Revolution: Vive la aformentioned, comrade! Revolution is a hoot. Everybody get worked up, or at least a significant force of guerillas, and things get overthrown... but then it's up to you to implement the whole thing at once, and this is very complicated, especially if you are merely a right-handed pitcher with an enthusiasm for cigars and rambling speeches. Also, even if you intend to primarily work through violence, you are going to need a sympathetic public. This requires some fairly specific conditions, and a revolutionary without popular support is just a terrorist. Of course, you can go the non-violent route. There are both practical and ethical reasons to do this. Plus, you need to do something to get people angry while you are waiting around for the proper historical dialectic. Of course, some folks would rather avoid all that mess, which leads them to...
Gradualism: Hey look, a system for enacting change! Assuming you live in a more-or-less constitutional republic, you may be fortunate enough to live in a society that can adapt to the will of the people before they pull out the torches and pitchforks. The election of Barack Obama has of course significantly bouyed this sentiment in the USA. After all, gradualism does require that "change for the better" be a plausible concept. "Listening to reason" is also a popular catchphrase. Gradualism requires a lot of compromise -- it helps if you do not shoot anyone -- and continued pressure from the public. For this reason, you need a public that is not overwhelmingly distracted by shiny objects... Gradualists tend to support education as well. Of course, when your plan for success involves raising the next generation to be more likely to support change, you are admitting that things do not look so hot in the near-term. That's gradualism.
Seperatism: Of course, you could just say fuck that and start your own society, with blackjack and hookers -- or bigamy. And that's why we have Nevada and Utah. Separatism covers everything from survivalist militias to hippie communes. But unlike the previous approaches, which require popular support, anybody and his five smelly friends can be separatist. Pure seperatism is difficult, as it requires total self-sufficiency, but as long as you're content to interact with a corrupt capitalist/carnivorous/Godless/one-corner-world system only sporadically, you have a lot of options. Perhaps you can even serve as an example to others, although then your ideas will need to scale to a real society. I mean, we can't all be bigamists, can we? The answer, surprisingly, is yes, but it involves some rather complicated social graphs. We can expect a real resurgence in separatism if we ever figure out how to cheaply colonize space (or even the oceans). It's the same "free land -> anarchy" equation I laid out for the Internet -- and frankly, life on a hydroponic Rastafarian space station doesn't sound all that bad. Still, be sure you can afford to import soap.
Apathy: On the other hand, you may not give a shit. Sometimes change doesn't seem that plausible, and you can't get yourself worked up enough to leave your family and friends for Mars or South Dakota (Mars is the red one). Well, apathy is for you, my friend, no matter how upset it's going to make George Orwell. He will not be coming to your birthday party. Or maybe there's no hope for change and you have no means of separation -- but this is pretty rare, and you should maybe go check on your broke, oppressed neighbors and see if they don't really want to go for option #1. Unless of course you're in a police state and can't trust them not to turn you in. In this case, it is probably best to feign apathy and keep one eye on the nearest source of asylum at all times. Apathy is only really viable when things are really, tremendously shite, or when they aren't that bad at all. But it is an option, so I've included it.
1 comment:
Wish you had written this after the A.I.G. bonus scandal, Pat?
Post a Comment