The Spirit of Revolution in Adbusters

What is Adbusters? In their own words:

QUOTE:

We are a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age. Our aim is to topple existing power structures and forge a major shift in the way we will live in the 21^st century.

[Followed shortly thereafter with this.]

We want folks to get mad about corporate disinformation, injustices in the global economy, and any industry that pollutes our physical or mental commons.

:UNQUOTE [ https://www.adbusters.org/about/adbusters ]

The noble calling

Adbusters magazine is meant to be an introduction to the larger world of social activism. But that's all. It's not meant to define the ideal best world or to suggest how, exactly, we're to get there. They say, "We want folks to get mad...," and they wish to "topple existing power structures." But they don't say how that anger should be directed or what new power structures should take the place of the old.

But that's okay. Adbusters provides an introduction to pertinent issues and issues a call to action by, for example, urging "student protest against the lack of debate within academic economics." I like the idea of trying to encourage grassroots resistance. However, I urge readers of Adbusters (and similar journals) to be discriminating consumers of their manifestos. For example, this is part of an argument to fundamentally revise economic theory and its exposition in the classroom:

QUOTE:

In response to a paper critical of trends in econophysics, for example, physicist Joe McCauley responded that...the problems in economics proper were far worse. He suggested that: "...the economists revise their curriculum and require that the following topics be taught: calculus through the advanced level, ordinary differential equations (including advanced), partial differential equations (including Green functions), classical mechanics through modern nonlinear dynamics, statistical physics, stochastic processes (including solving Smoluchowski and Fokker-Planck equations), computer programming (C, Pascal, etc.) and, for complexity, cell biology. Time for such classes can be obtained in part by eliminating microeconomics and macroeconomics classes from the curriculum. The students will then face a much harder curriculum and those who survive will come out ahead. So might society as a whole."

:UNQUOTE [article by Steve Keen, July/August 2009 issue of Adbusters]

All together now: "Are you bullshitting me?"

Eliminate micro- and macro-economic courses? Study cell biology instead? Ramp up the concentration on math studies? Sorry, Dr. McCauley, but I ain't buying it. And even if what you propose is true, the implications must surely spell the end of democracy. For if this highly specialized training you propose is really necessary, how can the average voter possibly hope to arrive at an informed opinion? Unless, of course, he undertakes the grueling course of study you propose.

Managing a national economy, or trying to anticipate its ups and downs, seems at present to be a fool's errand. The Best and Brightest minds in Washington DC can't get a handle on our current economic status. Some of them helped make this mess. They don't seem to tire of having to revise their forecasts and tell us how surprised they are by the turn of events.

My position: We don't need more sophisticated math to get a handle on our economy; we need more information. I suspect esoteric math is employed as a tool to compensate for informational shortfall.

More information: That's the key...that, more than anything else, will tame this beast. Without sufficient information upon which to calculate an outcome or create a sober-yet-not-overbearing regulatory environment, the best of our mathematical tools will prove to be useless. When I was running for the presidency in 2008, that's why I had included this 26^th point (out of 47) in my Electoral Contract:

QUOTE:

TWENTY-SIX:          Transparency will be a major focus of my administration. Definition: Transparency: Opening the books; increasing scrutiny of public and corporate transactions; vastly reducing the number of government documents marked classified; enabling and rewarding whistleblowers; creating a level playing field between employees and employers, enabling employees (and not just their unions) to gain equal and inexpensive stature in courts of law; revising the Freedom of Information Act, giving it more teeth.

:UNQUOTE

The Spirit of Revolt

The cover of Adbusters' July/August 2009 issue displays these words in its upper-right corner: The spirit of revolt.

The anarchist Pyotr Kropotkin wrote a book entitled The Spirit of Revolt (1880). Adbusters dedicates four of its own pages, in its current issue, to a section of Pyotr's book. Opening sentence: "There are periods in the life of human society when revolution becomes an imperative necessity, when it proclaims itself as inevitable." He speaks romantically of violent revolution and Adbusters embraces this spirit. For how else, except through violent, "take it to the streets" revolution, can we "topple existing power structures" (as advocated by Adbusters)?

There are many leftish activists who have fond memories of the street violence of the 60's. There was a feeling of change in the air - a feeling that if we just pushed hard enough, long enough, we would surely win. And, yes, the word "inevitable" was used - often. To those who would romanticize revolutionary violence, I say:

"It's an awful thing having a busted head on your conscience. It's even worse having one sitting on your own two shoulders. And when you take to the streets and the cops start swinging those batons, that's the end result - busted heads and woeful consciences."

But people don't take to the streets any more. Not in the United States. And certainly not in the numbers we'd seen in the 60's. And no matter how much Adbusters et al promote this activity, very few (too few to matter) will try to physically "take it to the Man." The beautiful thing about that is, it's no longer necessary to hit the streets. We can take it to the Man from the comfort of our own homes.

What I mean is...

We have the power of the pocketbook. We can decide which brands to buy, whom to boycott, where to deposit our funds and maintain our checking accounts, transfer credit card balances.... I myself have never in my life owned a car. I don't have a telephone. I took in a homeless person for 18 months, not even charging a share of the rent. I buy off-brands. I don't drink Coca Cola. Clothes? All from second-hand stores. Entertainment? Most often, I just exercise my imagination.

Politics? We should be spending a lot of time promoting the creation of a third political party because the two majors won't engage in fundamental reform. That's off the table. And if you think Obama will change things, wait a year and see how much more deeply he sinks us into Afghanistan.

[Time out, for true confession, relevant to my “Afghanistan” comment (last sentence, above): I first wrote and posted this piece on July 16, 2009. I mention this for the benefit of the Obamaniacs who thought he was the Great Liberal Reformer Incarnate.]

…and how the situation in Iraq will deteriorate. The fundamental deterioration will be subtle at first, but will be impossible to miss... to those who pay attention.

Education? Old friends of mine had decided, years ago, to spare their children from the daily bombardment of Establishment propaganda by homeschooling their kids. And these kids flourished, each in his own way, thank you very much. And these kids furrow their brows skeptically whenever any rapper promises "change you can believe in." And they don't care about the skin color of the panderer who would engage in such sloganeering.

And what about the spiritual aspect of our struggle?

We won't really have to do much to (as Adbusters put it) "topple existing power structures." They will collapse under the weight of leadership which can't think outside the box as well as the weight of all those IOUs.

The important struggle is well under way but doesn't grab headlines: Meaningful change will only come about as a result of spiritual struggle. And there are a lot of us working on that in our own unsung ways. The wisdom we gain through our struggle for enlightenment will answer this question: What will replace our current system, and (more importantly) who will replace our current governing class after the system collapses?

A large number of (currently) anonymous enlightened individuals will emerge and provide the answers we're looking for. And I know you are part of this contemplative group. So, go ahead. Meditate. Develop yourselves. Share your wisdom. Don't be at all hesitant to learn from anyone who's just a bit more enlightened than you are. Forge your alliances. And ... brace yourselves.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

"Adbusters is sure pretty to look at. But don't be enthralled by a pretty package. We already got burned by one such package who basically jived his way to the presidency" - Steve.