— wayfinding aid for ongoing series —
- Logic of Power: even when resistance of the underdogs wins, the underdogs step into the shoes of the old elite and become the new dominators
- Vive la résistance? Au contraire: resistance gives energy to the opposition which the opposition uses against the resisters
- And a corollary: resistance puts the focus on “them” and “what we don’t want” (another energy drain)
This seems to be the gist of Deep Green Resistance, being promoted by Derrick Jensen and friends (with a book forthcoming). Focus on the hated civ. Focus on bringing down what we don’t want. Giving the gift of energy to that we do not wish to promote… 😕
- Resistance is readily coopted and commodified (see Sandy Krolick’s essay on his KulturCritic blog or on Guy McPherson’s blog with many comments)
- Resistance helps the opposition evolve, just like pushing against bugs and pathogens with nasty chemicals helps them evolve stronger, wilier, more powerful forms.
As Bill Mollison puts it: “Eventually the work we did became the basis for regenerative work, and for legislation; but the principle remains the same. We were protesting right from the 1950s, but whenever we did anything, we always set up a stronger suppression and denial. Police became armed. Next time we faced the police, we found they were dressed up like something from outer space. We would drive a spike into a tree, so when it went into the wood-chipping machine, the machine would fly to pieces. Next thing, there are armed guards with metal detectors. We found we were building a huge oppressive force, run jointly by the state and industry against their own people. Our phones were tapped, nice thick files were drawn up, later fed into computers and sent to the CIA.”
- Resistance deepens the “us vs. them, divide and conquer” paradigm, weakening us and making us more vulnerable
- Hegel was wrong. When political resistance kicks in, it rarely leads to thesis/antithesis/synthesis. It too often traps us in oscillation between two extremes: thesis/antithesis/anti antithesis/anti anti antithesis, and so on, ad nauseam. Nobody ever quite gets what they want and need. I want to get off the resistance see-saw!
- Organized resistance provides an anvil for the hammer of power.
The series on alternatives has begun. First, the intimations of what they may be:
Second, the how, the strategies:
Leaving Babylon 
May 28, 2011 at 7:30 pm
I await the other pieces, and confess I am still stuck in the “if we don’t do anything, we present the bastards with an open goal” mentality (what Bob Mollison himself thought). Of course, at the same time we ‘resist’ we ALSO need to be building links/alternatives/the new society in the shell of the old blah-de-blah.
PS Thanks for the Sandy Krolick link!!
June 5, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Of course, Dwight, as Leavergirl is framing the issues, it’s not a question of whether to do nothing, but the great debate of which somethings. May she correct me if i’m wroing and amplify me if i’m right, but I don’t see the net being left unguarded in the scenarios favored on this blog, considering that i don’t see how more “activist” and “damage control” strategies promise to function as much better goalies. As a former frequently-overwhelemed soccer fullback in school, i say that a team able to take the initiative presents the best defense.
June 5, 2011 at 5:11 pm
P.S. “Initiative” meaning here the more truly innovative the better, in order to “change the game” against more powerful opponents. Analogous to keeping the ball, at least the game we are playing, in our offensive/their defensive field. But in reality it’s more like discovering that both games are better off going on at once. After all, our net continues to get hopelessly pounded in their game, and we’d be inheriting a ‘too-late to not be too toxic’ and trashed field if we wait till theirs is available.
June 10, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Thank you, guys. DT, Jay D got it clear: I am not looking at “not doing anything.” By gum, I want something that *works.* But I realize folks will be skeptical until I actually deliver. 🙂
Jay D, taking initiative is right. Being reactive is part of the resistance strategy. We gotta do better than that. They key is… what strategy has a chance of victory against a Goliath? A good chance of victory, I mean, not just the once in a million David’s slingshot hit?
Stay tuned for the next post. The alternatives series will start next. (After, that is, Divide and conquer.)
June 15, 2011 at 8:59 pm
http://www.darkoptimism.org/2011/06/15/is-activism-therapy/comment-page-1/#comment-47086
June 16, 2011 at 6:57 am
Er…take a look at Egypt and tell those brave people resistance ‘weakens’ them, what a load of nonsense! Revolutions are happening and your presuming youve got some alternatives, the people through their struggles create the alternative to think there is some ‘other’ way is to ignore the material reality of the actions people ate taking
June 16, 2011 at 7:01 am
We succeed through building maximum unity amongst ourselves, it’s the only thing the ruling classes can’t deal with, millions of people -there is no mystery here, the difficulty is achieving that unity whilst recognising the specifics of each group/peoples demands
June 16, 2011 at 10:46 am
Welcome, Noel. I agree with you about the need for unity. As for Egypt, a lot of guerrilla dissent went into the gathering of energies that predated the outpouring in both Tunisia and Egypt, don’t you think?
Then, it spilled over into resistance. Whether or not that was the best way to keep going history will show some day. In both countries, the few top pigs fled or were ousted, and the rest of the system persists. Animal Farm is not so easily vanquished.
July 3, 2011 at 1:55 pm
That quotation was almost certainly not from Bill Mollison, the Australian Permaculture pioneer. It’s a good one. Any ideas on who said it? Google can’t help.
July 3, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Keith, I looked all over the web to authenticate it, but no luck. My source is one of the commenters here, DT, and he claimed it came from a Mollison paper that he has. Perhaps he can point us to the source? Oh and why do you think it is not likely from Mollison?
July 3, 2011 at 3:47 pm
I don’t think it’s from Bill because he was not quite as active in protests in the 1950s as the author of the quotation appears to have been. Also, he was in Australia and the author appears to be American. It sounds to me more like Edward Abbey or one of the EarthFirst!-ers. It’s a great quotation and worth tracking down to acknowledge the author.
Anyway, I have written to Bill Mollison to ask him if he can indicate his role in it. I’ll let you know if anything comes of my query.
BTW – great website! Lots of thought-provoking ideas and practical examples. I have long struggled about whether to be an active protester (and possibly end up in gaol, disabled from future activism for years, and bringing much sadness to my family), whether to withdraw from our busy, excited, wired society (and risk becoming victim of some person, company government or gang more ruthless and politically aware than I) or whether to continue muddling along ready to spring either way as environmental, social and national events unfold.
Thank you for the inspiration!
July 3, 2011 at 4:45 pm
It is wonderful to have you here, and thank you for the cheers! 🙂
You are right, the quote does seem to have an American aspect to it, though on the other hand, I think that Mollison was still in Tasmania then, doing resistance activism. Hm… yes, the real author should get the credits, and thanks for chasing after it!
I sure hope you stick around and keep on sharing, Keith.
July 4, 2011 at 7:07 am
Ah, sorry, I have created confusion and havoc. My bad for putting it in direct quote marks, when I was paraphrasing what Mollison said in an interview in a collection about the winners of the Right Livelihood awards, done by Jeremy Seabrook. Hang on, I’ll just go google…
Pioneers of Change: Experiments in Creating a Humane Society, Zed Books…
In it (and this is from memory) he gives an account of how as an activist trying to stop logging in the 50s he realised their protest was causing the police to turn up ever more tooled up for violence. He stopped, depressed, realised he had to SOMETHING (or else ‘open goal’) and came up with a system that couldn’t be coopted or subverted or watered down – permaculture…
DT
July 4, 2011 at 7:09 am
Found a bit of it on the Internet…
Eventually the work we did became the basis for regenerative work, and for legislation; but the principle remains the same. We were protesting right from the 1950s, but whenever we did anything, we always set up a stronger suppression and denial. Police became armed. Next time we faced the police, we found they were dressed up like something from outer space. We would drive a spike into a tree, so when it went into the wood-chipping machine, the machine would fly to pieces. Next thing, there are armed guards with metal detectors. We found we were building a huge oppressive force, run jointly by the state and industry against their own people. Our phones were tapped, nice thick files were drawn up, later fed into computers and sent to the CIA.
I thought humanity is stupid, and also nasty. In 1972-3, I pulled out of society. I went into the bush and cut a two-acre space in the forest, and I planted a garden and built a barn and a wooden house. And I thought, “That’s it, bugger them, I can live as a castaway. I’ll light a fire, wear skins, eat well, read.” I had put up with a lot of abuse; I stayed angry for two or three years. Then I thought, “If people like me sit in the bush, the bastards have got an open goal. They can roll over everything. I’d better go back and fight.” But having made that decision, I said, “I’ll never harm them, never carry a weapon. I’ll give them no excuse for carrying guns or using teargas. I’ll go back to doing simple things, very basic.” Permaculture had been in my mind since the late 19550s. I thought I could construct an ecosystem. I always thought God was a bit of a dead loss, because everything was so random. If you organise it, you can make a better system than anything that exists… A recombinant ecology works better than any other…. As far as permaculture goes, I think I’ve put something in motion that no one can stop. It doesn’t have a hierarchy, it doesn’t have a centre. Nobody has to take orders. There are numerous projects; people are teaching others. If it’s needed, it won’t stop, and if it isn’t needed, it ought to stop….
July 5, 2011 at 11:53 am
Thank you, DT, for the clarification. It still makes a lot of sense.
The second para also kinda illuminates the part of permaculture that I don’t feel comfy about… the part that humans can do a better job than God (read, Mother Nature). Bollocks. This kinda hubris is something of an anathema to me… Recombinant ecology works sometimes, and sometimes the meddling humans create huge unforeseen problems.
Love the end of second para where he talks about permaculture being completely decentralized, just linked. Right on.