jacobito (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} jacobito) wrote,@ 2007-01-29 01:26:00 |
|
Strategy, cause, and effect in a nonlinear world
here are some thoughts in the snow. they arose in response to another one of those discussions about "whether its effective or not", i.e., a discussion that always comes up during large anti-war protests about what they do. . .
---------------
cause and effect:
we live in a nonlinear world [1]. our actions and reactions forms a feedback loop where it becomes pretty impossible on a large scale to actually determine what is a cause and what is an effect. we can play games with language and temporarily assume such and such protest or campaign causes such and such victory or failure, but its near impossible. In a smaller time-scale, in a linear system, we can tell how x produces y and y produces z. we should remember that linear worlds are carved within nonlinear worlds, and not the other way around. but war is a large phenomenon with a large time-scale and our events and actions are thrown into the mix, forming one big assemblage where war and anti-war are part of the same nonlinear equation. what this means is that we don't actually know what we are capable of. we can discern patterns and probabilities, but thats it. anarchist theory and practice respects spontaneity and risk, and in mega-large issues, thats key. mega-organizing is effective when it produces conditions and moments for a real transition to occur, what physicists call a "phase transition." but political 'emergence' takes organizing, although its not sufficient. The spark that causes the prairie fire will shock us and much as it shocks them. lets just hope we aren't the ones rejecting it in favor of our 'theories' of how its 'supposed to go.'
Yet how do we know whether we're a cause or effect? this is the question that so much of our talks come down to: effectiveness. in solidarity work, its the same: are we being effective? Were we effective with oaxaca? are we effective with undocumented people? did we allow for enough possibility for a radical change to occur? But this question is different than "did we get x out of prison?" and "did we stop y from doing z?" those linear questions and issues we can achieve, we can fight for, we can win. But the question of a movement against neoliberalism is
much harder and much more humility is gonna have to go into our efforts to fight it than usual.
Is a large march effective? is a direct action effective? Sure, as long as we know we're lying to ourselves in some sense - at least when we don't set scales of time, place, issue, and question. we use big linear words like 'society', 'war' 'anarchist' and 'people' to cover up the different nonlinear sets that compose them and confront them. Its a way of speaking, its how we get along. but can we afford to do that when we think politically? when we think and organize strategically? maybe we don't even know what strategy is.
strategy, tactics and operations:
Maybe a reason we're all so confused on what to do is because we don't know how to move beyond our strategy/tactics division. or because we've seen the current limit of our confrontational model (coordinated swarm direct actions) along with the current limit of the unified front model (mass antiwar protests) [2]. We try to make tactics into strategies (which is, in the end, unsustainable for all of us) and we get our strategies by some logical deductions from anarchist ideas and history without much additions. we have a realistic vision of the world we want to see (unlike most) and we spend lots of time thinking and debating how we will act in this world and how to get to this world based on how we would act in that world (prefigurative politics; means and ends are same. etc). but although this tell us about our ethics, this doesn't tell us much at all about how to act right now in this world, or what is actually the best way to get from this one to that one. perhaps an anarchist method will never get us to an anarchist world, or a world where many anarchist worlds fit. I just don't know.
But the united front model vs the logic of confrontation model can't be the only two ways of
getting there. perhaps an 'anarchist method' is actually 'against method' as the anarchist scientist paul feyerabend wrote. if we are anarchists all the way down (like alejandro de acosta said at NCOR last year), then we have more possibilities in our hands for action then any other political or social movement in the world. but who is this 'we'? and how can we really be anarchists 'all the way down'? at the base of our politics is a rejection of the tendency to dogmatize our own politics. this is a good thing, and yet so difficult to follow through on. Being open to change, spontaneity and risk means allowing to learn from history and yet not allowing history to dictate our actions.
In military parlance, there's a third option between strategy and tactics; this is called operations, or operational theory. an architect wrote " "Strategy is the motivation, the overview. Tactics is the positioning of the parts ready for the implementation of the strategy. Operations is the carrying through." i know its seen as 'using the masters tools' to learn from the military, but i don't buy that. audre lorde didn't mean that literally, she meant figuratively that the masters tools are homogeneity, uniformity, conformity and that our tools cannot be the same. our tools are diversity, difference, creativity, nonhierarchy. remember ani: any tool is a weapon if you hold it right. so what is the 'carrying through' from our positioning to our overview. How do we carry through differently?
Paul Virilio wrote of Speed and Perception [3] as the most important elements of warfare. Speed is the real motor behind wealth and the power to perceive faster and at a greater distance is the real pivot point in warfare. Are we not in war situation? And i don't mean the middle east. How do we re-think speed? How do we perceive better then them? Or in Jacks article in fifth estate, how do we use the power of 'strategic surprise'? None of this is useful for all anarchist situations. doing childcare, labor pickets, or genderfucking is different than street scenarios. but maybe there is a resonance. listserves are not adequate anymore. its a genuine question whether they hurt or help anarchist organizing or organizing in general. we want to be transparent and yet effective. we want to take risks and yet not take responsibility. we want to have strategy and tactic, but no operations. Maybe its time to expropriate the language that the early State-form took away from early societies without a state: the language of warfare.
[1] see "1000 years of nonlinear history" manuel delanda
[2] see the new 'upping the anti' #3 editorial on this topic:
http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/24
[3] see his "speed and politics" as well as "pure war"
____
here are some thoughts in the snow. they arose in response to another one of those discussions about "whether its effective or not", i.e., a discussion that always comes up during large anti-war protests about what they do. . .
---------------
cause and effect:
we live in a nonlinear world [1]. our actions and reactions forms a feedback loop where it becomes pretty impossible on a large scale to actually determine what is a cause and what is an effect. we can play games with language and temporarily assume such and such protest or campaign causes such and such victory or failure, but its near impossible. In a smaller time-scale, in a linear system, we can tell how x produces y and y produces z. we should remember that linear worlds are carved within nonlinear worlds, and not the other way around. but war is a large phenomenon with a large time-scale and our events and actions are thrown into the mix, forming one big assemblage where war and anti-war are part of the same nonlinear equation. what this means is that we don't actually know what we are capable of. we can discern patterns and probabilities, but thats it. anarchist theory and practice respects spontaneity and risk, and in mega-large issues, thats key. mega-organizing is effective when it produces conditions and moments for a real transition to occur, what physicists call a "phase transition." but political 'emergence' takes organizing, although its not sufficient. The spark that causes the prairie fire will shock us and much as it shocks them. lets just hope we aren't the ones rejecting it in favor of our 'theories' of how its 'supposed to go.'
Yet how do we know whether we're a cause or effect? this is the question that so much of our talks come down to: effectiveness. in solidarity work, its the same: are we being effective? Were we effective with oaxaca? are we effective with undocumented people? did we allow for enough possibility for a radical change to occur? But this question is different than "did we get x out of prison?" and "did we stop y from doing z?" those linear questions and issues we can achieve, we can fight for, we can win. But the question of a movement against neoliberalism is
much harder and much more humility is gonna have to go into our efforts to fight it than usual.
Is a large march effective? is a direct action effective? Sure, as long as we know we're lying to ourselves in some sense - at least when we don't set scales of time, place, issue, and question. we use big linear words like 'society', 'war' 'anarchist' and 'people' to cover up the different nonlinear sets that compose them and confront them. Its a way of speaking, its how we get along. but can we afford to do that when we think politically? when we think and organize strategically? maybe we don't even know what strategy is.
strategy, tactics and operations:
Maybe a reason we're all so confused on what to do is because we don't know how to move beyond our strategy/tactics division. or because we've seen the current limit of our confrontational model (coordinated swarm direct actions) along with the current limit of the unified front model (mass antiwar protests) [2]. We try to make tactics into strategies (which is, in the end, unsustainable for all of us) and we get our strategies by some logical deductions from anarchist ideas and history without much additions. we have a realistic vision of the world we want to see (unlike most) and we spend lots of time thinking and debating how we will act in this world and how to get to this world based on how we would act in that world (prefigurative politics; means and ends are same. etc). but although this tell us about our ethics, this doesn't tell us much at all about how to act right now in this world, or what is actually the best way to get from this one to that one. perhaps an anarchist method will never get us to an anarchist world, or a world where many anarchist worlds fit. I just don't know.
But the united front model vs the logic of confrontation model can't be the only two ways of
getting there. perhaps an 'anarchist method' is actually 'against method' as the anarchist scientist paul feyerabend wrote. if we are anarchists all the way down (like alejandro de acosta said at NCOR last year), then we have more possibilities in our hands for action then any other political or social movement in the world. but who is this 'we'? and how can we really be anarchists 'all the way down'? at the base of our politics is a rejection of the tendency to dogmatize our own politics. this is a good thing, and yet so difficult to follow through on. Being open to change, spontaneity and risk means allowing to learn from history and yet not allowing history to dictate our actions.
In military parlance, there's a third option between strategy and tactics; this is called operations, or operational theory. an architect wrote " "Strategy is the motivation, the overview. Tactics is the positioning of the parts ready for the implementation of the strategy. Operations is the carrying through." i know its seen as 'using the masters tools' to learn from the military, but i don't buy that. audre lorde didn't mean that literally, she meant figuratively that the masters tools are homogeneity, uniformity, conformity and that our tools cannot be the same. our tools are diversity, difference, creativity, nonhierarchy. remember ani: any tool is a weapon if you hold it right. so what is the 'carrying through' from our positioning to our overview. How do we carry through differently?
Paul Virilio wrote of Speed and Perception [3] as the most important elements of warfare. Speed is the real motor behind wealth and the power to perceive faster and at a greater distance is the real pivot point in warfare. Are we not in war situation? And i don't mean the middle east. How do we re-think speed? How do we perceive better then them? Or in Jacks article in fifth estate, how do we use the power of 'strategic surprise'? None of this is useful for all anarchist situations. doing childcare, labor pickets, or genderfucking is different than street scenarios. but maybe there is a resonance. listserves are not adequate anymore. its a genuine question whether they hurt or help anarchist organizing or organizing in general. we want to be transparent and yet effective. we want to take risks and yet not take responsibility. we want to have strategy and tactic, but no operations. Maybe its time to expropriate the language that the early State-form took away from early societies without a state: the language of warfare.
[1] see "1000 years of nonlinear history" manuel delanda
[2] see the new 'upping the anti' #3 editorial on this topic:
http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/24
[3] see his "speed and politics" as well as "pure war"
____
