 Anathema
Bringing harmony to grassroots activism initially appears an anathema (something or someone that one vehemently dislikes). Let us try to consider why harmony is this anathema to current grassroots activism, and how pathtivists can help turn this around constructively for the path and the majority.
Fundamentally grassroots activism can work against - in conflict with - the system based around what zandtao has described as societal infrastructure. Basically activists want to change this system, for some up to and including violence against the system. Not too much harmony in this description. Within grassroots activism currently pathtivists will meet varying levels of dislike for those advocating harmonious change - anathema; harmony would be considered collusion by significant groups currently active.
Peace and Revolution
With current grassroots activism let’s start with violence - and the revolution of Marxism …. Leninism and Trotskyism. Many young people reject the conformity of their upbringing, and turn to Marxism as an alternate view. Rather than the societal infrastructure (system-for-the-rich) that in an expanded form is called capitalism or neo-liberalism, young people react (note the word react) and turn to Marxism. Through their interaction with Marxist theory they see a different view of economics and develop some understanding of class - Marx used the terms bourgeoisie and proletariat but zandtao will use the Occupy terms of class - 1% and 99% (numerically very inaccurate). Their emotional reaction takes the young to grassroots activists with some understanding that they are Marxists.
Within grassroots activism they meet more hardline Marxists who attempt some level of recruitment to their particular interpretations or condensing of Marxism. This recruitment often leads to a requirement of increased grassroots activism, and many young people accept being recruited. Especially in the inner cities there are hardcore Marxist grassroots activists. For these young people there is a level of idealist activism in which they are against the system and somehow hope the system will be overthrown. Basically they are in conflict with the system, and they promote their own idealism; they would not see harmony as a way forward - anathema.
Before zandtao starts discussion of violence he needs to point out that any seeker becoming involved in grassroots activism needs to take a position on Marxism. .zandtao will discuss his own view later but as with all views it is personal and seekers need to decide for themselves. A pathtivist needs to determine their own views based on their paths, and not accept the views (idealism) of others.
Let’s take Marxism through the violence that is in some of its histories - and start with the Soviet revolution in Russia. For many Marxists this revolution is significant. The peasants of Russia were severely exploited by the Tsarist regime, and there was a Bolshevik revolution. The Bolsheviks saw themselves as a vanguard of the 99%; they decided that the 99% would not become united and form a revolution. The Bolsheviks led a revolution with initially a low percentage of the population choosing that revolution. Following their revolution there was much fighting between Reds and Whites - Reds supporting the revolution and Whites supporting the Tsarist regime (the Tsar and his family had been murdered). The fighting lasted from March 8 1917 until June 16 1923 (although the fighting had been building since 1905), some say Lenin was the leader of the revolution, and he certainly was significant in the communist party that formed the government after the fighting. Lenin was very ill, died the next year - 1924, and the consequences of his death were historically significant.
Beyond this superficial view of the revolution zandtao does not wish to discuss historical events but he accepts this view is an interpretation. Many people lost their lives in the fighting, and it is not certain whether the people were better under the revolution or under the Tsar; it could be argued the Russian people had greater control. Historically USSR became a global superpower, and the official end of the USSR is often seen as the falling of the Berlin Wall in November 1989. Many people died under communist control, but was life worse than under the Tsar? Communists supporting the USSR - including UK communists - argued that the deaths arose because of western interference trying to destabilise the communist government; whatever your view of history many people died in this effort to form a revolution to change the class rule from 1% to 99%. That significant number of deaths is all zandtao wants to conclude, as historical analysis of this and other revolutions can be very timely. As a seeker if you choose embodying in the grassroots movement you will need some understanding of Marxism and histories of revolutions.
zandtao concludes that disproportionately-more people from the 99% died, and he is unsure as to whether there have been clear benefits to the Russian and other revolutions. In theory there should have been clear benefits, but within the global societal infrastructure that is the system-for-the-rich did those benefits come into fruition? Marx argued that the 1%-satrapy (system-for-the-rich) can only be changed through revolution with the 99% uniting against the 1%, and it is this idea that is the basis to the Marxist revolutions in Russia, Cuba and China. Have the people in those countries benefited from their revolutions? A seeker needs to be able to answer this and other questions concerning Marxism and the consequence of using violence to enable class change. In terms of harmony, violent revolution is extremely disruptive, and zandtao has decided for himself that he would not choose revolutionary change to enable a greater economic balance and redistribution of wealth. Each seeker must determine their own conclusion. In zandtao’s view all grassroots activists advocating Marxism need to understand their own position on revolution and whether their Marxist position is contributing to possible violence, zandtao knows many Marxist activists do not examine this question sufficiently
Also zandtao does take a clear view on the economic analysis that Marx made, Marxist economic analysis is far more detailed but is not dissimilar to zandtao’s intro-vision of societal infrastructure that is a system-for-the-rich. zandtao accepts this similarity, a seeker needs to determine their own views as to the economic analysis. This then takes us back to the question posed at the beginning of this embodied “choice of grassroots activism”:-
Do we need to effect changes in the societal infrastructure, and if so how?
Is what we are doing so far sufficient as wise embodiment?
Is grassroots activism where we should be using wise embodiment?
Can there be class change without violence?
Marx clearly stated that class change cannot occur without revolution, this makes sense when we consider human nature and the defilement of greed. If we examine the accumulation of the current 1% - there are far fewer oligarchs than 1% of humanity, it is not money being used - often just remaining in bank accounts. However these people use their money and position as power and influence - look at the involvements of Elon Musk, Bezos, Zuckerburg and others in the current supposed democratic US government. Can you conceive of these people willingly giving their wealth up to benefit humanity?
Even with revolution has there been class change in Russia, Cuba and China? Can there be class change in individual countries when the global system has the current societal infrastructure? For zandtao the answers are not clear, and yet he observes so many deaths have been caused as a consequence of people trying to cause class change through revolution.
What is the purpose of Marxist activism?
Based on his time in grassroots activism zandtao has no clear understanding as to how other activists would answer this question. Currently no matter what the UK government does, 99% of British people are not going to unite against the current system-for-the-rich. Studying Marx will give a clear economic analysis, but how that understanding could transform into class change is not clear amongst activists.
zandtao puts forward this assessment. Activists know that the current system-for-the-rich is the source of society’s problems. Marx is the only idealism that stands against this system so grassroots activists choose Marxism
What is the purpose of grassroots activism?
Whether through Marxism or not grassroots activists seek a better society. But beyond this loose maxim it is not clear as a whole what is wanted. As mentioned already some young people react and become Marxist activists. Other activism revolves around identity eg race or gender. Other activism takes up causes. If a family member dies from cancer then a person might choose to become an activist about cancer, some cancer activists see politics in terms of BigFood and BigPharma as the source of cancer but most cancer activists work with charities such as cancer research in the hope that research will bring about a cure. Many Christians turn to activism within the community in the hope that beneficial changes can be made through their activism.
Clearly Describing Grassroots Activists
Once we expand grassroots activism to the “Oxfam Envelope”, we begin to get clarity as to harmony and organisation.
Way back when in the 6th form, bill met a (suburban) parent who protested defensively “but I always put money in the Oxfam envelope”; young angry bill dismissed her out-of-hand but remembers the incident - if not the long-dead face. Oxfam envelopes are part of the 99%, and harmony and organisation strategies need to include these people. When he was active he would have dismissed Oxfam envelopes as would most activists; yet they are 99%. However harmony can work with Oxfam envelopes, existing activists do not; Greta and the kids would also dismiss them.
If we extend our understanding of grassroots activism to Oxfam envelopes and charity workers we begin to see a way forward for harmony and activism. But we need to accept these people for who they are within the movement. And for many - including bill in his activism, Oxfam envelopes were not only dismissed but were inimical; how can we identify as 99% with that attitude?
How do people see the society they live in? Do the 99% have similar visions of society? In the intro-vision zandtao described the importance of seeing society for what it is so that people can follow their paths but most people do not have such a vision. There is a whole spectrum of views as to the way society is, many based in delusion; this is also true of the now-extended broad-based grassroots activism. We could describe this spectrum in terms of exploitation, on the one end we have people who do not see exploitation and at the other end those who do. When activists do not see exploitation they see society as people living together, and there could be harmony if only people tried harder. If only people were less greedy, less hateful …. They do not see class as an issue, they do not see a system-for-the-rich …. just that some people have got money. This view is conditioned - superficial conditioning maintaining a level of delusion where typically they have jobs and do not see those jobs as wage-slavery. And people who don’t have jobs - maybe they should try harder to get a job.
In terms of change these people feel that change can happen harmoniously if we “tried harder”.
At the other end of the spectrum we have people who see society in terms of exploitation - much like the societal infrastructure that speaks of system-for-the-rich or the Marxists who see a society exploited through class.
Marxists somehow hope that this full spectrum of views can unify in the 99% and cause class change - hopefully an evolutionary change through democracy and the ballot box; for some Marxists - revolution. Given the way the system-for-the-rich is willing to buy off people and control democracy it is unlikely that the 99% can be united through Marxism or neo-Marxist approaches. Yet essentially that is where the existing grassroots activists are at.
Anathema
Peace and Revolution
Can there be class change without violence?
What is the purpose of Marxist activism?
What is the purpose of grassroots activism?
Clearly Describing Grassroots Activists
Peaceful Change
But the people who seek harmonious change - who don’t see the exploitation - don’t want violence, if change is to happen it has to be peaceful for them. Through media they see global violence and are afraid. They are also deluded that UK society is not violent - or at least the “most peaceful society in the world”, and they remain in delusion choosing this peace - peace above change.
For many of those who understand exploitation they are prepared to choose violence and as a result alienate the majority who prefer their deluded peace. And to maintain this societal balance the system-for-the-rich are prepared to disrupt grassroots activism, and bring in violence to alienate the majority seeking deluded peace.
Existing Deadlock
Understanding the different views on exploitation and peace brings clarity as to the failure of grassroots activism at the moment. How do we get through this deadlock? For zandtao the path gives the guide - peace and harmony and awareness.
For the Marxist the issue is that of education. Through education an individual becomes aware of the degree of exploitation and sets as a personal priority changing class-rule. Holding to this ideal is one of the forces that maintains the deadlock. They hold to the education position that once the individual truly sees the exploitation and the harm it does s/he will prioritise the class struggle. This has not happened so far but because it has happened for these Marxists, these activists continue in this way.
Around these Marxists are a broader group of socialists. These are people who have similar views concerning exploitation. They are not educated Marxists but have a socialist view that feels they are being exploited. Within the grassroots movement these people are allied yet at the same time their views divide them. They are united in conflict with the prevailing system-for-the-rich, and they form political groups and parties to promote their approach. There are many such groups, parties in their own right or groups that work within the Labour party. All these groups are seeking power to enact their ideals, have different levels of conflict with the prevailing system-for-the-rich, yet they are also in conflict with each other over their ideals. And they are all in conflict with those people who prefer peaceful change - the majority. Can such parties work for harmony?
Whilst the activism of political parties is concerned with power, within the workplace activists work through trade unions, organisations that are recognised as a human right to protect the interests of workers - part 4 of Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Through an understanding of Marxist economics activists realise that in production their labour creates the products that the rich make their profits from, and they negotiate for their own interests especially increased wages. Over time the owners have increased automation, reduced job availability, and in the West brought in cheaper immigrant labour. This has been carried out by cooperative governments who did not respect the right to work - part 1 of Article 23, and with governments who did not work with the conflictual tactics of many trade union activists. Now in the West most grassroots activism is concerned with full employment for non-immigrant indigenous labour, and this has led to the rise of demagogues and the formation of racist parties rather than support for trade unions - presumably because trade unions do not accept discrimination. Given the political allegiance of these demagogues there superficially appears some level of harmony between these new or revamped parties and the system-for-the-rich. How this will work out over time remains to be seen? Through automation and the import of cheaper overseas goods there are less jobs available in the West, even if anti-immigration parties gain control there cannot be the right to work because of automation and overseas goods. Can there be harmony between anti-immigration parties and the system-for-the-rich?
Campaign groups can take on many forms. The campaigning can be overtly political such as AAM - Anti-apartheid movement - and BDS - Boycott Divest and Sanction Israel, directly attacking the system-for-the-rich such as CAAT - Campaign Against the Arms Trade, campaigning for increased funds for the NHS, indirectly attacking the system-for-the-rich through campaigns like Shelter for the homeless - possibly harmonious campaigning, health campaigning such as macrobiotics, veganism and other harmonious health campaigns that appear to have no connection to the system-for-the-rich such as promoting cancer research. It depends on the nature of the campaign how harmonious the campaigning could be.
Identity groups work with “self-interest” to promote their own interests eg women’s equality, gender equality, LGBTQIA+, racial equality groups and more. Recently this campaigning has taken a turn in that many businesses are exploiting identity within their advertising process. Is that a change for business or is it just part of their current business model?
Conditioned Responses
Each of these forms of activism - parties seeking power, trade unions activists, campaigners and identities seeking power - are conditioned responses - usually initially in conflict with the prevailing power of the societal infrastructure. There are activists trying to take power to promote the agenda of their party, the trade unions using the collective power of their labour to promote workers’ interests, campaigners usually demanding change from the societal infrastructure as part of their campaign, and for many health campaigns the models for health require changes in food consuming and health practices that affect the profits of BigFood and BigPharma. These activists start from self-interest and seek change through conflict up to and including violence.
Initially these activists arise out of conditioning and conformity or as a reaction to personal suffering, this is understandable. And such reactive energy can benefit activism if it is guided. But at present it is a conditioned response to upbringing or society, and it joins activism that is reactive. And the system-for-the-rich has learned to control these reactions. For those people with clear minds who are a danger in terms of changing the system-for-the-rich the fears of the majority are manipulated, individuals are bought off, and the energy of these clear-minded people is diverted often in a self-destructive way within grassroots activism. This is sad for humanity as these people usually have a better understanding of societal infrastructure but are unable to use that understanding constructively. Many trade unionists also have a clear understanding of the societal infrastructure so the system-for-the-rich has enacted legislation that allows for the existence of trade unions but makes sure these trade unions cannot win their conflict. Many campaigners have to be tolerated as their suffering drives them, however the system-for-the-rich is able to ensure such energy is not too effective by isolating the sufferer and making their plight individual rather than collective. Throughout all of these conditioned responses the system-for-the-rich has developed strategies that prevent the activism from inspiring and collectivising the majority, and we have defeat or at best deadlock.
Pathtivists Detach
In the same way as individuals have to detach from the emotions of their upbringing of conditioning and conformity the same needs to happen within the movement of grassroots activism. They need to detach from the various emotions that are conditioned reactions, and in that detachment learn to follow, work with and promote path principles.
Addressing the Anathema to Harmony
Within the movement there are peripheral people working in harmony with the system-for-the-rich to benefit their situation. These people are tolerated and the movement in general marginalises their activism essentially not seeing this activism as part of the movement. Unless these peripheral people start to join the conflict that is current activism.
And many people do choose to join because the core of grassroots activism do have a clear understanding of the way the system is. It is easy to persuade people that the system-for-the-rich exploits the majority of individuals working as wage-slaves, and once campaigners see how their campaign issue is a consequence of the societal infrastructure then the campaigners start to fight the system; they join the conflict that is failing - part of the deadlock.
It is all understandable. Once the mind sees the clear connections between the accumulation of the rich and the problems that the mostly poor in society have, the mind reacts naturally and joins the conflict. This is a typical human mental response but it is not wise.
Conflict Cannot be Won at the Moment
The system-for-the-rich controls:-
The military
The law
Media
Education
With this level of control they prevent conflict from succeeding. Media and education create delusions for the majority. Once individuals see through the delusions and choose to join the conflict, laws and their enforcement protect the system-for-the-rich - and ultimately there is the military if law enforcement is not strong enough.
This is the sad reality that wise compassion sees. As described in the intro-vision there are horrific consequences to this system-for-the-rich such as war, poverty, exploitation through gender and race etc but confronting this system in conflict doesn’t work. Here is the anathema towards harmony. There are many within the movement who see the clear connections to the system-for-the-rich and they also understand that this system controls the military, law, media and education. But they hold onto their ideals that with education the 99% will end their delusions and unite in conflict against the system-for-the-rich. Emotionally they prefer to be in conflict with the system because their emotions are satiated by this conflict. Their idealism wants to see an end to the system-for-the-rich, and anything short of this “final solution” is not good enough for these idealists. They perceive the harmony strategies of some campaigners as marginal, and dismiss them. But if pathtivists join the struggle and attempt to harmonise strategies they will be met with resistance - in much the same way as we meet our own resistance on the path as we overcome our conditioning and conformity.
Why bother?
Historically people on the path have not been good when they clash with egos, and this discomfort with egos is made far worse if embodiment implies that you have to work with egos. It is far easier - although not without difficulties - to follow your path as a teacher. Seekers come to the teacher, recognise if not understanding the wisdom of the teacher, and attempt to overcome egos at the guidance of the teacher. Amongst the teachers of the path is the feeling that evolutionary change is coming but zandtao asks:-
Is change coming simply through teaching?
Are we building a culture of awareness (CoA) through existing development?
Are we overcoming the resistance inherent in the conditioning and conformity of the existing societal infrastructure?
As embodiment do we need to promote a CoA?
As embodiment do we need to join social movements for change?
As embodiment do we need to become path activists - pathtivists - and attempt to guide grassroots movements?
Evolution or Revolution
Teachers such as Eckhart recognise that change is coming but they warn of a rocky road. In the intro to Power of Now and elsewhere Eckhart discusses the rocky road of his own path, our egos resist our own development and yet as seekers we choose the path. Once we have chosen the path we have to overcome our own resistance and restrictions, and yet we must then struggle against the egos in the workplace in order to survive. On top of this difficult struggle zandtao is asking us to try to harmonise the egos of grassroots activism as our embodiment.
Is it too much?
zandtao hopes for an evolutionary and harmonious change. Will the system-for-the-rich accept these changes? Or will they resist? How will the grassroots activists respond to the resistance of the system-for-the-rich? If there is natural change it will impact the system-for-the-rich, when grassroots activism sees this impact will they react with harmony or will they increase conflict? Do seekers and followers of the path need to promote harmony within that movement? Long-term evolution or short-term revolution?
The path can give us strength and conviction to be involved in a harmonious struggle for change, without the path there can be burnout. Let us help Great’s kids become long-term evolutionary activists.
Marxists see the truth of the system-for-the-rich but their emotions do not see harmony as the way forward. Unlike seekers the majority do not consciously seek change, they survive within the system-for-the-rich bringing up their families. People in this majority seek only peace whilst they bring up their families, it is understandable why their conditioning and conformity perpetuates the status quo. It is understandable why they accept the delusions offered by the system-for-the-rich, and choose not to be involved in any movement for change that is not harmonious. The compassion and anger of the Marxists combined with their understanding of the system-for-the-rich leads to violence as a means of justifiable change. However the path does not want violence, it wants change through peace and harmony. Yet it wants change and it wants embodiment; is pathtivism not inevitable for seekers?
Overcoming Apathy?
|
