Lady, the night has got us by the heart.The whole wide world is tumbling down.Words turn to ice in my dry throatPraying for a land without prayer,Walking to you on water all winterIn a year that wants more war.
It made me think about a video a friend shared earlier criticizing pacifism, showing that Ghandi and King were only successful because there was a real threat of armed insurgency against colonialism and global white supremacy during their era and the rulers knew they were better off dealing with the pacifists than the insurgents. In other words, nonviolence was used to co-opt revolution.
I am tired of liberal pastors, the American Friends Service Committee, and other organizations that preach nonviolence and then preach that we should go and vote for Democrats who are presiding over American Empire's war machine, which tortures and kills mercilessly as the recent leaks of classified war documents have further confirmed.
I'm tired of nonviolence being presented as a tactic that can stop this kind of mass slaughter. It clearly can't . We marched in the streets for years and hundreds of people chained themselves to federal buildings to stop the Iraq war and it didn't stop. It will only be stopped through revolutionary struggles, which are going on abroad right now and could erupt here if things keep getting worse.
That being said, I've heard people say they can only imagine dying fighting, they can't imagine living in the new society after the revolution, they wouldn't know what to do there. I think this happens to quite a few revolutionaries. We need to remember that the goal of revolution is life, not war. Sometimes it is necessary to fight to defend your life and your community. But the point of it all is not the fighting itself, it is life.
I actually have more respect for people like Thomas Merton than I do for the liberal pastors and nonviolent "activists" who claim to be for nonviolent "revolution". Merton was just sitting there in his monastery cultivating inner peace. That's not gonna change the world but at least he wasn't stopping others from changing the world or trying to co-opt their movements into ineffective and hypocritical "nonviolence."
Actually, I think Merton and other monks do make a small, humble contribution to the revolution. They show us one side of what life could be like after the revolution is won. They are so impatient for the new society they try to catch a glimpse of it now by separating themselves from the capitalist world, and they are willing to put up with all sorts of obnoxious church hierarchy and bureaucracy just to live free from alienated labor where they can at least partially live the lifestyle Karl Marx described as Communism,
where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.
It seems to me that folks like Merton live in the spiritual desert, the wasteland at the edge of capitalism. They know they aren't separate from it, they know their existence on its margins is a result of their privilege and they know that like the rest of us in America, they live off the spoils of empire and capital, ill gotten and covered in blood. They're not pretending to be innocent or above it all... as Merton expresses directly in the title of his book "Conjectures of a guilty bystander." But in that spiritual desert they spend their time prefiguring the life Marx describes and praying for a world where we can live it, "praying for a land without prayer", or rather for a land where prayer is not a separate sphere of activity divided from work, play, and life itself. By living, and praying that way, they make a small, humble contribution to the revolution by helping remind the rest of us what we are fighting for, by reminding us what life looks like so that we don't start thinking it is only war.
What we need is to overcome the capitalist division of labor between scholars and soldiers, ministers and militants, prayer and labor, life and struggle. We need to be like the ancient Israelite armed prophets or the Wu Tang warrior-monks who combined the intellectual and the martial arts. Soldiers follow directions given by commanders. Warriors are creative and self-governing in their battle, and fight for life and a broader vision of society. They take the best virtues of the monastery (virtues Merton hints at) and deploy them in the streets.
God forbid that I become a solider who lives only for war
God forbid I become an old burnt out former revolutionary preaching nonviolence and telling others not to struggle valiantly, to simply give in and attempt to reform the Empire.
My prayer is that if I ever get burned out, and if I don't die fighting first, that I retire to some place where I'm not in other people's way and pray for a land without prayer.
But my real prayer is that I fight courageously as a warrior with others and that we build a new society together so that we can all live together and pray/play together in that land. There will be no prayer in that land because capitalism will no longer divide prayer from life... the revolution should make life itself our prayer.
"a land where prayer is not a separate sphere of activity divided from work, play, and life itself."- Arguably, can't we have that now? It takes a little work, but I think we don't have to wait for this "land" to be created. In fact, I think it is imperative for a life well-lived that we all learn how to integrate the prayer, peace, and reflective nature of life in a monastery into our busy every day lives. Although there are a lot of evils that get in the way of us doing that, I don't think this it is impossible. That is how Christ lived isn't it? How he lead his revolution? He was perfect at integrating prayer and reflection into his social work.
ReplyDeleteArguably Merton was contributing more that a "small humble contribution to the revolution". Arguable, from his small cell he could create more change via prayer that any of us can via activism. We can never really know I suppose.
What we do know though is that Christ seemed to strike the perfect balance of the active and contemplative life. Somehow we all have to strive to learn how to do that. I do think it is possible to do that here and now instead of waiting for some society to be build in the future. Its not only possible, but its so so so important.
Hey Matt, just read your post, really thought-provoking and a good read. However, I did not agree with a lot of what you said so I’ll (briefly, as midterms are coming up) highlight where I differ in the hope that we can have a dialogue about this.
ReplyDeleteI’ll start off by saying that I wholeheartedley agree that “non-violence” needs to be examined, unpacked and challenged, and so often does harbor “anti-revolutionary” sentiments and is loaded with privileged notions and values: so in that respect I’m glad that you’ve started this discussion. In addition, I too am bummed that there are so many who identify as non-violent but actively support Obama and the Democratic Party. Where I begin to differ is in the complete and total dichotomy you draw between non-violence and meaningful revolution; between non-violence and radicalism. It seems like you conflate any sort of non-violent organizing with the reformist values that have dominated it. That, to use an example I’m sure we’re both overly familiar of, is reminiscent of big name racist evangelical atheists like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris denouncing Christianity and dumping a bunch of values on it which are not part of the essence of what it means to identify as “Christian”. That’s not in any way to equate your methods with theirs (I hope you’re not insulted for my even mentioning them in the same breath as you), just to try and illustrate the problems of being essentialist about certain beliefs or ideologies.
Also, Thomas Merton is one of my favorite authors, so I’d like to speak to him as well, and monasticism more broadly. Merton obviously wrote at length about non-violence, and I think he would agree with some of the sentiments you’re putting forward. However, to use another Merton quote, non-violence is not a means to achieving a certain pre-destined end or unity with others but “is the result of a unity already achieved”. I think Merton, and certainly I, would say that Jesus preached according to this principle. It is also not, as you imply, necessarily a manifestation of meekness, timidness or a willingness to compromise. Just because you do not feel called to inflict harm on another does not mean that you are less resistant to injustice: to equate violence with strength or struggle is, in my opinon, to reinforce the hyper-violent distortedly-masculine capitalist values that feed and perpetuate the imperialist war machine.
Speaking of monks, I don’t agree with your slight on the monastic vocation either. You speak dualistically about the struggle in ourselves and the the struggle in the world, peace in ourselves and peace in the world. You may not agree with me on this point, but I do not believe everyone is called to be on the front lines of the revolution: I believe there is space for artists, poets and contemplatives to create a more beautiful world without organizing in the community working to break down the structures that have made our world so ugly. It is, of course, a privilege to hitch up and become a monk or nun, but at the same time, the very life we lead involves many other privileges that are not available to most of the world, and to say that just because they are not on the streets struggling with the poor and oppressed does not mean they are not working to create a better world, a more just world. The love preached by the prophets is nothing short of revolutionary, in any sense, and love that is realized and cultivated does not stay put in any one human being. Love is, in itself, resistance to what the Bible refers to as “the World”. But love is not inherently passive or reformist: love is absolutely the most powerful force on Earth, and there is nothing more dynamic or radical. You actually spoke pretty much to this point in your post, the necessity of remembering that revolution is about Life, which is really Love, which I really liked. But a point I think we do disagree on is that I don’t believe we are called to change the world in and of itself: I believe we are called to change ourselves and (to use religious terminology I think you and I are both comfortable with) trust that by living a life of faith-and acting with tremendous courage in living that life-that God will challenge us and mold us into architects of the Kingdom in ways we could have never imagined. I realize that probably sounds like the passive, reformist values that we both see issues with, but I’d invite you to think about it not in that respect, but rather as a surrender to humility and obedience to the will of an omnipotent God whose Love alone has the power to change the world, if we are willing.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of which, I’m also curious to know how you go about thinking about this issue in regards to being Christian. Now, I’m not trying to co-opt Jesus for the privileged, liberal “non-violents”-I see all sorts of revolutionary potential in Jesus’ vision of the Kingdom, and in the words “I came not to bring peace but a sword”-but the crucial question then is not what the Kingdom looks like, but how we get there. If “all the way to Heaven is Heaven”-which I believe-then there is no justification for murder and violent aggression against any people, capitalists and racists included. Also, you speak dichotomously about non-violence and revolution and I’m not really sure why; MLK Jr. was by no means a revolutionary, but Gandhi was in the truest sense. His revolution’s potential to transform society was no less potent: I would argue it was most potent under Gandhi. And that gets back to the need to see past a duality between peace in onesself and peace in the world (which, we would both agree, will only ever come with justice). What has created global capitalism is not merely a set of strict political values and institutions, but most fundamentally a value set that has permeated into the very fiber of our being, and it is only by breaking down those negative, capitalist values of racism, violence and exploitation in ourselves that we could ever expect for it to break down in the world. That’s not to devalue the importance of organizing, direct action etc.; rather, it’s to realize that the two are inseparable, that a holistic approach to revolution is not only preferable but necessary, a revolution that occurs not just in the world but in ourselves as well. When we have that revolution of the spirit, the revolution of Love, I think violence ceases to be an option.
ReplyDeleteSo I’m interested to hear what your thoughts are; I’m very open to my views being challenged and being changed as a result. Again, thanks a lot for bringing this up, and I look forward to continuing this dialogue. Peace be with you.
Tee and Peter, thank you very much for your thoughtful critiques/ comments. I will think over what you both raised and will get back to you as soon as I can, probably on Sunday.
ReplyDeleteWow, this was incredible. As an erstwhile Christian and committed revolutionary, filled with sadness and fear when I look at the current position of so many former fighters, I needed to read so much of this. Beautiful. I'm going to read it again.
ReplyDeletePS: This is Natalie, from the Marx reading group. Rae directed me here. Love it.
Thanks Natalie, I really appreciate that. I enjoyed our conversation about religion and radical politics the other day.
ReplyDeleteTee, here is my response to your comments from earlier...
thanks for the thoughtful comments, I really appreciate the dialogue. I agree with you that we can start to live now in a way where prayer is not separate from work in the sense that we can sanctify our daily work. We don't need to wait for a new society to be built. We need to be the change we want to see in the world. But to do that I think we need to actually change the way we work externally and materially, not just our internal spiritual orientation to work. It's not enough to work "mindfully." If we do start working mindfully we realize that our work cannot be done in a truly human, or truly prayerful way because under capitalism we are forced to "worship the work of our own hands" as Marx put it. We worship commodities we produce instead of God. These commodities are products of human labor but we forget about that and start to treat them as if they were natural objects that just appeared as part of the world, as if they create themselves. We start to relate to each other through these commodities instead of through love, freedom, and creativity. And our labor itself is alienated... we don't work for each other in love, we work for a boss for profit. so I think to truly sanctify daily labor we need to rebel as much as we can against these conditions, which are anti-Christian, anti-human, unnatural, and, dare I say, sinful. That rebellion can start now though in small ways everyday on the job, it doesn't need to wait for some distant Revolution, though it can help build toward that.
I agree with you that Christ was perfect at integrating contemplation and action. But this perfection lead him to actual material rebellion (disobeying the authorities, which got him crucified), not just a change of heart. He manifested prayer in his body and his actions, not just his heart. Christians need to do the same since we are the Body of Christ
It is true Merton had a major positive impact, and no doubt his prayer life is what empowered him to do this, or rather God empowered him to do this and he connected with God's grace through prayer. Perhaps none of us as activists will do as much as he did, it's too early to tell. We'll see...
Hi Pete, thanks for your comments, these are thought provoking. Here is my attempt at a response:
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I agree with you I made too much of a dichotomy between nonviolence and revolution in my post. I don't mean to criticize all people who practice nonviolence, only those who do so hypocritically while actually supporting the existence of a bloody state and a bloody economic system of capitalism. I have respect for revolutionaries who are firmly against the state and capitalism but do not wish to take up arms for religious reasons. I even think there should be room for such folks in revolutionary organizations, just as there should be room for people of all religious backgrounds. As long as they don't condemn others for taking up arms to defend themselves I have no criticisms.
I also definitely do not want to equate violence with strength and struggle. The way I see it, true militancy against injustice involves a variety of different social skills: organizing, fighting (whether violently or nonviolently), communicating, and, quite crucially, caring work such as providing emotional support and empathy and basic material caring work like cooking, cleaning, raising kids, etc. A movement can't survive without all of that, and revolutionaries should aspire to be well rounded and able to take up all aspects of that. This is true in struggles that are unarmed, as well as in struggles that have some armed component. Part of my post is actually a warning to those who would reduce revolutionary struggle to armed conflict... that's war NOT revolution. True revolution is a change in social relations - the creation of new ways of relating to each other, like direct democratic popular councils and committees, classless forms of production, etc. where love is more possible and greed is less possible. Any armed component is simply a defense of these new social relations against those who would wish to crush them. It is also an attempt for oppressed people to become self-governing in police, judicial, and military affairs currently reserved for the state. All of this requires a new code of ethics, and can't simply be done in a way that glorifies violence.