It's all the same. It's all because of powerful people following their vested interests. It could be ideological or religious motivations, or just simple greed.

Climate change and ecological destruction was caused by humanity's relationship with the rest of the planet. This relationship is coded in the language of domination and alienation. The powerful take control of natural resources, while the rest are taken away from the experience of nature, making them blind to how the destruction of the bioshpere spells their own death in the future.

II.

In the struggle against Alienation, and thus against Oppression, we cannot afford to use means which also cause alienation.

Counterpoint: But these "means that cause alienation" that you're talking about, trade unions, political parties, etc., are all effective ways of creating material change for the oppressed

Creating better material conditions for people are good. Healthcare is good. Higher wages are good. But alienation remains. Commodity production remains. To be in longer chains means you're still in chains.

... assuming trade unionism to be fully developed and in control of all industry, this does not mean that exploitation is abolished, that capitalism is repressed. What is repressed is the arbitrariness of the single capitalist; abolished are the worst abuses of exploitation. And this is in the interest of the fellow-capitalists, too—to guard them against unfair competition—and in the interest of capitalism at large.

Anton Pannekoek, Workers' Councils (1947), pp.59

In my personal experience, I've seen how under the banner of a certain trade union, capitalists look at the organization as another extension of themselves. The president of said trade union, exasperated after a meeting with the upper management of several companies participating in our industry, said that "They want to turn us into an industry-wide HR (Human Resources) department!" From what I remember from that meeting, the executives may not have even meant that. I can see what they mean, though, we, the trade union, would be a third-party with no material interests (so far) related to the business and can focus solely on the welfare of the workers under them.

Even in the best of cases, where there are outright abuses on the part of the big capitalists and the landlords, trade unions whose end goals are to only better the working conditions of the working class will never truly give the people their own freedom. The logic of commodity production still prevails over the working class, blinded to their own alienation just because they have nicer bosses. Even the successes, though the products of the clash between classes, are coded in the language of alienation: Higher Wages implies surplus profit. Fighting for better working conditions means that you are still working for someone else.

Longer chains, but still in chains.

The problems of the above are multiplied a thousandfold when we begin talking about political parties, even if they style themselves as "militant" or "revolutionary." Volumes and volumes have been written about the USSR and PRC's fall into State Capitalism, and we don't have the space to discuss that in this work. What is important to note is that the relations of production are still basically the same, with the bourgeoisie being replaced by the state bureaucracy. And the worker is left in the same, or even worse, state of alienation from their own lives.

There's something to be said about how regime changes are a lot easier than complete social revolution.

However, as the leftists woke up from their political accommodation—perhaps after shots were fired in Mendiola—it soon became apparent that EDSA didn’t topple a system, it merely changed the king (or rather queen), on the throne .

It's easy to build upon an existing structure using matching parts than to tear it down and rebuild anew. We could view the EDSA revolution in a similar light, it became a way for more appealing members of the bourgeoisie to take power. Cory was from the landowning Cojuanco family after all. With the CPP-NPA threatening to take power, riding on the growing popular unrest at the time, the so called "bloodless" EDSA Revolution provided a very adequate release valve for the contradictions of society from pushing it to a full-blown revolt.

We broke off our chains to only tie ourselves down with ones of our own making.

Counterpoint: But we need to organize collective action efforts in order to effectively create material change! What tools do we have left if you've ruled all of them out?

Class struggle has never ceased. But, as history shown us, only the collective action of those with similar material interests can create change. Class struggle, taking new forms, created different forms of resistance to oppression and domination.

The strike committee, planning to hit the capitalist where it hurts.

The independent cell of saboteurs, preventing logging companies from tearing down forests older than human history.

The barricade crew, treating the wounded, feeding the hungry, arming the angry, and keeping the fight against state-sanctioned murder going.

What do they all have in common? All of them were born in the fires of class struggle. Their methods and tactics formed out of the necessities of the fight.

But their isolation would be their one weakness, for they would not be able to pursue the conflict for long. Their actions must immediately be propagandized by their comrades to their local community and build a base of support where they are. They must reach out to other cells of resistance. Our struggles are interlinked.

Unlike the Trade Unions or the Political and Vanguard Parties, they were formed in order to resist. They were formed in order to seek change, or preserve things that are precious to them, using what ever means necessary. They did not have leaders, in the sense that someone can simply tell them "Stop! We have done enough, and our demands have been met." Their leaders were organizers. Those who coordinate the different actions these cells of resistance need to take, but have no authority over the entire resistance. And with that lack of authority, they cannot dampen the insurrection because of their personal failings or conflicts of interest.

Speaking of organizers...

Counterpoint: What of the "advanced minority" that would otherwise form the Vanguard Party?

A core group of organizers will always form. For every given movement, not everyone involved will have the ability, nor even the desire, to perform the duties required of that role. This is unavoidable.

The masses in any given place are generally composed of three parts, the relatively active, the intermediate and the relatively backward. The leaders must therefore be skilled in uniting the small number of active elements around the leadership and must rely on them to raise the level of the intermediate elements and to win over the backward elements.

Mao Tse-Tung, "Some Questions Concerning Methods of Leadership" (June 1, 1943), Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 118.

Now, more than ever, is not the time to be away from the rest of the world, safe in our homes when inaction could mean the death of the majority of the human species. In the fight between domination and freedom, there will emerge leaders who will be able to direct the anger towards the foundations of this oppressive society. And those leaders, during times of peace, must be able to build and prepare the masses for future conflict. Economic and technological development has given us tools for communication that did not exist during the revolutions of the 20th century.

Tactics for resistance during the uprisings in Hong Kong , Chile and France are uploaded in near-real time, allowing the global working class movement to learn from their mistakes and triumphs at a pace never before seen. The task of the advanced minority now, is to get this information to the people on the ground.

To have the strength of will to not be intimidated by the police and the hired guns of the wealthy in the pursuit of keeping the conflict against domination going. To operate communications platforms, chatrooms and other spaces to discuss and organize future actions. To reach out to pockets of resistance who are not able to take advantage of modern communications systems. To come together around shared principles and tactics. To scout for and train people who could take over their own tasks in case the worst happens.

To connect and to build bridges of solidarity and material support between different cells of resistance, to make them realize all our struggles are interlinked. That our freedom is necessarily bound to each other's freedom.

And to those that can, once the shots are fired, to be in the front lines of the conflict being played out in the streets is the duty of the advanced minority. For as we will see later, action begets support, and support fuels action.

But not under one banner. Marching under a unified banner in today's situation, specifically in the Philippines, is to paint a set of crosshairs on your own back.

But this is not to avoid the ire of the state and their corporate overlords. Any action made against them, especially in the time of increased surveillance we see today, will always be rewarded with persecution and strife. What we are trying to do, in not marching under a single unified body is to prevent the creation of easy targets, central points of failure. The arrest or murder of a few key leaders must not render the movement impotent, and charismatic leaders are notoriously hard to replace. And not only that, but having a single committee or cadre of leaders makes it easier for state forces to corrupt them, either by bribes or by more forceful means . Not having a small number of publicly-identifiable leaders gets around this possibility.

Ideas, and not personalities, must be in command.

Become the invisible vanguard.

Be water, and don't give the fascist pigs an easy target.

III.

Action fosters Support. Support fuels Action.

Counterpoint: Blind action will lead to incorrect tactics and lead to unnecessary harm to those involved.

Direct Action does not mean blindly and impulsively acting against oppression in a self-destructive rage, though it does happen in times when there is not the opportunity for release of their growing resentment . Direct Action means not having to wait for critical mass or for powerful institutions and people in order to take part in society. Planning would be a part of it, taking stock of what the members of the action know about the situation and their opposition.

And even with the most carefully-laid out plans and preparations, material reality is simply too complex, with too many hidden and unknown variables to fully account for every possibility. Thinking that we need to act only "when the time is right" or when "it is a sure thing" is not direct action. The fact that there are unknown variables in play gives us all the more reason to act, given that the results of the action will inevitably give us a greater insight into the context we are acting within. Every act of resistance is a leap of faith. Faith that things will get better, that they have to.

And in the discoveries made in the front lines of the class fight, cells of resistance are small enough that consensus can be reached quickly. Decisions can be made in the heat of the moment and respond to developments on the ground faster than a large mass of people ever can. This is not to say that mass mobilizations do not have their place, but for a focal point to form, fast and decisive strikes by a few dedicated must be taken first.

Counterpoint: Wouldn't a clear and nuanced political program help gather more support?

Direct action is the program. The program is direct action.

In our fight against the structural causes of alienation and commodification, we have to adapt each of our tactics to what is best suited to the enemy at hand. Therefore, a political program cannot be given from above, by a central committee of partisan officers distant from the frontlines of the conflict. If a program must be adopted, it must be formed and articulated after each conflict with Capital and their running-dogs in the State. It must be formed in the heat of the fight by those engaged in the fight.

Each action must be tailored to encompass the greatest support that could be garnered from one's own current context. A riot may, surprisingly, gain more support than a strike given the right circumstances. In another, a more peaceful mobilization might pave the way for an escalation of tactics. The immediate community where the action takes place in must be given special attention to, and observe their reactions to what is happening. There will be those that will support it, many will ignore it, and others, for some reason or another, oppose actions related to class conflict.

The next step would be to reach out to those in support:

Take the ideas of the masses and concentrate them, then go to the masses, persevere in the ideas and carry them through, so as to form correct ideas of leadership - such is the basic method of leadership.

Mao Tse-Tung, "Some Questions Concerning Methods of Leadership" (June 1, 1943), Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 120.

The resistance will die in isolation, and it is important to build a base of support where they are in the present, lest we fall into lifestylism and inactivity.

IV.

While the classics of revolutionary literature and theory will always have their place, their relevance is overshadowed, and even reinforced by, the experiences and voices of those at the margins.

Counterpoint: Not having a solid ideological foundation will lead to incorrect tactics.

I agree, and we need a way for people to have a vested interest in studying the ideas and history behind the successes of prior liberation struggles and social movements, and have the context to relate it to today's struggle. They need to experience class conflict directly. And there are two ways for that to happen:

We can wait for people to experience class conflict in their daily lives, and for them to be radicalized by the banality and minute hells of daily life. In fact, many people are pushed towards a wide-reaching and historical understanding of their material conditions, provided they have access to the proper theoretical material, or guidance from existing organizations.

This is a passive form of radicalization, and can only ever truly be relied upon in times of extreme economic tension, such as we're seeing today.

But not everyone benefits from the economic booms, especially those at the fringes. Their struggle continues, the temporary moments of plenty not addressing the causes for their suffering. The indigenous people pushed out of their ancestral lands finds no respite in the economic growth of a society that benefits off of their suffering. Transwomen and Transmen will keep getting targeted regardless of the economic climate, and so will minority ethnic groups. Neither does ecological destruction. The character of the laws and institutions built on oppression do not change in the upward swing of the boom-and-bust cycle.

What we need, in order to keep the struggle going, even in times of relative capitalist prosperity and stability, is to engage in direct action. Insurrectionary acts relevant to their particular form of struggle. Repeated and escalating acts of defiance get those involved more invested in the movement with each action. This gives them the motivation and context necessary to engage with theoretical works in meaningful ways. And more importantly, give them the insight needed to articulate theory into practice that is relevant to their own context

The basis of the new society is not what knowledge they can adopt and what technics they can imitate from others, but what community feeling and organized activity they can raise in themselves. This new character cannot be infused by others, it cannot proceed from obedience to any masters. It can only sprout from independent action, from the fight for freedom, from revolt against the masters. All the genius of superior individuals is of no avail here.

Anton Pannekoek, "Worker's Councils" pp.38

Counterpoint: But the classics have all described in detail many of the ills our society face.

That's correct, they have, but they were written as a result of their own material conditions, and our present conditions present more than a few new ones. Would Lenin have been able to imagine the sheer breadth and scope of the American Empire? Debord would probably have shot himself twice over if he had learned of the existence of FANG (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google) and the development of AI in the present day. Would Marx have been able to predict the economic conditions under which the mass production of sexualized consumer goods would occur?

It's important to understand our history as a movement in order to learn from their achievements and mistakes. But, because of the march of history never ends, we must always orient ourselves towards the particular conditions of our time. Part of these particular conditions is how the conditions for radicalization has changed.

The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, "What is to be done?", pp.17-18

Lenin was writing during the time of limited dissemination of information. Only large successful parties would have the resources to organize large training and orientation sessions. They managed their own printing presses and circulars. It was during a time when access to historical and theoretical works, and not to mention education, were a privilege. It made sense, at the time, that only the "educated representatives of the propertied classes" would have the class consciousness necessary to elaborate the conditions of the era.

But that is no longer the case.

how many are radicalized with each stream of pepper spray, each bang of a blast ball, each cloud of pepper spray that chokes their lungs?

for every eye lost to a rubber bullet or person run down by a patrol car how many are now thinking of police abolition in absolutely urgent terms?

for how many is the everyday violence of this ruling order made even more viscerally evident with each bashing, with each excess of force, with each black person gunned down?

for how many targeted communities has the occupation-like police presence been a part of their lives since they were born?

this math is impossible, but like some strange physics bodies, are forming against the repressive apparatuses of the state. we don’t know where each particle will go tho we can trace some heavenly trajectories.

anonymous telegram user

In times of conflict, each fight against the ruling class ingrains into the spirit of the oppressed their strength, found in their shared vulnerability.

In times of relative peace, the invisible vanguard within the communities of the oppressed clarifies and educates the masses about the structural reasons for their oppression, either in person or through the communications channels dedicated to nurturing cells of resistance.

In times of conflict, the heady theory of institutional oppression is given flesh.

The Spectacle is temporarily broken with every break from the conflict, cleaning tear gas from your eyes or wrapping bandages over wounds. In these quiet moments, new words are found that cut through the illusions of commodified life.

Butingtaon's Corner

Theses for the coming crises

I.

II.

III.

IV.

Further Reading