Simone calls for abandoning prefigurative politics and embracing the messy work of building social infrastructure that makes collective action possible.
Doing politics without trying to create an arbitrary, imagined boundary between a system and its outside, the old and the new, the inside and the outside. Doing politics within history, resisting the urge to put yourself outside of it. No escapism, no coping, no otherworlding. Regaining agency by rooting yourself where you are and altering the system you’re in to bring about a new system.
Is your proposal then to reform the existing system into a new one? To use the existing levers of power to attempt to rip that power away from those that are currently pulling them?
Which I wouldn’t mind if it worked - but the original reason for prefigurative action was because this approach didn’t seem to achieve anything. But I guess you’re arguing that maybe the environment is different now and therefore more susceptible to change?
How do you see everyday people participating in this political movement - voting? canvassing? running for office?
I guess you see Mamdani as such an example? Tho I doubt anarchists would reject him just on the grounds of him being a reformist and therefore not valuable to the cause, in my experience any push towards a more socialist society is generally embraced and not rejected no matter where it comes from.
So, “reforming” is quite a loaded term so I wouldn’t use it to avoid confusion. One way to explain this is “double system theory”, namely the idea that a successful transition between two systems (any kind of system, not just social or political systems) happens only if the dismantling of the old happens in sync with the growth of the new and this growth can fulfill the needs of its participants better than the old. Anything else will eventually fail.
If you build a new system without fueling it with the resources that go to the old, you will be a cathedral in the desert that will eventually be abandoned to return to the old system. A lot of utopian communes and prefigurative politics might fall into this category. Also the idea of building socialism in a single state (the new) without dismantling global power structures that will eventually coup your country.
If you dismantle the old without building the new and therefore fulfilling the needs the old was fulfilling, you will encounter a lot of resistance. These are the forces of reaction during revolutionary struggles, for example, where revolutionary states end up compromising a lot to appease the needs of the population, or get toppled by entrenched interests.
How do you see everyday people participating in this political movement - voting? canvassing? running for office?
Everything goes. Politics must be played with the full deck of cards. Find the points of leverage, understand what’s the best form to apply such leverage and go for it. Sometimes voting, sometimes armed struggle, sometimes structure-based organizing. This is a subjective decision that must be done from the inside: this implies that I can speak for my own strategy and the strategy of my orgs, but I must suspend judgement on the strategy of others. No outside means also “no outside of my experience”.
I guess you see Mamdani as such an example? Tho I doubt anarchists would reject him just on the grounds of him being a reformist and therefore not valuable to the cause, in my experience any push towards a more socialist society is generally embraced and not rejected no matter where it comes from.
There are for sure a lot of novel elements in Mamdani and in what NYC-DSA is doing, even though they are still a very old-fashioned organization in many regards:
full embrace of structure-based organizing, which is not new as a practice, but its resurgence often frames this as the primary source of power.
pragmatic communication
hostility to purism and sectarianism
general disengagement with leftist infighting, including their own internal conflict with the national. They go their own way, they use their points of leverage, they lead by example.
One way to explain this is “double system theory”, namely the idea that a successful transition between two systems (any kind of system, not just social or political systems) happens only if the dismantling of the old happens in sync with the growth of the new and this growth can fulfill the needs of its participants better than the old.
I mean yeah that makes sense - but I’ve personally not seen examples of prefigurative building that have rejected funding and resources from the old system on ideological “purity” grounds - quite often the reason is that established systems just refuse to funnel resources into alternative systems that don’t generate a profit.
As an example - I was involved in a waste reduction/swap shop (food, clothing, furniture, etc) cooperative that due to it’s well established social value was getting council and some governmental finding for over 10 years - everyone involved in it would see it as a prefigurative example of the future of society of fulfilled low carbon living. However, due to austerity cuts and a profit seeking landlord, who was asking for 10 grand a month in rent (which was over a third of how much the coop was making) once the council could no longer funnel money into the landowners pocket - the project was no longer viable and folded.
Now do you think the people that were involved didn’t do everything in their power to keep the project running? Not in the slightest - it’s just that the system is so hostile to such endeavors that they’re constantly fighting an uphill battle where one slip is enough to send you all the way down.
So while I do agree that ideally we’d funnel resources from the old to the new - time and time again it’s been proven that relying on the existing precarious system only results in building on weak foundations that will take you down with them when they inevitable collapse.
And I’m not saying this to dissuade you from pursuing a dual system theory - I’m genuinely trying to figure out a way where we can build the sorely needed infrastructure of the future in any way possible - in a climate that takes 15 years to approve a 50 square feet low traffic street to pedestrian area conversion in a time where we’re 25 years away from unprecedented climate catastrophy.
Doing politics without trying to create an arbitrary, imagined boundary between a system and its outside, the old and the new, the inside and the outside. Doing politics within history, resisting the urge to put yourself outside of it. No escapism, no coping, no otherworlding. Regaining agency by rooting yourself where you are and altering the system you’re in to bring about a new system.
Is your proposal then to reform the existing system into a new one? To use the existing levers of power to attempt to rip that power away from those that are currently pulling them?
Which I wouldn’t mind if it worked - but the original reason for prefigurative action was because this approach didn’t seem to achieve anything. But I guess you’re arguing that maybe the environment is different now and therefore more susceptible to change?
How do you see everyday people participating in this political movement - voting? canvassing? running for office?
I guess you see Mamdani as such an example? Tho I doubt anarchists would reject him just on the grounds of him being a reformist and therefore not valuable to the cause, in my experience any push towards a more socialist society is generally embraced and not rejected no matter where it comes from.
So, “reforming” is quite a loaded term so I wouldn’t use it to avoid confusion. One way to explain this is “double system theory”, namely the idea that a successful transition between two systems (any kind of system, not just social or political systems) happens only if the dismantling of the old happens in sync with the growth of the new and this growth can fulfill the needs of its participants better than the old. Anything else will eventually fail.
If you build a new system without fueling it with the resources that go to the old, you will be a cathedral in the desert that will eventually be abandoned to return to the old system. A lot of utopian communes and prefigurative politics might fall into this category. Also the idea of building socialism in a single state (the new) without dismantling global power structures that will eventually coup your country.
If you dismantle the old without building the new and therefore fulfilling the needs the old was fulfilling, you will encounter a lot of resistance. These are the forces of reaction during revolutionary struggles, for example, where revolutionary states end up compromising a lot to appease the needs of the population, or get toppled by entrenched interests.
Everything goes. Politics must be played with the full deck of cards. Find the points of leverage, understand what’s the best form to apply such leverage and go for it. Sometimes voting, sometimes armed struggle, sometimes structure-based organizing. This is a subjective decision that must be done from the inside: this implies that I can speak for my own strategy and the strategy of my orgs, but I must suspend judgement on the strategy of others. No outside means also “no outside of my experience”.
There are for sure a lot of novel elements in Mamdani and in what NYC-DSA is doing, even though they are still a very old-fashioned organization in many regards:
That sounds fairly similar to Dual Power/Counter Power
I mean yeah that makes sense - but I’ve personally not seen examples of prefigurative building that have rejected funding and resources from the old system on ideological “purity” grounds - quite often the reason is that established systems just refuse to funnel resources into alternative systems that don’t generate a profit.
As an example - I was involved in a waste reduction/swap shop (food, clothing, furniture, etc) cooperative that due to it’s well established social value was getting council and some governmental finding for over 10 years - everyone involved in it would see it as a prefigurative example of the future of society of fulfilled low carbon living. However, due to austerity cuts and a profit seeking landlord, who was asking for 10 grand a month in rent (which was over a third of how much the coop was making) once the council could no longer funnel money into the landowners pocket - the project was no longer viable and folded.
Now do you think the people that were involved didn’t do everything in their power to keep the project running? Not in the slightest - it’s just that the system is so hostile to such endeavors that they’re constantly fighting an uphill battle where one slip is enough to send you all the way down.
So while I do agree that ideally we’d funnel resources from the old to the new - time and time again it’s been proven that relying on the existing precarious system only results in building on weak foundations that will take you down with them when they inevitable collapse.
And I’m not saying this to dissuade you from pursuing a dual system theory - I’m genuinely trying to figure out a way where we can build the sorely needed infrastructure of the future in any way possible - in a climate that takes 15 years to approve a 50 square feet low traffic street to pedestrian area conversion in a time where we’re 25 years away from unprecedented climate catastrophy.