From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: Re: -= Non-Institutional-Community =- (re: Death of America)
Summary: Revolution installs yet another state, Anarchist are not revolutionary 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Poetry
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:23:00 GMT

I've split my response into: 
the "poetic imperative for anarchy" in this posting,

to be followed eventually by
"the artistic implementation of anarchy."

In article <1992Dec14.165118.3936@panix.com>, 
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes...

} ...as to totalitarianism and poetry: poetry is generally
} totalitarian in that it seldom presents alternatives or doubt.
} We do not find "On the one hand... on the other hand...."
} much in poems or bibles.  The poet can avoid totalitarianism
} by espousing anarchy in a radical, personal sense; even then,
                                     ^^^^^^^^
} her words may be all too _effective_.

Curious that we see this somewhat differently. The very utility of
metaphor is to allow the reader to infuse their own experience into
poetry, songs and such. John told us that Jesus said,

        "Greater love has no man than this, that a man
        *lay down his life* for his friends."

This passage has taken-on different meanings for me as I've matured. Once
daunting, thought of dying-for-your-friend seems easy now, compared
to the challenge living-for-a-friend. Yet both interpretations call for
entirely too much martyrdom or altruism, better is the simple *loving*
expression of putting aside your own affairs to share life with a friend.
The author has addressed the reader by using the phrase "lay down his
life," and provided enough room for the reader to respond as best they
know how. A literary device not unlike leaving plenty of white-space around
a poem in which one is encouraged to pencil in ponderings.

But then again GF, you knew all this when you noted how a person could
read destruction into the verses:

} Strangely, one can say
} "Behold the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not,
} neither do they spin...." and "If someone strikes you on one
} cheek, turn the other to him" and find one's followers burning
} humans to death as an act of devotion.

..through no fault of the author. Nor could it be the poet's fault.
James Carse has noted (in Finite and Infinite Games,p.68)...

        [P]oets do not "fit" into society, not because
        a place is denied them but because they do not
        take their "places" seriously. They openly see
        its roles as theatrical, its styles as poses,
        its clothing costumes, its rules conventional,
        its crises arranged, its conflicts performed,
        and its metaphysics ideological.

The =dramatization= of the dead bodies of bosnia broadcast at dinner
time, or the living corpses of somalia presented late night to
fill one's dreams, or pictures of the aborted unborn on billboards
for commuter contemplation, or bludgeoned seal pups, or crude-oil
congealed ducks, or any other depiction... is no more real, than
when I merely write the words. The poet is no dramatist precisely
because he allows for varied interpretation. Your misgiving about
poetry GF, is likely better directed at those who use dramatization.
(Such as the media.)

Vernard Eller [VE] in _Christian Anarchy_ (pp 15-16) writes about
"dramatization" as well, as being *unreal*. (And invoking Jacques
Ellul [JE] in passing)...

        Ellul's critique of "Christian revolutionism" is
        perhaps best summed up as "a lack of realism."
        And that, in turn, can be spelled out under four
        heads -- namely, the revolutionary faith in
        (a) activism; (b) utopianism; (c) what we shall
        call the "trigger effect"; and (d) dramatization.
        Although, obviously, Ellul finds the Christian
        Left to be the opposit case, he believes that
        "Christians can be, among other things, more
        realistic and less ideological than others"....
        (In Season, Out of Season, p. 91)

{Please note the elitist-liberal-revolutionary rationale following.}

        d. Dramatization. The term is Ellul's -- or rather
        his interviewer's -- but it intends "playing up,"
        "exaggerating," or perhaps what we later will call
        "zealotism" or "absolutizing." Ellul confesses that
        in his earlier writings he tended to dramatize the
*       threat of particular evils "in order to back people
*       into a corner, because I had the conviction that
*       human beings are so negligent, so lazy, that if not
*       driven to defend themselves, they will do everything
*       possible to avoid commitment" (Season, p. 223+). But
        then he goes on to say,

        [JE:] I do not write in quite the same way now,
          because the incredibly frivolous and thought-
          less world of my youth has given way to a
*         general conviction in people that the situa-
*         tion is hopeless. People today are afraid.
          Thus I will not tell them, in regard to the
          atomic bomb: "It is appalling, we will all be
          blown away." I think, on the contrary, that
          I should say: "There are ninety-nine chances
          in a hundred that it will never explode."

"Hopelessness" is a very key point.

} Maybe every utterance of poetry should be followed by
} "Don't follow leaders!  Watch th' parkin' meters!"

But which is realistic? The mass of the faithful misinterpreting
a verse resulting in jihad, or the leader of zealots twisting verses
to spur a revolution. Realistically does it matter, when the same
leader with a handful of true believers, can push buttons to bring
destruction on a holy city?

Not that I care about such *dramatizations* as a christian anarchist,
since I don't believe in holy "cities." Nor am I worried about the
destruction of the human *race*.

The distinction rests on *falsely* heightening the emphasis of
ordinary events, which is the nature of drama -- demanding to be
taken seriously. Poets however in recognizing the contrived nature
of societal events, usually seek to reveal them in the interplay
with the reader or audience.

Thus GF, poetry is anarchical, and drama is totalitarian.
I know your elated.

Onward then, from theory to application.

} I find Ellul, as quoted, basically backward-looking; I think
} he's stuck at around 1930.

_The Technological Society_ was published in Paris in 1954,
as _La technique ou l'enjeu du siecle_

} I think it's becoming increasingly clear that there is no
} possibility of constructing the efficient state visualized
                                  ^^^^^^^^^
} by the seers of not-so-long ago,

Not directed specifically at you GF, but allow me a brief quote
from  Al Gore  "Infrastructure for the Global Village"
(_Scientific American_ Sept '91, p. 150)...

< might as well treat yourself, use your best Al Gore impression >

        Capitalism works on the same principle [as
        massively parallel computing]. People who are
        free to buy and sell products or services
        according to their individual calculations
        of the costs and benefits of each choice,
        process a relatively limited amount of infor-
        mation but do it quickly. When millions of
        individuals process information simultaneously,
        the aggregate result is incredibly accurate
        and efficient decisions.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
            ^^^^^^^^^

Now that's an expression of true faith. So apparently "some" still
seem to think an increasingly "efficient" technological state can be
achieved. Others, shall we say "post moderns" (?) see it coming apart.

} for the simple reason that there is no adequate means of
} disciplining the people, and what means there are, are becoming
} increasing less effective as time goes on.

Military force hasn't proven very good at promoting efficiency,
I'll aggree.

<more Gore...>

        Similarly, representative democracy relies on the
        still revolutionary assumption that the best way
        for a nation to make political decisions is for
        all its citizens to process the information rele-
        vant to their lives and to express their conclu-
        sions in free speech and in votes that are combined
        with those of millions of others to guide the
        system as a whole.

A well crafted statment, one could almost believe that "the
millions" controlled the state, rather than the hierarchy on
top. More importantly, for our purposes here, it seems that
there might be rumblings on the mountain top. Gordon Fitch
summarized a disquite in the intelligentsia, (more of which
we find aimed at Ellul), but which may spell power struggle
between techies such as Al Gore, and the academics.

Clifford G. Christians' "Ellul on Solution: An Alternative
but No Prophecy", Chp 8 of _Jacques Ellul, Interpretive Essays_
'81, p. 158+...

        Ellul's insights emerged a generation ago when
        virtually everyone else assumed that technology
        was advantageous and that technical problems
        require technical responses. His prophetic voice
        has cut against the grain of accepted opinion;
        his understanding of the modern dilemma has been
        unmatched.

        Now the mood has shifted substantially. The sleep-
        ers still have not fully awakened, but they are
*       stirring. Groups at virtually all socioeconomic
*       levels sense that an era is over, a historical
*       phase ended. Daniel Bell and Norman Birnbaum have
        documented the arrival of a "Post-Industrial Age"...
        maybe no great ruptures are yet visible in the
        system, but a new skeptical temperament appears
        everywhere. Ellul presently stands as only one
        voice among a growing chorus. A host of intellec-
        tuals now express doubts about technology --
        John McDermott, Robert Heilbroner, Lewis Mumford,
        Siegfried Giedion, Rene Dubos, Theodore Roszak,
        Charles Reich -- to name a few of the popular ones.
        Euphoria over the scientific enterprise is ebbing;
        the demigod is crumbling. The large literature on
        alienation, the studies of the social "pathology"
        of mass society, the soaring statistics on crime,
        delinquency and divorce, all give the lie to the
        liberal belief in Progress....

        Ellul's prophetism cannot be maintained solely from
        thoroughgoing analysis of our social bearing in the
        first half of the twentieth century. Prophets in
*       the decades ahead will have to address our rising
*       concern about lifestyle, deliberately intentional
*       alternative societies, genuine community, body life.
        And for all the worthwhileness of Ellul's three-
        dimensional approach, it does not seem sufficient
        to meet the challenge.

{Christians was then teaching "the social and moral philosophy of
 communications" at UI Urbana-Champaign.}

So we have in Clifford Christians a second to Gordon Fitch, both who
doubt the techie state. And GF and CG both question Ellul's vision 
as well.

To me it's sufficient that the "end of an era" is being recognized.

In the epilogue to the book which included Christians' essay,
Ellul asserts (p.297)...

        [C]risis in a society, church, or human being
        is always a sign of confrontation by a nega-
        tivity that has to be overcome in the creating
        of a radically new state... Has this living
        organism adequate resources to survive the
        crisis and reach a new equilibrium, or will
        it fall into neurosis, disorder, and inco-
        herence -- always a possibility? Dialectic
        is not a machine producing automatic results.
        It implies the certitude of human responsi-
        bility and therefore a freedom of choice and
        decision.

} The Nazis and the Communists, who were at the
      ^^^^^         ^^^^^^^^^^
} forefront of the construction of ideal polities, imagined
                                   ^^^^^
} (because of their doctrines) that race or class determined
} consciousness and will.

{Ok GF. I promise never to call you only an intellectual again.}

As Ellul would say (Season p. 198):

        Every program founded on [human] analysis can
        only be a utopia. Utopia is the final blow in
        humanity's death. And it is a very concrete
        death: the last two great utopias were those
        visions of idealism and the future known as
        Nazism and Stalinism.

} But it turns out that it's the other way around, as any liberal
} could have told them.

{An aside: "Consciousness," "will," intention, and awareness all are
 facets of FREEDOM. "Intellectuals" though are wholly given to TRUTH,
 and secretly relish law and order as pet perversions, ie conservatism.
 Most intellectuals make terrible liberals and generally end up being
 totalitarians when they try.}

} What I think gave many people the idea that technology would
} lead to an efficient, totalitarian state was that, during
} the earlier stages of capitalism, the working class were
} sufficiently pressed so that they could organize themselves
} only in very crude ways, unions and political parties; while
} the bourgeoisie was organized around the efficient
                                           ^^^^^^^^^
} preservation and extension of capital.  It seems easy to put
} these two cultures or causes together and come up with a
} machine -- a fairly stupid machine, in fact.

} However, since World War II, when the bourgeoisie had to
} allow a huge amount of wealth to pass into the hands of the
} workers -- hence the postwar boom -- it's turned out that,
} given any kind of room, people simply diverge into hundreds
} and thousands of interests and ways of life.

I agree. Turn-off the televisions, and we'll see another massive
alternative lifestyle explosion.

} Thus far, this divergence has been kept in control by the
} corporate economic authority, the bourgeoisie, to some
} extent.  But, as I posited in my "singularity" articles, I
} believe the means of this control is coming to an end
} because to the way in which the nature and distribution of
} capital are changing.  (I will mail copies of these articles
} on request; but I am cooking up others.)

Personally I'm overloaded just now, but will look for your postings,
(such as _TAZ_).

} Since our social
} system's central control mechanisms (the government, the
} corporations, large institutions, and so on) are formed
} around bourgeois authority, the decline of the latter will
} lead to a disappearance of central control. That being the
} case, anarchy is not an interesting alternative to
} liberal bourgeois capitalism or the imagined efficient
} totalitarian state; it is the fate, the outcome, of the
} former, and the refutation of the latter.

Of course, we've known this for quite some time.

William Yeats, "The Second Coming"

        Turning and turning in a widening gyre
        The falcon can not hear the falconer
        Things fall apart
        The center can not hold
        Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world
        The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
        The ceremony of innocence is drowned...


Joni Mitchell, "Slouching Towards Bethelehem"

        Turning and turning
        Within the widening gyre
        The falcon cannot hear the falconer
        Things fall apart
        The center cannot hold
        And a blood dimmed tide
        Is loosed upon the world

        Nothing is sacred
        The ceremony sinks
        Innocence is drowned
        In anarchy...


} Consequently, I think we have to learn how to make anarchy
} work.

And it looks like there's usually a blood baptism to start.
(Without allowing drama to color the recounting.)

Vernard Eller _Christian Anarchy_ p. 39+...

        A more recent work of Stayer's throws further
        light on the matter. The title of his article,
        "The Revolutionary Origins of the `Peace Churches'"
        (Brethren Life & Thought, Spring 1985), could
        just as accurately have read, "The Anti-Revo-
        lutionary Origins...." For the thesis he so
        convincingly argues is that both sixteenth-
        century Anabaptism and seventeenth-century
        Quakerism represent the Christian, theological
        rebound following a gross failure of justice
        in a political revolution that had been seen
*       as holding great promise. These "rebounders,"
        then, wind up in a quite anti-revolutionary
        stance of anarchism and nonresistance, ie,
        in what Stayer, from the 1527 Schleitheim
        Confession, typifies as "shunning all esta-
        blished churches and all governments [which
        is to say, the powers of both Right and Left,
        Establishement and Revolution] -- all their
        worship services and their `diabolical
        weapons of violence.'"

        The completely proper and biblical conclusion
        drawn by these people was this: It has become
        apparent that no program of human power poli-
        tics can be the method of social justice --
        in that sinful humanity is simply incapable
        of exercising impositional power politics
        without being corrupted by it. Therefore, we
        must look away from the powers of the world
        and turn to God as the one true source of
        hope and justice.

Amen.

There's more too come. I might even try to answer the question
of whether "the fall of the tv preachers," and "the failure of
the politics of hope," will drive the American Churches into
Christian Anarchy. Answer: No way, as a christian anarchist
I couldn't care less about "the American Churches." I do very
much care for the folks I know, and with an eye toward monastic
communities.

-= You see, we have been this way before =-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian