Dru Blood - I believe in the inherent goodness of all beings: anarchism Archives

DruBlood

Home
Dramatis Personae
Archives
Contact

Feed the Bleed

Full Bleed Fundraiser

Amazon wish list
Cole’s birthday - 10/24
Monk’s birthday - 12/2
Dru’s birthday - 1/5

Search

Syndicate this site (XML)

Special thanks

adam host
julie template queen
kd general lusciousness
pea guru

Powered byMovable Type 1.5

Why Anarchism?

November 9, 2007

I have been reading one of the rare print issues of LiP magazine I have in my collection (sadly, the magazine folded along with a bunch of other more prominent small press magazines. I keep meaning to write about that!). This quote from an interview with Vandana Shiva, although not necessarily about anarchism, is exactly how I wish I would have always answered people who have asked me "Isn't anarchism ultimately a selfish philosophy?":

I see living society the way I see living systems. I don't see society as an aggregation of atomized, fragmented individuals. That's why I don't go down the Hobbesian path. I see society as organic, in which every level has an autonomous existence, and a self-organizing capacity, but in relationship with other self-organizing systems. Which means that your freedom, your personal freedom, is then in the context of total consciousness and awareness of other people's personal freedom. It is that awareness which I call compassion, I call solidarity. And it's through compassion and solidarity that you do not have the irresponsibility built into personal freedom the way it has in Western philosophy and political science, with the terrorizing by these guys who exaggerate certain human tendencies. Personal freedom is real. A person is a full subject. But a person is not a subject in isolation: We are in family, we are in friendships, we are in community, we are in working contexts, we are in certain towns, we are living in certain lands—all that does define levels of who we are and our identities and therefore, also, our searching for our freedoms. Because all those freedoms have to be carried together.

Posted at 7:25 AM • Comments (2) • TrackBack

Daniel Chodorkoff On Utopia

January 3, 2007

I need to come back and read this article fully, but this really struck me:

Utopia is a term coined by Sir Thomas More in 1515.1 He traces the root to two Greek words: outopia, translated as no place, and eutopia, the good place. The word has acquired, since Frederick Engles' critique of "utopian" socialism in Anti-Duhring,2 the negative connotation of outopia-cloud cuckoo land. For our purposes, the term must be understood in a more neutral way: as a description of an approach to social reconstruction oriented toward the creation of an "ideal" society.
The utopian impulse is a response to existing social conditions and an attempt to transcend or transform those conditions to achieve an ideal. It always contains two interrelated elements: a critique of existing conditions and a vision or reconstructive program for a new society. Utopias usually arise during periods of social upheaval, when the old ways of a society are being questioned by new developments. Thus, Plato's Republic3 emerged in Athens after the victory of Sparta in the Peloponnesian Wars, More's Utopia emerged during the Age of Discovery, and the industrial revolution gave birth to numerous utopian experiments.

It being the new year and all, I am trying to figure out how to move myself more toward my ideals. I think this article is a good place to start to really think about where I am heading, as an individual, and the societal context in which I live and love.

Posted at 1:23 PM • Comments (0) • TrackBack

The origins of things

March 30, 2006

I suddenly find myself nursing the most healthy addiction of all.

Hello, my name is Lainie, and I am addicted to interaction.

Last night, yet again, I walked into my living room, set to give the dog her long-overdue walk. And there was Rachel. Rachel, the wonderful distraction. Rachel, with whom I have spent the past month engaged in some of the most wonderful, revealing, heart-wrending, open, honest discussions. I feel replenished. And I'm sad that she is leaving in a few short days.

So, we talked. Fuck the walk. The dog lay on the couch and sighed and sighed. I felt bad, but, like I said, I'm addicted to interaction.

Also, I have initiated a couple of nice little email exchanges that are very gratifying to me. Email is another vice of mine - only sometimes I feel like I am foisting my emails on people because, well, I *do* go on and on, if encouraged...and sometimes even if not encouraged. I seem to have made at least one friend who loves to send and receive emails, and I am enjoying it a great deal. Silly, sweet, stupid, charming little exchanges several times a day. Yes. Oh yes. It's like a writer's wet dream! Here, you can have this! I wasn't using it anyway! And you are giving me something in return? How nice!

So, anyway, the origins of things. Last night, the conversation with Rachel twisted and turned and convoluted itself right back to the origins of this...thing...I have where I am constantly drawing a certain personality type into my life. Yes. I am familiar - Quite familiar - with my relationship patterns and where they originate. I am also pleased to note that I am recognizing myself in those patterns as I fall into the groove. Soon enough to stay detached from the outcome, and yet, somehow I've managed to not become jaded by my own idiocy.

It's nice. I feel whole. And I feel like I have something genuine to offer to a conversation, rather than glib speculation or advice I read in a book. I also feel fully present, and fully accepting of what is being offered to me in the moment. Knowing how my interactions with my family have effected me in the present, I also feel like I can participate in at least recognizing and acknowledging how those same patterns play out with my children.

Yesterday, I heard Monk talking to Coley in a harsh tone. I walked out, and they were both in tears. Coley had stepped on Monk's hand, and Monk was lecturing Coley about how he NEVER is careful. There was anger and hurt in their tone with each other. Practicing my newfound art of emotion coach, I told Monk that I was sorry that he was hurt, but that I wanted to see him talking to Coley about his feelings in the present, rather than using the words never or always with regard to Coley's behavior (of course, Monk...with a sly smile...tried to say "not ever" instead, but he quickly got that it was the same thing.) And then I asked him "I know you were hurt by Coley, but does it make you feel better to make Coley feel hurt, also?" I was pleased that his answer was no. But he had already carried his lecture to the point where Coley was feeling a bit enraged, so there was a moment where Coley had to compose himself. "Mom," said Monk..".I KNOW that look on his face! He's GOING to hit me!" Monk locked himself in the bathroom while Coley released some anger by yelling, not hitting. And I held Coley for awhile and it only took a moment - long enough for me to say "I know you will feel bad about yourself it you hit someone." and the rage turned to regret and sadness, and Coley was ready to make amends with Monk.

I don't know if I'm conveying it clearly here, because I'm running late for my thingy today, but it was actually a really monumental moment. The boys were both very clear about their feelings, and they both responded so well to being reasoned with, empathized with, and yet still held to a standard of expression that is acceptable. I was so proud of them, and of me.

So, all of this examining. All of this talking, and hashing out. All of my fucking up and trying again and fucking up again and trying again again...it's all got a point. The origins might be disordered and painful, but where it's leading is ordered, free, and totally healthy.

"While looking for the light, you may suddenly be devoured by darkness and find the True Light." - Jack Kerouac

Posted at 6:00 AM • Comments (0) • TrackBack

"Living Well"

February 28, 2006

In addition to subverting the integrity of the human community, capitalism has tainted teh classical notion of "living well" by fostering an irrational dread of material scarcity. By establishing quantitative criteria for the "good life," it has dissolved the ethical implications of "limit." This ethical lacuna raises a specifically technical problematic for our time. In equating "living well" with living affluently, capitalism has made it extremely difficult to demonstrate that freedom is more closely identified with personal autonomy than with affluence, with empowerment over life than with empowerment over things, with the emotional security that derives frmo a nourishing community life than with a material security that derives from the myth of a nature dominated by an all-mastering technology.

(From The Ecology Of Freedom by Murray Bookchin)

Posted at 1:20 PM • Comments (0) • TrackBack

Sound system gonna bring me back up...

February 27, 2006

So, I guess I've broken though. There's nothing like anarchism love is free. There's nothing like having/taking time to sit with people and express honestly how you feel about you, them, the universe, and everything - and feel totally heard and totally not reacted to and totally responded to - even if it's painful to some degree. There's nothing like feeling like real love is more than physical bodies colliding. Like there is no such thing as unrequited provided there is honesty and emotion. There is nothing like that. Nothing. I can't feel bad about anything because I have everything I need. And you don't need to feel bad, either...because I can give you everything you want without feeling...unrequited.

and you, too. And you. Thank you.

The trick is to take this practice, and expand it to everyone. Take it beyond the two or three people I feel safe with, and allow myself to really fully love everyone. It is my form of activism. It's also the only way I know how to really live.

Operation Ivy - Sound System

(Chorus)
Sound System gonna bring me back up
One thing that I can depend on.
Try to describe it as a limit of my ability;
It's there for a second
Then it's given up what it used to be.
Contained in music somehow more than just sound,
This inspiration coming and twisting things around
Because you always know that it's gonna have to go.
You always know that you'll be back in the cold.
Point of departure sublimated in a song
It's always coming to give me that hope
for just a second then it's gone but!
(Chorus)
Static pulse inside of music bringing us escape.
It's always temporary, changing nothing in it's wake...
Just a second where we're leaving all this shit behind.
Just a second but it's leaving just this much in mind:
To resist despair, the second makes you see...
To resist despair, because you can't change everything...
To resist despair, in this world is what it is to be free.
(Chorus)
Wake up turn my box on,
Bust the shade, let the sun in.
Times getting tougher 'bout time to start runnin'
Box in my hand music by my side,
Skankin' to the rhythm of the music by my side.

Posted at 11:22 AM • Comments (0) • TrackBack

Private Journal entry, January 21, 2006

February 24, 2006

1/21/2006 9:45 AM

It's funny -
You don't realize
how broken you are
Until you start to heal
And then -
Oh fuck!
I'm so broken!

******

The book I am reading talks about the pre-literate social role of women before the taint (I can't fucking say that word anymore without thinking about the Daily Show Taintstravaganza!) of heirarchical societies. It talks about women as source, not only of life, but of unself-conscious love. Love without the need for reciprocity. Unconditional. Whereas a man's love became rooted in a complex system of procreation (with a spouse) and reward for "right" behavior (with a child &, I guess, a spouse as well.)

Could it be that societies break down when we begin to question whether or not we are lovable - and whether or not others are worthy of our love? Just how much are our interactions with others totally subverted by our membership in civil society?

It makes me frustrated AND it makes me thankful that there seems to be unbounded love in my life. I am thankful for any opportunity to love without fear and to love without condition. I feel like I need to cultivate that - I need to find a way to suffuse that love. An absolute anarchic diffusion of love and appreciation for everyone who is part of my life and the universe at large.

Posted at 2:42 PM • Comments (0) • TrackBack

Growth, Giving Up, and more Growth

February 21, 2006

The great social experiment (which, for those who haven't been following along, is my current living situation in which I am sharing my home with another family of four) is drawing to a close. We went into the situation with the assumption that it would be temporary, so it's not like any of us are ending something that was meant to continue forever, but I do have some thoughts about time limits and limiting times. Some of these thoughts pertain to this living situation, and some do not. So, as a general disclaimer - I should say that none of this has anything to do with any shortcomings of my friends and housemates here. They have been great to share space with. They have helped me so much in so many things. They have also challenged me to grow in really important ways. I have viewed just about every single interaction with them, even the more painful ones, in a very positive way, and I am thankful for having had the opportunity to spend this time in this situation with them. I don't think it would have been nearly as successful as it has been with anyone else. I guess that's not a general disclaimer...that's a very specific disclaimer, but it's sincere.

These days, though, I wonder how much we humans limit ourselves, or put time limits on things in order to avoid adapting or growing to allow change to happen. There was a lot of talk last weekend (at the historians against the war convention) about another world being possible. And I get that. I get that our country...our world, really, has been steeped in war and imperialism from the very beginning...and that so few examples exist of cooperative/collectivist societies that it can seem impossible, idealistic, and unachievable. And broken down into sub-sub-sub-sub worlds, right down to our household units, it doesn't seem any more attainable.

Throughout these 3 co-housing months, I have frequently wanted to read a book about what others have done in similar situations to solve the problems that we have encountered...only to find myself frustrated because THERE IS NO MANUAL. Not because living with another family is so revolutionary that no one has ever done it, and perhaps I just didn't look hard enough...but also because 3 months is such a small little period on the timeline. It's really only enough time to dip our feet in collectivism. Honestly, and this is due to my own neuroses as much or more than anything else...3 months was not enough time for me to overcome the shock of sharing. In order for a true collective household to emerge, we would need more time. A lot more time. (Again, I need to disclaim that the purpose of this cohousing situation was not to form a permanent collectivist arrangement, so this is not due to any shortcomings on the part of any of us in the household.)

The funny thing, and I think I've mentioned this before, is that I'm only beginning to grow used to the living situation, and am starting to adapt in a more healthy way. I wonder how much we humans do that - give ourselves too little time to get over the hump of adaptation, and then pull away. This same thing happened when my friend R came to stay for a few months last year. We had just adapted to being crammed in the same house together - we just got the kitchen dance down - when it was time for her to go. Granted, these situations are self-limited and intended to be so, but they make me think about all of the times I have stopped before I even began - how many things I have quit before I really got started.

Is it really that I just fear success? Can that be the trite explanation to this conundrum? I've often THOUGHT that. I mean, I don't necessarily think it's that I fear the hard work, although that might be true in some cases. It seems like certain situations and relationships require hard work just before they get easier...and even when they get easier the hard work might have to continue throughout the duration. Do we naturally choose situations that will enable maximum growth? And is backing away from those situations a sign of weakness...or wisdom? I'm thinking about this in terms of my current living situation as well as some relationships, potential relationships, and unsuccessful relationships I have had/am having...and perhaps will have. Perhaps it's a combination of reasons.

I find myself pulling away from people sometimes. I call it "taking a break." I can deal with the quirks that make them human and wonderful, but after awhile with some people I just need to get some distance. I guess sometimes this is because I'm avoiding my own growth...but sometimes it's just because I need a fucking break from certain frustrating characteristics.

Another World Is Possible rings in my head. I believe that in my heart, but I wonder how that world is to be achieved. We are all so bound up in our societally-imposed ideas of what it means to relate to one another that even earnest attempts at breaking free can end up isolating us further. To the point where even going out to listen to someone give a talk about revolutionary concepts can result in two of the people I care about most in the world criticizing and complaining about the other people in the room. It gets depressing, you know? I start to get sucked in sometimes, and start to think "Yeah...people really ARE irritating, self-righteous, self-aggrandizing assholes!" But where the fuck does that get me - or anyone else? Certainly not any closer to that other world. But what is the solution? How do we learn to live with one another, whether it be sharing a house, sharing a room at a bookstore, sharing a conference, or sharing the fucking planet? My instinct...and probably yours...is that we start small. It's easy to say "change comes from within" - but what does that really mean? For me, it means learning to better accept what I view as shortcomings in other people. I think I'm on the right track when I :

a) search everyone I know or meet randomly or even just see and find something lovable about them. And focus on that lovable quality above all else. People will always find ways to disappoint me...but I can try even harder to find things about them that I deeply love.

b) notice the qualities in the people I care about that maybe aren't so lovable, and learn to appreciate those qualities for what they are - a part of what makes my loved ones who they are - rather than wishing they would change. Wow. Is this ever a challenge. But since I am not capable of forcing people to change, it's really the only way to fully love the people in my life. Unconditionally.

Sounds easy, right? Ha!

ETA:
You know, another important thing for me to remember is that I am not perfect, and I forgive myself and those around me for perceived imperfections. If I do occasionally make fun of people or situations, or generalize, or allow myself to respond to my fear of failure or shortcomings with regard to certain people, events, or environments...I can't give up on myself entirely! Nor can I give up on those I love when they display the same kind of behavior. Sometimes I need to just hang back, detach a bit, search for those qualities that I love within those around me, and move forward again with the knowledge that we all have blind spots as well as beauty. And immerse myself again.

ETA, again:
You know, another thought I'm having is that I frequently encounter a sort of "negativist peer pressure" that comes from people who are close to one another. Where someone finds something negative to complain about, and everyone sort of riffs on that. I admit, I engage in this and even instigate it at times (actually, fairly frequently)...and it's not that people should never ever do this, because it can be damn fun...but I worry about the habit of finding fault in everything. It's really fucking habit-forming. I've had entire relationships with people that have devolved into streams of sarcastic behavior to the point where honest emotion is never expressed or communicated. Again, Smart-assholitude can be the greatest thing on earth, but we need to strike a balance. I think Bill Hicks does that...he's a good person to study. Just when you start to think "Holy fuck! This man is the most depressing, negative naysayer on the planet!" He starts talking about how we are all one and one with the universe - and somehow that makes it ok. So, I mean, I think I need to examine how this dynamic is at play in my relationships...and I need to remember to bust out with the "I love you becauses" as much or more than I bust out with the silly farting around. And not only in my relationships, but in the world at large, and all of the little scenarios I find myself in within that world.

Posted at 9:29 AM • Comments (1) • TrackBack

Laundromat Revolution!

February 20, 2006

If I were to attempt to instigate a revolution, I would begin at the laundromat. In fact, I wish I had more time today to hang out and talk to the men who were there, talking about hard times and how "Those people in the government need to be told, once and for all, that there's no incentive to work! Making money only forces you to owe more money, and they get it all in the end!" Wow! If that's not the seed of revolution, I don't know what is. And it's all happening at the laundromat.

In fact, when I think about it, what better place? Generally speaking, laundromats are utilized by people who are not property holders and who have limited means. You have to sit there and wait for your clothes, so there is plenty of time to gab and shoot the shit and you are also sort of trapped there to listen to the opposing viewpoints of your neighbors. In such close quarters, civility is a necessity. I think, when my kids are a bit older and more able to do without me here for an hour or so at a time, I might just start hanging out at the laundromat - at least on wet, cloudy days like today where the clothesline is not an option. Maybe I'll just start hanging out there without even doing any laundry. Reading a book and waiting for an opportunity to engage in interesting conversation with my neighbors.

Posted at 8:50 AM • Comments (0) • TrackBack

Psychiatry in a dysfunctional Society

December 26, 2005

I was reading back through my archives, and I found this awesome interview with Dr. Bruce E. Levine:

"The ultimate invalidation is to look at some kid who is refusing to pay attention or behave well, and not respect that there's something by way of rebellion and resistance going on there, and then to medicalize it and then to drug it.
[It's] no accident that the greatest growth in diagnoses and in our population of people on drugs [have to do with] kids and teenagers. One of the reasons is that there's more and more pressure on kids to conform and comply."

****

"What I've found from my patients over the last 16 years is that the people who I see who are depressed and anxious are a lot of the most likable people I know. To me, it usually indicates that their soul is still intact. They're capable of feeling hurt, loss, pain—they haven't utterly anesthetized themselves like a lot of society. Take a look: one out of four people are on psychiatric drugs.

So, the first thing is, feel good about yourself that you're human enough to still feel hurt, anxiety and pain.

The second thing is, forgive yourself for probably doing a hell of a lot of stupid things with that—self-destructive things, unkind, selfish things to yourself and others.

The third thing is that once you understand that there are good reasons for why you're feeling the way you are, you want to move into finding a way to transform your life. That can be a real, satisfying, lifelong project.

Partially, what you start to understand is that you [need to] develop, in your life, a community of people who are like you, a community of people who really dig you. People who, when you see them and they see you, are really excited.

[If] they're interested in who you are, and you're interested in who they are, then at that point in time, you're starting to create a more human life for yourself."

I'm really starting to re-evaluate all of the things I have been saying about depressed men. Perhaps what's needed is more understanding and less griping. To be fair to myself, it's kind of difficult to muster the empathy when I'm embroiled in a relationship with someone who is so horribly stuck in a rut. What the world needs is offroad tires for the soul.

Posted at 9:28 AM • Comments (0) • TrackBack

Navel Gazing (or relationships, isolation, community, and sex)

October 8, 2005

I just realized something important about who I am and what I need. Perhaps it's a result of the Kurt Vonnegut interview on Now last night, where he stated point-blank that the purpose of life is "farting around" and that people need to form gangs (because the end of the world (as we know it) is coming, and the nuclear family is a shitty way to prepare for this cataclysm...instead we need extended families either of blood or invention.

Listen, I know that might sound a bit kooky. David Brancaccio (swooooon) had that sort of bored look of condescenscion on his face throughout the interview (which, admittedly, he almost always has. He's such a damn journalist. Sometimes, though, that bored look of condescenscion really works for him...so I'm not going to complain too bitterly about it)...but I think Mr. Vonnegut is correct. And even if he isn't...wouldn't it be fun to be in a gang? Certainly more fun than the isolation of every day life. And by isolation, I don't mean absolutely alone, but ostensibly stranded on the island of family.

It occurred to me this morning that I wasn't always so isolated, and I wondered what it was that changed it. I have lived my entire life as a quiet observer of others, and there were several years there where I was starved for that. When were those years?

Fuck, I think to myself. My abusive relationship with L strikes again - and takes on another angle. It all started with L. And I hate to blame L for all of my problems, but holy fuck, it's true that from the beginning of my relationship with him, my close friends were, one by one, alienated. He would tell me they weren't good enough for me. That I shouldn't be cleaning up after them. That I shouldn't be picking them up when they didn't have rides. To top it off, he picked a fight with one of them that almost came to blows & that was the end of that - I knew where my loyalties lie. Besides, I was pregnant.

OK, so I don't want to go into the boring play-by-play of my life with L. But this explains a lot. It explains a lot of my unnamed frustration and jealousy in my relationship with him. It names a lot of my dissatisfaction. It exacerbated the already acute feelings of isolation I carry with me just by virtue of being me. And, yes, it can be argued that it, at times, turned me into a jealous bitch. By the time we had had Monk, I was the band mom...not in a good way. The other band members would come by and drop their kid off for me to watch while they all practiced. I was never asked. I was never invited to hang out with them. I was the chick in the other room with the kids. My role was made to expand to suit them, without thought of the sacrifice. I never realized how painful that was to me...to have people crawling all over my house but feel like I could not observe and participate. I always just thought I was being unnecessarily bitter, and inappropriately bitchy. Now I realize I wasn't bitter and bitchy ENOUGH. Fuck me and my damn inability to take a fucking stand.

One day, a different band, Monk was asleep and I joined L and the other guy in the back room after practice. I sat in the circle with them, but outside of their reality. I felt good, though. I was cracking jokes & the other guy was laughing. I watched their interactions - L's and this guy. I loved it when they were together because they were like brothers, from what little I observed. L, too, was always isolated from people due to his own self-imposed barriers. I used to love it so when he was with people who allowed him to let his guard down. He was always such a beautiful person when he let his guard down. It was rare, but it was incredible to observe.

So, I'm back there cracking wise and being open to life and love and feeling really good about things. And then the other guy left & L turned...and turned to me and accused me, raspily, of hitting on his friend. He accused me of being obvious and easy and embarrassing. He said his friend was just being polite by including me in the banter, but that I had made him so uncomfortable.

And I shrank. It was so easy to make me shrink then. It's easy to make someone shrink when that someone is not sure what it is that makes them big again. I shrank, visibly, it seemed. I am pretty sure I walked out of the room in silence. There were probably tears. Why would I hit on L's friend? At that point, I was still so totally in love with L that there would have been no point. I was just dying to be included, not only in L's life...but in life in general.

That's what I realized this morning. Maude, for the first time! How stupid am I? All of those years of hearing verbally and non-verbally about all of the sacrifices that L made when we had a child together, I never had time to think about what I sacrificed. Working full-time so many hours out of the day that I barely had time to see my baby, much less my husband, much, much less any sort of observable community. I sacrificed the things that made me who I am. And there was no room in the relationship to give voice to that.

I will say one thing, though. When I had community - I didn't recognize it for what it was. I certainly didn't appreciate it. We were just people out having fun. I had no idea that it was significant. So I never really fought for it. I just dutifully played the role I felt I was meant to play, as mother and provider and, now, abused and meek spouse.

And I can't blame L entirely. Before I met him, I had wandered around disconnected for some time. Isolation in the form of a move to Lubbock Texas, after so much trauma in Chicago. But at least at that point in my life I had the zine, I had friends via letters, I had long-distance community.

And I can't say it ended with L, either. In the midst of refinding a joyous community among the rubble of my confidence, I stumbled into another relationship which, unbeknownst to me at the time, was a pretty trap. And I realized that no matter how much freedom you are given in a relationship, if the other person in the relationship prefers isolation, isolation will rule the relationship, for me anyway, to a frustrating degree. Because participation in a lively community is not something one can do without one's partner. In fact, the very heart of my feelings of isolation is my need to share the beauty and joy of the world with everyone I know. That's sort of difficult to do when the person you are attempting to share it with sees no beauty or joy in community. And it's almost impossible to do when that person would rather stay in and watch a movie and have sex than do anything remotely life-affirming. Granted, sex can be incredibly life-affirming, but only to a point. After awhile, even the sex can be isolating. If you think about it (and I'll get to this later) sex can be the most isolating act of all.

So I woke up this morning with all of these realizations. Now what am I going to do about it? Well, for one, I'm in a self-imposed semi-isolation period these next few weeks - preparing for Pansy and her family to move in here. There is much to do and much to think about that requires me being here without much outside interaction & that's fine. In the month of November, the kids will be at their dad's house a lot (every weekend) and that will be my time to go out among people. The hard part is my nature. I am terribly shy. My friendships tend to grow, amoeba-like, out of themselves. In fact, I'm thinking about 2 or 3 of my closest friends in Austin, and they are people I met through other people. But even if I'm sitting by myself somewhere, I'm out and I'm observing, and that's what I like to do best of all.

I really think the key for me right now is to not get involved romantically with anyone. For whatever reason, this tends to make me feel more isolated. I was actually delighted to hear a gay priest interviewed on Fresh Air put this theory I have to words. He was talking about the reasons for celibacy. How being celibate enables him to love more people more fully. That's a very rote summary of what he said, but I find it to be true in my life. Sex complicates things for me. It was partially because of my insistence on not having sex when I was younger that I formed some of my closest relationships. I don't think I will ever be able to recreate the exact atmosphere in which those relationships were formed & I don't think I can (nor do I desire) to live without sex for the rest of my life...but I think it would be better for me if I just excluded it for a bit and allowed myself to fall in love with everything and everyone. No strings attached.

Let's Panic Later
The Ex

It's in your face, you gotta go
but don't do things that would make me cry
if you feel an urge, have a go
but I don't wanna hear your reasons why
all I see is your face
is the shape of things that tears replace
it's in your face you gotta go
just don't do things tht would make you cry

It's a ratrace go go go
every step meand a bigger wall
there's no u-turn signs ahead
for to rise thou shalt not fall

You're way beyond the 9-5
you thought you had a life?
well, you've had your 1 sec rest
it seems you passed the test

Which clock to beat is next
there's another phone to catch
time flies in a traffic jam
giving way to a dead end stretch

Don't stop if you want it all
be deaf for the burn-out call
but there's more that to live a lie
take breat, make room to sigh

Everything is getting faster
is it going anywhere...

It's a fastlane life
once you live it like a car
one day you're running out of gas
well, did it get you very far...

It's the age of aging
it's the age of aging
I'm not afraid of age and
not afraid of aging

And the carousel's cruising for another ride
guess who sits upfront, it's mr. make-it-mine
he puts another dime in your slotmachine
bt the jackpot hits you,
it's not the other way round

Everything is going fast
is it going anywhere...

Slowly I realized that it dawned on me
the younger you are, the more you wanna be
but living it fast? a thing from the past
any kind of age has ways to set you free
But it's not greed, or sleek behaviour
just do your own thing, you can always panic later
don't get stuck in the rut of that human car
now maybe I am pushing it,
am I pushing it too far?

It's the age of aging
I'm not afraid of age, end.

Posted at 8:31 AM • Comments (1) • TrackBack

Anarchism: What it really stands for.

August 3, 2005

Emma Goldman: Anarchism: What it really stands for | The Progressive Blog Alliance HQ

But what about human nature? Can it be changed? And if not, will it endure under Anarchism?
Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?

John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?

Freedom, expansion, opportunity, and, above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities.

Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.

Posted at 11:21 PM • Comments (0) • TrackBack

Marriage in post-capitalist society

January 14, 2004

The conversation with Zagg about homeschooling in a post-capitalist society (a conversation that Zagg kindly recapped for me in an e-mail, and that I'm hoping to post here with my responses) got me to thinking about marriage and capitalism. I'm sort of still wondering how much marriage as an institution is more of a response to our capitalist, state-centered world than it is an expression of intimate love between two people. Maybe I'm jaded, but the contract of marriage seems more about creating an insurance policy against "going it alone" than anything else.

I'm interested in hearing what others think about this, and if anyone else thinks there would be a different kind of marriage if we didn't exist in a world in which our primary focus of the day centers around earning money to fund our miniscule amounts of "leisure" time.

Don't get me wrong, I am a TOTAL romantic. I believe in love, absolutely...I'm not asking whether people should fall in love and make commitments to each other. What I'm asking is if anyone has an opinion about the social contract of marriage and how it might manifest in a less money-driven society. I've been thinking about it all day, and will probably post my thoughts later.

Posted at 4:17 PM • Comments (11) • TrackBack

I am a poseur and I don't care...

October 29, 2003

I have to cop to the fact that, while I talk frequently about anarchism, I am NOT a scholarly anarchist. I say this because a few people have asked me about anarchism, looking for good anarchist texts to read and, quite honestly, I didn't come to anarchism by reading about it...and, in fact, for years and years I avoided calling myself an anarchist because so many of the people I knew who claimed to be anarchist were either stuffy, pseudo-intellectual freakazoids or immature kaos kids. OK - maybe not ALL. I mean, there's Profane Existence and Slingshot and other cool collectives that really embody what I think is the true spirit of anarchism...but I conveniently ignored those shining examples and chose to focus on the negative, as I am prone to doing.

What brought me to anarchism, though, was the gradual but persistent awareness of the fact that humans are meant to be free, and that - yes - all beings are inherently good. I truly believe that people are born with a desire to do right things, and it is the system that engenders greed and competition that drives people to act in a way that is contrary to our inherent good nature. I have a sense, through my limited exposure to anarchist texts, that I have a natural inclination towards anarchism, and everything I do read reinforces that sense...but I do not tend to follow textbooks or tenets - which I'm certain solidifies even further that I am, in fact, an anarchist. (I'm probably a Buddhist too, to a great extent, but I feel like I would need to know a lot more about Buddhism to identify as such)

The best anarchist text that I have read, though is the one upon which the Negativland/chumbawamba song "ABC's of Anarchism" is based.

For so long, I refused to refer to myself as "the 'a' word" because the philosophy behind anarchism is so misunderstood...but at one point I came to the realization that if I didn't start calling myself an anarchist, then there was no possibility of being able to explain the philosophy (which kind of defies explanation, particularly when dealing people who are so immersed in society as it is that they can't conceive of there being "another way") to people who might be interested in exploring other methods of co-existing and collaborating. I might add, this is how I felt about feminism for a long time before I finally "gave in" and started to identify as a feminist. Now I look around me and I see many, many people who I consider to be true Anarchists, who would never even think to identify as such. Which is totally cool with me, and probably makes them even more anarchist than I am (ha ha).

So, I may be a poseur anarchist who would fail "intro to kroptkin 101" miserably, but I know in my heart that people are meant to be autonomous as well as interdependent, and that external governance and an economic system based on scarcity only serves those who have the privilege and power to influence our representatives.

And, while I believe that an anarchist "state" is possible, and is likely to be the only means of sustainable existence, I'm not really interested in waiting around or rooting for a bloody revolution. Instead, I allow the philosophy of anarchism to affect my life by helping me to define how I want to interact with the world on a personal level. I am informed by the idea that, essentially, the ideal way of doing things is by relying on myself and the various communities of which I am a part to accomplish my goals in life. Melding autonomy with interdependence is a common practice among parents, and...I'm finding, is particularly useful in the homeschooling community. We all have our strengths which can be shared, and together we are able to reduce our reliance on government entities to educate and nurture our children and ourselves.

Dude, that doesn't take any fancy book learning. That's just plain ole common sense.

Posted at 5:38 PM • Comments (6) • TrackBack

an e-mail to my brother

October 29, 2003

...in which I once again attempt to explain the concept of unschooling (he's been very patient with my efforts so far) AND in which I come out as at least an anti-capitalist. I'm wondering where that is going to lead. And also in which I, in not-so-subtle-ways question the rosy picture that some of my family members have painted of our childhood.

Before you click to read more, I should say that I really think my family resents the fact that I never went to college. I hear from them all the time that they were jealous of the fact that I got straight A's throughout my schooling, seemingly without effort while they all had to struggle for B's and C's...but they all seemed to turn out OK. It's funny how grades have seemed to make them feel as if they are somehow less worthy than me of being called "smart" or whatever. I was "the smart one." I need to add something about this to the actual e-mail before I send it.

[cross-posted to the radical homeschool blog]

Hey Michael...

I want to preface what I'm about to say by saying that I think Mom did the best that could be expected of anyone in her position. She had 7 children to care for, and I'm growing to understand more and more that she was probably battling with some pretty serious depression while we were growing up, with all that entails.

That said, I simply can't compare my childhood (nor can you compare yours) with what my children are experiencing. First of all, there are only two of them. Second, they get at least three hours of direct attention from me on average every day - which is more than I ever got from mom and school combined. This means that we can have discussions about drugs and depression and pharmaceuticals over our lunch, which is a conversation that we had yesterday, which springboarded off of Monk's desire to eat ALL of the vitamins, which prompted me to relate a story about a friend of mine who had a seizure after eating an entire bottle of vitamins, which led to a very deep discussion about the side effects of drugs, after which we further explored how depression can be cause by external drugs that are ingested as well as internal chemicals gone awry.

This conversation lasted about 30 minutes, but I think it was probably the equivalent of a week of lessons in a modern scholastic setting. Plus I was able to present the idea of drug addiction to monk in real terms with real consequences, and I was able to reiterate to him that he will be responsible for his own body one day, but until then, I am in charge of making sure that when he becomes an adult and gains that responsibility, he has the tools necessary to do a good job, as well as a relatively clean slate with which to work.

I would never tell someone that they have to unschool their children for them to be happy. That's just ridiculous. However, I feel that unschooling, or something resembling it, is the right solution for my children. I do intentionally sit down with them for "lesson time" three times a day for an hour or so, but mostly that time is spent reading books that they enjoy listening to, working on puzzles that they enjoy, having discussions about things we have observed or done together, and sometimes just reading a good goosebumps book together. Today, I sat down to do morning circle. I lit the candle, I started reading, and they were far more interested in dressing up in costumes from the dress up bin to bother with listening to me...so I closed the book, blew out the candle, and here I am. Why push it? Yesterday and the day before, we did a tremendous amount of reading about all sorts of things, and I feel like a lot has been accomplished this week...and I trust that if they are disinterested enough to be distracted by silly hats and beads, then they aren't really going to learn anything anyway.

This afternoon, we're going to a concert at our homeschool co-op, so there won't be a "lesson" - but they'll get to hang out with some friends. The other day, out of the blue, Monk started talking to me about fractions...he told me that 2/5 plus 3/5 equals a whole. I have no idea where this came from or how he figured this out, although math problems come up in our converstaions quite often. I am simply not able to prevent them from learning. It happens. It's like growing taller...they just learn. Perhaps my children are just freaks, but I doubt it.

As far as your experience and wishing you had more structure...my kids do have structure. I guide them. Hell, I downright boss them around sometimes...but I also trust their judgment AND I make it very clear that they are responsible for their actions - including their learning. If Monk doesn't want to write, that's fine for now...but he has dreams, Michael. Just like every kid, he wants to amount to something when he gets older...and so every time he talks about something he wants to "be" - I talk about what he needs to know to "be" that. And when his desire to be something is great enough, he learns the things he needs to know to do that. It's no different than it would be if he was in school. It's no different than it was for me. I was dreadfully bored in history class, so I never learned historical dates and facts past cramming for tests. It was never taught to me in a way that was meaningful. Now I'm totally fascinated by history and politics, but I learn them by researching things that are interesting to me, and by the desire and the need to put important events in context. When you talk about your desire for more structure, it sounds less like you needed more academic structure and more like you needed more guidance from an adult who cared about you. Just about anyone has the ability to learn the necessary academics in a chosen career, it's the choosing that can be difficult. And I don't think high school students are old enough to make those choices anyway, which is why I think all of us should have the ability to change our minds about what we want for our future well into adulthood.

I had no idea what I wanted to do when I was in high school, which is one of the main reasons I never continued my formal education. I happened to stumble into a career that is fulfilling, and then I found a way to apply my talent in that area in a job that is probably better than I ever could have dreamed up on my own. My lack of a degree might hinder me if it were to come to having to find a new job, but there's no REAL reason for that, other than societal expectations and a good deal of class prejudice acting as the norm. I know as much or more than any college graduate in my field, and I have the proven ability to apply my knowledge in a real-world setting. The importance of degrees and college education is real, but it's a social construct that isn't valid outside of the context of our social system. In my situation, the only thing a college degree would prove is that I was able to afford the leisure of being able sit in classrooms and study things that I instead learned on my own, in my own time, motivated by myself.

Which is not to say that I necessarily know more than any college graduate out there, but I certainly don't necessarily know less due to my "lack of education." It just means that I am differently educated - as are many people who don't have degrees or diplomas or even any formal schooling at all. In my job, I have met some very brilliant individuals who never set foot in any sort of institutional learning facility, and I frequently wonder how much of our ability to label people as "stupid" or "uneducated" has more to do with our bias towards what I consider to be a completely unnatural educational philosophy and less to do with the actual brainpower of the labeled individual. And it is a completely self-perpetuating bias, because those who have the power to change the system are products of the system, and no one wants to admit that the system must be changed. That takes risk, and there aren't too many people out there who want to accept that risk because if you go outside of the accepted norm, you have no excuse. Like if I sent my kids to school, and the public school system failed them, it wouldn't be my fault...I could blame the system. But pulling my kids out of school and taking on the responsibility of their emotional and intellectual development is, I must admit, a courageous act. I got no one to blame but myself and my kids. And if I fail them, I really do fail them. The thing is, though, deep down I know - and I think we ALL know - that the responsibility for the well-being of children should fall primarily on the shoulders of the parents of the children regardless. Going along with the crowd provides a surface-level immunity from responsibility, but we all know that's a farce. We learned it the first time someone told us "If your friend jimmy jumped off a cliff, would you do it, too?"

Anyway, I'm rambling, and I'm afraid you are going to think I'm completely insane or, as you say, "on crack." I am not either, but I am very passionate about parenting and educational choice and I'm also very critical of the capitalist system and its views on education. I think there's more to life than learning things to increase your employability...but at the same time, I completely understand that there are certain things that my children must know and learn to be able to survive in this world, regardless of my opinion about their validity and overall usefulness. So I'm compromising...I'm teaching the kids about the world around them as it exists, and encouraging them to learn as much as they can, while hopefully demonstrating to them that success is a relative term, and to me, success means happiness, love, and the ability to connect with individuals and communities on a real level.

Anyway...I have to go because the children are tormenting each other as I write this, and I think I need to step in and help mediate this one.

Take care...sorry for the diatribe.

livelifelove
Drucilla

Posted at 11:18 AM • Comments (0) • TrackBack

Don't JUST Listen to Your Doctor

October 20, 2003

And don't JUST listen to me. I should put a disclaimer on this site that says that I am authority of nothing but my own experience, as are you.

Anyway, I WAS going to post a bunch of "information" about vaccinations and why I made the choice that I did to NOT vaccinate my children, but the data is inconclusive in either direction, so I think instead I will post links to some sites and let whoever is interested wade through it all, because really that's the only way I was able to come to any conclusion, and my conclusions are decidedly inconclusive. I think the last decision I made on the subject was that, like circumcision, I would just wait until the kids were old enough to make their own decisions about it. Ha Ha. Kidding.

Actually, the first scenario that gave me pause with regard to vaccination occured with Monk. We were at his one year check up, and we had a new doctor. The first thing this doctor did, pretty much, was to criticize my decision to co-sleep with Monk. She asked how he was sleeping, and I told her he had been a bit more fussy than usual. She said something like "Just put him down in his crib and leave the room and let him cry a bit, and increase the amount of time before you come back to him each night..." etc. Basically, she was telling me to employ a modified method of letting him "cry it out" which was a practice that I very VERY strongly disagree with. I stopped her before she could go any further and just said "Oh, he sleeps in the bed with us." And she gave me THAT look, and replied "Oh, then pretty much he will never learn to sleep through the night."

What I hadn't told her, and what I didn't even bother to explain, was that his fussy phase was one that had only cropped up a week before, and it lasted about a day or so longer before it went away entirely. Monk has ALWAYS been a champion sleeper.

At any rate, she launched right from that little superior dance into the explanation of the twenty or so vaccines she was going to be administering that day, one of which was the chicken pox vaccine. This was the one vaccine I had been researching and really seriously questioning the validity of at the time, and my suspicion was triggered when she tried to give me a guilt trip about the mortality rate from chicken pox in children. I told her that I needed to do more research about it, and she started to lecture me some more, and I pretty much decided at that point that maybe I needed to do more research in general before continuing to vaccinate him at all.

So, that's pretty much what started my serious research on the subject and, like I said before, that research has not ended. I will read something on one side of the argument, and read something equally compelling on the other side. Just when I think I've stumbled upon something that seems conclusive to me, I read something else that makes it seem inconclusive. So, my current attitude is that most diseases that are actually likely to be transmitted to my children (whooping cough, measles, chicken pox, rubella) are treatable, but the side effects of the immunizations are not. Plus I just think that vaccinations are much safer once kids are older - so I probably WILL give them the option of being vaccinated when they reach a certain age. I'm HOPING they catch chicken pox naturally before they hit 12 or so, but if they do not, I will probably end up vaccinating them.

So, anyway, that's my deal with vaccinating my children, and why I do not. Here are some more sites on the anti-vax side that might interest people:

10 Reasons why parents should question vaccination

AVN Immunization Information

Mothering Magazine's Vaccination Links

I thought this presented an interesting argument:

There is no system of the human being, from mind to muscles to immune system, which gets stronger through avoiding challenges, but only through overcoming challenges. The wise use of vaccinations would be to use them selectively, and not on a mass scale. In order for vaccinations to be helpful and not harmful, we must know beforehand in each individual to be vaccinated whether the Th1 function or the Th2 function of the immune system predominates.

In individuals in whom the Th1 function predominates, causing many acute inflammations because the cellular immune system is overreactive, a vaccination could have a balancing effect on the immune system and be helpful for that individual.

In individuals in whom the Th2 function predominates, causing few acute inflammations but rather the tendency to chronic allergic or autoimmune inflammations, a vaccination would cause the Th2 function to predominate even more, aggravating the imbalance of the immune system and harming the health of that individual. This is what happened in Gulf War Illness.

The current use of vaccinations in medicine today is essentially a "shotgun" approach which ignores differences among individuals. In such an approach some individuals may be helped and others may be harmed.

If medicine is to evolve in a healthy direction, we must learn to understand the particular characteristics of each individual and we must learn how to individualize our treatments to be able to heal each unique human being in our care.

National Vaccine Information Center

Neurological Complications of Vaccinations

" It is also germane to point out that vaccines contain a number of substances, many of them as antigenic as the one for which they were designed. Preservatives may also contribute to the adverse side effects. It is extremely difficult to distinguish the effects of the vaccines' constituents.

Physicians often neglect to ask about previous vaccinations when confronted with puzzling neurological illness. Most of them appear to have been convinced that immunizations are completely harmless. Many also believe that such reactions must occur within one month from vaccination, and therefore do not inquire about immunizations in previous months.

Because of the expense of testing drugs, vaccines and other medical products, the pharmaceutical industry has assumed an increasingly important role in the conduct of therapeutic trials and post-marketing surveillance. This is both understandable and often beneficial. On the downside, however, is the appearance of conflict of interest when the analyses of the results are carried out by the pharmaceutical firm itself, or the government agency charged with guarding the safety of the product."

vaccine safety

Posted at 8:43 PM • Comments (2) • TrackBack

The importance of community

October 8, 2003

I'm sitting here in my kitchen at 1 in the afternoon, surrounded by the quiet that befalls the house when the children are absent. I figure now is as good a time as any to start what I hope will be a series of posts on community.

The children are absent thanks to my good friend and neighbor Megan, who watches them on the Wednesdays that we don't attend our homeschool co-op for special activities. In exchange, I watch her son most Fridays. This is an ideal arrangement for both of us, as it's generally easier to watch multiple kids than it is to watch one, and we both get regular time to ourselves. For me, getting time to myself that I get to enjoy inside my home is golden.

So this, in a very specific way, is what I mean when I talk in general about forming communities and creating more options. In fact, it was Megan herself who, in a conversation about real choices and options, raised a point that I hadn't directly considered but which perfectly defined the difference between anarchism and left-wing democrats: We want to create choices based on community rather than be supplied with choices through government programs.

Stating it this way helps frame many of the more difficult ideological issues I stuggle with. It's like having a formula in which to input various circumstances to decide if they are legitimate options or just the typical smoke and mirror rhetoric that our government wants to present as choice.

When I was explaining to Megan my arguments against school and daycare (she, too, is ideologically opposed to these types of institutions) she asked me "Why do you think our government would want to encourage us to institutionalize our children?" It's a good question. It was a question which made me pause to consider whether I was being a reactionary conspiracy theorist or a thoughtful and educated conspiracy theorist.

What I came up with was this - in general, our system relies upon keep us separate and weakening the bonds and authority of community and family alliances. And, while it's possible to maintain ties with community and family while our children are in institutional care...it's difficult. And it takes an extraordinary person to overcome this difficulty. This is "good" for the system, because the more we separate people into individualistic units, the easier it is to get them to rely on so-called experts, and the easier it is to perpetuate the competition and fear of scarcity upon which the capitalist system is built and maintained.

This is difficult for me. I have been born and raised within the confines of capitalism, and it can be difficult for me to create community. I'm thankful that I have the time and resources to explore community at this point in my life. A few posts ago, someone asked me if I was involved in any homeschool groups in my area. Hell yeah! I'm incredibly blessed to be involved in at least 2 different co-ops. We have a mama who has a craft "class" once a week, 2 parents who teach an ecology class, a field trip co-op, several homeschool "park days" of various size and ages, I'm starting up a computer club which will meet twice a month, and we have rented space at a UU church where we meet for special events such as study groups and presentations by various individuals and organizations.

By homeschooling my children, I have learned so much about creating communities and participating in those communities. And I'm really hoping to write more in depth about these communities and how they have impacted my life and how I feel they can impact society at large.

In the next post in this series, I want to talk about how parenting within a community of other parents is an incredible learning experience, and what I believe it is teaching my children. Whatever comments you have about this post or perhaps whatever you feel should be addressed in future posts about forming communities are greatly appreciated! All of you are my on-line community - for which I am also incredibly grateful. In fact, if I can just go off on a tangent here for a second, while I was composing this post in my head on my walk home from the grocery store, I was thinking about how fortunate I am to be able to type ideas here on this lonely little interface and how those ideas interface with so many people who have so many interesting ways of interpreting and adding to these ideas. It really has been incredibly educational to me to have the privilege of talking some of my thoughts through with intelligent people who agree or oppose and are willing to take the time to explain why they feel the way they do.

And that's not just me being a kiss-ass, either.

Posted at 1:33 PM • Comments (0) • TrackBack

Is it just me?

October 8, 2003

Or is anyone else sick and tired of hearing the Monday morning quarterbacking that occurs on all of those "major political" blogs. Lately, I've been reading the comments on Kos and Eschaton and Calpundit, and I can't help but think these are a bunch of economically "comfortable" white guys who really think politics is some sort of sports event - perhaps because the consequences don't really impact them in any significant way.

Don't get me wrong...I love those blogs. They help me stay informed about what is going on, generally. I just wish the people who make comments like "Democrats are being raped by the republican party" and "We need to just let Arnold totally screw things up in California, because that would prove our point." would really THINK about a) how those words might feel to people reading them and b) who, exactly, gets hurt when things are "totally screwed up" in California.

Let's remember that elections are held and politicians are selected primarily by people who have the leisure to follow politics and cast ballots. There is a very real voting divide in this country, and, unfortunately, those who are most disenfranchised are the ones who will feel the pain when things fall to shit. Rather than praying that republicans screw up while they're in office, we should be focusing on doing our part to make voting more accessible to everyone, and including everyone's voice in the process...or we really need to focus on tearing down the system to create something new in which people aren't marginalized to ensure the victory of another money-grubbing political party and their corporate cronies.

Posted at 11:14 AM • Comments (11) • TrackBack

Coffee Date.

May 19, 2003

I had a great coffee date today with someone I work with. No, not a DATE date...but a hang out and chat date. She's one of my favorite people at work even though I hardly know her, and it was fun to sit with her for a little while outside of work and talk (the chief top guy has made it a policy that we all need to hang out with each and every person who works where I work outside of work by August. He has a little check off chart and everything. It sounds cheesy, but i think it's pretty fun.)

Anyway, we got to talking about politics, and about our ideals. We share similar views on a lot of things, but she is more skeptical about my utopian ideology - which is pretty understandable....hahahahaha...there are times when *I'M* skeptical about it.

I'll spare you a recount fo the entire conversation, but I would like to summarize what she pulled out of me today, which was very helpful.

First, our discussion helped me to define, really, what it is that is the basis of my ideology. And it's really quite simple. I believe that Everyone should be able to take for granted that their basic needs will be taken care of by the system. This means everyone will be fed, clothed, housed, healed (when sick) and whatever else is deemed to be the basic necessities for complete participation in and interaction with their environment.

Phew.

That sounds so simple and, as my co-worker said, we all know that MATHEMATICALLY SPEAKING, it's definitely feasible. But how do we go about making it so?

My co-worker is convinced that money will always equal power, and therefore it's in our best interest to convince those that have the power that it's a good idea to provide for the basic needs of everyone. I started talking about the fact that those whose needs are currently unmet have no voice, so there's no one holding those in power accountable for providing for them. In addition, even if we were to accomplish my main goal in the U.S., it would no doubt be done at the expense of another nation.

I started feeling kind of frustrated with my inability to come up with a solution to the question of "What do we do about it?" Because, yes, sometimes I do feel pretty damn helpless in the face of everything. Of course, I understand that much of the solution lies with me as an individual working to uncover and eradicate the ways I take advantage of my privilege to the detriment of others, and also examine my actions and reactions to things to ensure what I put out in the world is consistent with what I want to cultivate. (This one is especially tricky when people just plain piss me off sometimes...and it's also tricky when my humor is perceived as being aggression...and it's also really tricky when people see anger and meanness in me when there is none...but that's a whole nother post for a whole nother day.)

Anyway, I couldn't put to words what I felt a tangible solution could be. I couldn't tell her specifically what I felt was a way to contribute to making things better as opposed to making things worse.

And then, on the way to the car, it came to me. I mean, think about my "utopian" vision of the way things ought to be. What person who is thinking clearly would deny that is a bad goal. I mean, aside from the nagging feeling that it's somehow IMPOSSIBLE to achieve it...aside from the fact that we are told that some people just don't DESERVE to get what they need...I really want to know who actually OBJECTS to that being a worthwhile vision.

And that is the answer to my question of what I can contribute. It's simple, really. All I have to do is remind people, over and over, that what I desire - what IS desirable, above all else, is that each and every one of us DESERVES (and is entitled to) having our basic needs met. There is no one who is more deserving of this than anyone else. If nothing else, insisting on this fact might help people to understand how basic the solution is...and how inhumane it is to deny its reality.

Posted at 12:00 AM • Comments (1) • TrackBack

No To All Wars

May 11, 2003

This is an excellent article from the editor of Anarchy Magazine:

Simply put, all war is international predation. And all the justifications for launching wars necessarily require the massive degradation of language and communication in order to prevent people from understanding this.

Internally, within the nation-state, the threats of external enemies are used to help maintain an artificial internal solidarity. A focus on external enemies hinders or prevents any focus on internal problems and contradictions, no matter how much more directly they affect the population. External threats, whether credible or not, are useful for increasing the amount of repression, militarism and general misery that people will tolerate in their lives. And they're especially useful for combating any attempts by people to fight for their own desires, values and goals, including the abolition of capitalism and nation-states.

And it stuns me to realize that over 2000 innocents were killed in the war with Iraq, and this is seen as a minor sacrifice. Minor. two THOUSAND. I mean, I've thought of this before, but it just struck me today. TWO FUCKING THOUSAND PEOPLE who were going about their lives to the best of their ability were SLAUGHTERED. And not only that, but our sons and daughters committed that act. Average (in some cases formerly) non-psychopathic members of society were called upon to kill people...and they killed countless combatents as well as the TWO THOUSAND civilians. Combatents who were no doubt sons and daughters of Iraqi mothers and fathers.

I know none of this is news to anyone, but I can't believe that deeper reflection of this simple fact wouldn't terrify and sadden people tremendously. War is unreasonable. War is irrational. War is TERRORISTIC. And, yes, all war is wrong.

Posted at 11:03 AM • Comments (1) • TrackBack

More on non-monogamy

April 25, 2003

Suzanne brought up some cogent points in her response to my earlier post about monogamy and anarchy (or autonomy would actually be a better way to put it.) And, in fact, one of the things I wrote in my paper journal earlier this week that never made it to electric is this:

& don't think I'm not aware of the irony in the fact that hte very yearning to be intimate with everyone might actually be the thing that leaves me alienated by so many. Ha ha!

There's a lot in my history that would attest to this fact, and I actually naturally came upon a way of coping with my mad desire to love everyone. For so many years, I actually thought it was a bona fide pathology & many have told me as much as well, but now I see that it is a valid method for coping with the disparity between my desire to be intimate with a large amount of people, and the social construct of monogamy that prevents it. Wanna know what it is?

I don't have sex!

Wow. All those years of saying no because I knew once I said yes I was somehow obligated, and I never wanted to be obligated. & now that I'm older and have a more mature attitude about sex and actually desire sex, it's STILL preferable for me to abstain from sex rather than close myself off to other people. Which is not to say that I ALWAYS abstain, but I most always do, and I'm fairly sexually monogamous...if that makes any sense.

How cool. Thanks for helping me knock that one out, Suzanne. I'm sure I'll talk more about this later, but for now I'm remembering fondly the wonderful sleepover parties I used to have...a different man each night tucked up in my warm bed, telling stories, laughing, and snuggling in gleeful autonomy.

Posted at 11:01 AM • Comments (1) • TrackBack

Completing the thought...

April 23, 2003

The connection between monogamy and the capitalist system alluded to in the previous post just occurred to me as I was giving birdy c more raisins. It's about the fallacy of scarcity. In a system of capitalism, we are taught to compete because there is "not enough" (and yet there's no limit placed on the expenditures of those individuals and societies which are deemed "successful")

It's the same way in love. We are taught to fear competition in love, because we fear there is somehow not enough to go around. Maybe I'm just easily satisfied, but there's plenty as far as I can see. Plenty to give and plenty to get. It's just a matter of figuring out how to loose the shackles of insecurity that this scarcity myth clamps down on us.

On a side note: it always cracks me up that if I express love to a man, it's somehow a threat to whatever other relationship I or they happen to be in, yet I love my female friends as deeply, and there's no perceived threat. Why is that? Is it heterosexism at work, or something else?

Posted at 8:52 AM • Comments (3) • TrackBack

Monogamy and Anarchy

April 23, 2003

I had a few conversations today that got me thinking about monogamy, and, after reading and posting something I wrote awhile back about absolute spiritual liberation:

I see a bird overhead and needn't envy for I, too, have wings. My wings sprout inwards. I am grounded, but forever soaring inside. My feet chained by gravity, but my soul unbound. Yes, bird AND tree. roots extended upwards to the sky. Unfettered, unhindered, inencumbered by the shackles of weighty obligations. I soar, and leave all of this earthliness behind me. The empty vessel serves as a ship upon which I sail, inside out. I am wasted, spent, but so alive, so breathingly free. All around me is mine with which I might do as I please. And all I please is to leave it unchanged. To allow it all to be as unhindered as I am. I give my surroundings the freedom to exist an doccur in its natural order so that I may truly understand the magic of life's undulations. Waves that can wash in fortune or grief. It is all positive. All change is worthwhile. It all brings about new life.

I started thinking about those bread crumbs again. (That quoted piece, by the way, is only a segment of one of what I think the best things I have written in my entire life, and I wrote it like 8 years ago, so I better get cracking...although I do have a tendency to ALWAYS think what I'm writing in this moment is crap, and then go back and read in disbelief that I actually have any talent whatsoever...but anyway)

You know what I mean about bread crumbs, don't you? Those little things we save that remind us of the path we're supposed to take in life. For instance, one of my favorite things about the above-quoted piece is that the initial Tao te Ching quotation was something that I wrote down on a piece of paper when I was like 10 years old and taking some sort of weird philosophy summer class for some sort of gifted program. I am quite certain that the thirty spokes thing made only a marginal degree of sense to me at the time I wrote it down, but I thought it was purty and deep, and I think I was just discovering boys at the time, so I'm sure I thought it would impress someone that I knew some of that philosophizing stuff.

Pack fucking rat that I am, I saved that slip of paper for years and years before I found it one day and wrote the "endtro" as a capstone to a zine I was doing called bAnal Probe. The issue was all about cages, and had a picture of a caged bird on the cover. It's one of my favorite issues of all time, and it's one of my favorite pieces.

And I keep going back to it. Like many things I have written. I am fortunate to have been blessed with the good sense (or rampant egotism) to save almost everything I have written, and there are times when reading over that stuff can save my sanity. I have a tendency to go shooting off in one direction or another...unabashed unabaiting joy, or doomgloom depression, and I frequently need to center myself. I'm thankful that the 8-years ago me thought to throw that little bread crumb out for myself, and that I have been able to keep the birds away from it long enough to find it tonight, when I needed a little centering for fear of zooming right off the edge of the earth, as sometimes happens when sheer hopelessness collides with chronic bliss.

So, anyway, that's what I mean by breadcrumbs. I'm gonna talk about what the hell this all has to do with anarchy down below. Just click that little more text button there if you wanna read further...

OK. Here we are. Anyway, what I'm thinking is this. And what you might not know is that my current marital situation is not so good. I mean, as L is a man who I loved enough to have children with, and as L is a man for whose talents I have great admiration and respect, it's difficult for me to talk about this. I don't want to violate what little trust is left between us, but truth be told...things are in a shambles here. I would love to love him completely and earnestly and unrepentently. I once did. But he's somewhere else right now, and I'm sure he feels the same about me. And this is about all I feel comfortable saying about the situation without compromising his right to privacy.

But I've been struggling with the idea of monogamy for awhile now, in the context of my relationship with L, as well as in the other relationships I've had in my life. And I have not yet been able to understand the point of monogamous relationships. It seems to much like restriction of love to fulfill some sort of weird social code that doesn't really have validity. Monogamy does not ensure eternal love, nor does it ensure a cohesive family unity. If anything, it would seem that the protectiveness and jealousy that frequently is part and parcel with monogamy would undermine these things.

For myself, I feel like I was born with an inordinate amount of love, to the point where, as I've said before, I find it difficult to not go around hugging strangers on the bus. I can't believe I'm the only person who feels this way, either. I don't think I'm all that special. I feel like many if not all of us were born with unending joy and love in all directions, and I feel that the more we are taught to stifle this, the more dissatisfied we become. When I'm here with L and he is depressive or pissy, past the anger, past the sadness at having lost him somewhere, beyond all of that resentment is this great urge to just be able to hug him and tell him he is so loved, without having him give me that look of utter disbelief. And I do love him, so very much. But not just him.

I think it's tough. I think monogamy is somehow connected with the social system we've constructed, but I'm not sure how. And I think I'm going to continue to struggle with my feelings about it until I figure it out.

In one of the conversations I had, I was talking about how "monogamy in action seems to be some sort of weird social experiment in the restraint of love." and the other person responded "or the ultimate expression of love." Which, I gotta hand it to him, is a very romantic notion, but a little too blood sacrifice-y to me. At the same time, I gotta say that I dunno what the answers are, but I have the same feeling about monogamy that I get about capitalism. Just because it's the current standard of business around these parts, does not necessarily mean it's the only way of doing things.

This is not to say that I want to go around sleeping with everyone I meet. However, I have a very strong need to form bonds with people. With many people. I always have had this urge & I'm pretty sure if I were to say this out loud in front of a therapist, I would be diagnosed with a pathology when the truth is that I just think people are really fucking cool, and I want to be imbedded in as many people as possible. And how can one do that with this monogamous partner breathing down her neck and getting all jealous and stuff. And how can one do that without pissing of the partners of the people one wishes to form bonds with?

It seems like a construct to me, rather than a natural urge or desire. I have it, too. Don't get me wrong. I'm as jealous as a mother fucker when it comes to my monogamous relationships...but I question that. I question the validity of that jealousy when, really, freedom means freedom. There's no such thing as restrictions of freedom, and how stupid is it that we would expect someone we love and care about to restrict the stuff that makes them lovable and worthy of care?

I'm still thinking it over. It's something I've mulled for some time now, and I'll probably be mulling it for the rest of my life. But as I stand on the edge of what could be the end of my relationship with my husband, I'm starting to wonder about the wisdom of embarking on any more relationships that have those implicit restrictions placed on them. I'm feeling like I need to put more thought into what I truly want out of my interactions with other people. I've always kind of felt like I have paired up with people just because if I didn't, someone else would, and then I would never have access to that person again...and I think that's kind of a sucky way for us to treat each other.

Posted at 1:54 AM • Comments (4) • TrackBack

ABC's of Anarchism

April 20, 2003

The ABCs of Anarchism

Conclusion
There is a certain social process which is known and very visible but perhaps not acknowledged as much as it should be. It is that one where a new idea or an old one in new form, is accepted by a minority, while the majority is shouting treason, rubbish, kook, communist, anarchist, capitalist, or whatever is a term of abuse valued by that society--infringer--and they develop this idea, at first probably in secrecy or semi-secrecy, and then more and more visible, with more and more support until, guess what? What? This seditious and impossible wrong-headed idea, becomes what is known as... what? ...received opinion and is loved and valued... what? ...by the majority. What? What?
Conclusion
Look people, you heard it on the radio
I get...
You seen it on the TV show
Uh oh
OK, A B I O C O C C C...
OK, OK, you better listen to me good, 'cause this is the ABCs of Anarchism
A B C OK
We'll be singin' when we're singing
We'll be singin'
Where have the tele-tubbies gone?
I get knocked down

DruBlood

Feed the Bleed

Search

Archives

Categories

Special thanks

Why Anarchism?

November 9, 2007

Daniel Chodorkoff On Utopia

January 3, 2007

The origins of things

March 30, 2006

"Living Well"

February 28, 2006

Sound system gonna bring me back up...

February 27, 2006

Private Journal entry, January 21, 2006

February 24, 2006

Growth, Giving Up, and more Growth

February 21, 2006

Laundromat Revolution!

February 20, 2006

Psychiatry in a dysfunctional Society

December 26, 2005

Navel Gazing (or relationships, isolation, community, and sex)

October 8, 2005

Anarchism: What it really stands for.

August 3, 2005

Marriage in post-capitalist society

January 14, 2004

I am a poseur and I don't care...

October 29, 2003

an e-mail to my brother

October 29, 2003

Don't JUST Listen to Your Doctor

October 20, 2003

The importance of community

October 8, 2003

Is it just me?

October 8, 2003

Coffee Date.

May 19, 2003

No To All Wars

May 11, 2003

More on non-monogamy

April 25, 2003

Completing the thought...

April 23, 2003

Monogamy and Anarchy

April 23, 2003

ABC's of Anarchism

April 20, 2003