Quote from the script of Engines of Domination.
"If [abolishing Domination] seems impossible, we must ask why. No one has ever tried to abolish Domination, so this judgment can’t be based on historical experience. In fact, the feeling that Domination is inevitable comes from domestication. Any animal trainer knows that the animal must understand who’s in charge, and that there’s no alternative. We’ve lived under human domestication for hundreds of generations now, so naturally we’re brought up knowing who’s in charge, and that there’s no alternative. But that is precisely domestication: to accept our captivity and learn to live under the yoke. The first and most important step is to believe that we can be free, and that we have every right to throw off the yoke. The feeling that we’re powerless is Domination’s greatest weapon against us."
www.enginesofdomination.com
Sunday, November 8, 2015
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Anarchism—Unthinkable?
Domination has afflicted more and more of the world during its 6000-year history, and today the whole world is under its grip. Its pattern of privileged elites living at the expense of dominated masses has left many people feeling that nothing else is possible. In particular, anarchism seems unthinkable. How could the world exist without Domination?
Yet before Domination was invented in the late Neolithic, communities worldwide had lived in anarchism for a quarter of a million years, without armed central authority and ruling elites. Ironically, for peoples who lived during those times, the idea of anarchism truly was unthinkable. Consider native peoples who had never worn shoes or encountered people who did. They could have no such idea as "barefoot"—the absence of something beyond their knowledge or imagination. The same was true of "anarchism."
Human ingenuity has often created the previously unthinkable and unimaginable. It created Domination, and now we must organize our ingenuity and energy to create a world where our descendants find Domination unthinkable—a nightmare of the legendary past, banished forever.
www.enginesofdomination.com
Yet before Domination was invented in the late Neolithic, communities worldwide had lived in anarchism for a quarter of a million years, without armed central authority and ruling elites. Ironically, for peoples who lived during those times, the idea of anarchism truly was unthinkable. Consider native peoples who had never worn shoes or encountered people who did. They could have no such idea as "barefoot"—the absence of something beyond their knowledge or imagination. The same was true of "anarchism."
Human ingenuity has often created the previously unthinkable and unimaginable. It created Domination, and now we must organize our ingenuity and energy to create a world where our descendants find Domination unthinkable—a nightmare of the legendary past, banished forever.
www.enginesofdomination.com
Friday, October 30, 2015
Anarchism as self-ownership or self-rule
Some anarchists define anarchism as "self-ownership" or "self-rule." The ideas are closely related, and I'll discuss self-ownership first. To own something means to possess or control it—and therefore, to also be able to relinquish that possession and control. But are these possible with oneself?
Someone can certainly control me under threat of violence (if not to myself, then to someone or something I cherish), or by deceiving me—but that only means I control my actions in accordance with their intentions. I can certainly lose control of myself in a rage, psychosis, or seizure, but in none of those cases do I relinquish my control. Someone can possess me by force, through systems like slavery, conscription, and compulsory labor, but do I possess myself the way I possess my computer? How could I possibly relinquish my body?
I think calling anarchism "self-ownership" lets Domination's foundation sneak inside the individual's skin—the institution of private property. Domination can't exist without holding a region of land by force, and before Domination began 6000 years ago, land was exclusively held in common. Self-ownership depicts individuals as sovereign rulers over their bodies and persons, internalizing the ruler-region master-subject relationship.
Further, private property enforced by the state is capitalism's foundation. Anarcho-capitalists may find it natural to define anarchism in terms of property, but the vast majority of anarchists—like myself—who believe capitalism is simply one kind of Domination certainly do not.
Which brings me to self-rule. Clearly self-ownership implies self-rule. Does the converse hold? Of course. A ruler owns the land he rules, and licences it to those subjects who can afford it. It's enough to say no one should rule or own another, no need to say everyone should own and rule themselves. Besides, ruling oneself is probably the worst way to treat oneself. I sometimes need to strongly control myself, but never need to threaten myself with violence.
So the self-ownership definition assumes an impossible property relationship between oneself and oneself, and both it and the self-rule definition taint anarchism with internalized authoritarianism. I also see one final problem with these definitions: they regard anarchism as a condition enjoyed by the individual. Although individualist anarchism has a long tradition, I think it's better to acknowledge that Domination only affects entire communities, and all individuals are members of communities.
I'd just define anarchism as what the Greek word anarchos means: "without rulers." In my theory of political power, Domination is a tool for making tools of human beings, an engine that converts human energy into power and privilege for the rulers. If this engine didn't exist, no rulers could control and possess entire communities of subjects.
www.enginesofdomination.com
Someone can certainly control me under threat of violence (if not to myself, then to someone or something I cherish), or by deceiving me—but that only means I control my actions in accordance with their intentions. I can certainly lose control of myself in a rage, psychosis, or seizure, but in none of those cases do I relinquish my control. Someone can possess me by force, through systems like slavery, conscription, and compulsory labor, but do I possess myself the way I possess my computer? How could I possibly relinquish my body?
I think calling anarchism "self-ownership" lets Domination's foundation sneak inside the individual's skin—the institution of private property. Domination can't exist without holding a region of land by force, and before Domination began 6000 years ago, land was exclusively held in common. Self-ownership depicts individuals as sovereign rulers over their bodies and persons, internalizing the ruler-region master-subject relationship.
Further, private property enforced by the state is capitalism's foundation. Anarcho-capitalists may find it natural to define anarchism in terms of property, but the vast majority of anarchists—like myself—who believe capitalism is simply one kind of Domination certainly do not.
So the self-ownership definition assumes an impossible property relationship between oneself and oneself, and both it and the self-rule definition taint anarchism with internalized authoritarianism. I also see one final problem with these definitions: they regard anarchism as a condition enjoyed by the individual. Although individualist anarchism has a long tradition, I think it's better to acknowledge that Domination only affects entire communities, and all individuals are members of communities.
I'd just define anarchism as what the Greek word anarchos means: "without rulers." In my theory of political power, Domination is a tool for making tools of human beings, an engine that converts human energy into power and privilege for the rulers. If this engine didn't exist, no rulers could control and possess entire communities of subjects.
www.enginesofdomination.com
New Engines of Domination Website!
The new Engines of Domination website is now online, a central place to access the book, documentary-related films (including free download links), and further film projects. Thanks to Justin Jezewski of Reckless Aesthetics for his tireless and brilliant work designing the site!
Comments on the blog are impossible there, but please post them at http://enginesofdomination.blogspot.com/. I'd love to hear from you.
Comments on the blog are impossible there, but please post them at http://enginesofdomination.blogspot.com/. I'd love to hear from you.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
New interview on Fifth Column
John Carico has published a long and detailed interview with me at the Fifth Column . Please check it out!
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Welcome
Welcome to the new Engines of Domination blog. I'll post my thoughts here, as well as updates about the book and documentary and my other film projects with Justin Jezewski's Reckless Aesthetics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)