Are You An Anarchist?

This article, which questions the common perceptions/misconceptions behind anarchism, is good food for thought  and invites the reader to question their own beliefs about societies' systems of rule. Courtesy of Mr Drury who passed me the link from http://www.disinfo.com/. Enjoy!

Regardless of what your answer is, David Graeber’s classic essay “Are You An Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You” is food for thought regarding what is possible. Via the Anarchist Library:

Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. But it’s one that the rich and powerful have always found extremely dangerous.

At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two elementary assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. The second is that power corrupts. Most of all, anarchism is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions. Odd though this may seem, in most important ways you are probably already an anarchist — you just don’t realize it.

Let’s start by taking a few examples from everyday life:

If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?

If you answered “yes”, then you are used to acting like an anarchist! The most basic anarchist principle is self-organization: the assumption that human beings do not need to be threatened with prosecution in order to be able to come to reasonable understandings with each other, or to treat each other with dignity and respect.

Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don’t those people all feel exactly the same way about you? Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it’s necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible. It’s all a vicious circle. If people are used to being treated like their opinions do not matter, they are likely to become angry and cynical, even violent – which of course makes it easy for those in power to say that their opinions do not matter. Once they understand that their opinions really do matter just as much as anyone else’s, they tend to become remarkably understanding. To cut a long story short: anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that make people stupid and irresponsible.

Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?

If you answered “yes”, then you belong to an organization which works on anarchist principles! Another basic anarchist principle is voluntary association. This is simply a matter of applying democratic principles to ordinary life. The only difference is that anarchists believe it should be possible to have a society in which everything could be organized along these lines, all groups based on the free consent of their members, and therefore, that all top-down, military styles of organization like armies or bureaucracies or large corporations, based on chains of command, would no longer be necessary. Perhaps you don’t believe that would be possible. Perhaps you do. But every time you reach an agreement by consensus, rather than threats, every time you make a voluntary arrangement with another person, come to an understanding, or reach a compromise by taking due consideration of the other person’s particular situation or needs, you are being an anarchist — even if you don’t realize it.

Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free — and therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails. This leads to another crucial point: that while people can be reasonable and considerate when they are dealing with equals, human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others. Give someone such power, they will almost invariably abuse it in some way or another.

Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don’t really care about the public interest? Do you think we live in an economic system which is stupid and unfair?

If you answered “yes”, then you subscribe to the anarchist critique of today’s society – at least, in its broadest outlines. Anarchists believe that power corrupts and those who spend their entire lives seeking power are the very last people who should have it. Anarchists believe that our present economic system is more likely to reward people for selfish and unscrupulous behavior than for being decent, caring human beings. Most people feel that way. The only difference is that most people don’t think there’s anything that can be done about it, or anyway — and this is what the faithful servants of the powerful are always most likely to insist — anything that won’t end up making things even worse.

But what if that weren’t true?

And is there really any reason to believe this? When you can actually test them, most of the usual predictions about what would happen without states or capitalism turn out to be entirely untrue. For thousands of years people lived without governments. In many parts of the world people live outside of the control of governments today. They do not all kill each other. Mostly they just get on about their lives the same as anyone else would. Of course, in a complex, urban, technological society all this would be more complicated: but technology can also make all these problems a lot easier to solve. In fact, we have not even begun to think about what our lives could be like if technology were really marshaled to fit human needs. How many hours would we really need to work in order to maintain a functional society — that is, if we got rid of all the useless or destructive occupations like telemarketers, lawyers, prison guards, financial analysts, public relations experts, bureaucrats and politicians, and turn our best scientific minds away from working on space weaponry or stock market systems to mechanizing away dangerous or annoying tasks like coal mining or cleaning the bathroom, and distribute the remaining work among everyone equally? Five hours a day? Four? Three? Two? Nobody knows because no one is even asking this kind of question. Anarchists think these are the very questions we should be asking.

Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?

It doesn’t matter who started it.” “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” “Clean up your own mess.” “Do unto others …” “Don’t be mean to people just because they’re different.” Perhaps we should decide whether we’re lying to our children when we tell them about right and wrong, or whether we’re willing to take our own injunctions seriously. Because if you take these moral principles to their logical conclusions, you arrive at anarchism.

Take the principle that two wrongs don’t make a right. If you really took it seriously, that alone would knock away almost the entire basis for war and the criminal justice system. The same goes for sharing: we’re always telling children that they have to learn to share, to be considerate of each other’s needs, to help each other; then we go off into the real world where we assume that everyone is naturally selfish and competitive. But an anarchist would point out: in fact, what we say to our children is right. Pretty much every great worthwhile achievement in human history, every discovery or accomplishment that’s improved our lives, has been based on cooperation and mutual aid; even now, most of us spend more of our money on our friends and families than on ourselves; while likely as not there will always be competitive people in the world, there’s no reason why society has to be based on encouraging such behavior, let alone making people compete over the basic necessities of life. That only serves the interests of people in power, who want us to live in fear of one another. That’s why anarchists call for a society based not only on free association but mutual aid. The fact is that most children grow up believing in anarchist morality, and then gradually have to realize that the adult world doesn’t really work that way. That’s why so many become rebellious, or alienated, even suicidal as adolescents, and finally, resigned and bitter as adults; their only solace, often, being the ability to raise children of their own and pretend to them that the world is fair. But what if we really could start to build a world which really was at least founded on principles of justice? Wouldn’t that be the greatest gift to one’s children one could possibly give?

Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?

If you answered “yes”, then, well, it looks like you aren’t an anarchist after all. But if you answered “no’, then chances are you already subscribe to 90% of anarchist principles, and, likely as not, are living your life largely in accord with them. Every time you treat another human with consideration and respect, you are being an anarchist. Every time you work out your differences with others by coming to reasonable compromise, listening to what everyone has to say rather than letting one person decide for everyone else, you are being an anarchist. Every time you have the opportunity to force someone to do something, but decide to appeal to their sense of reason or justice instead, you are being an anarchist. The same goes for every time you share something with a friend, or decide who is going to do the dishes, or do anything at all with an eye to fairness.

Now, you might object that all this is well and good as a way for small groups of people to get on with each other, but managing a city, or a country, is an entirely different matter. And of course there is something to this. Even if you decentralize society and puts as much power as possible in the hands of small communities, there will still be plenty of things that need to be coordinated, from running railroads to deciding on directions for medical research. But just because something is complicated does not mean there is no way to do it democratically. It would just be complicated. In fact, anarchists have all sorts of different ideas and visions about how a complex society might manage itself. To explain them though would go far beyond the scope of a little introductory text like this. Suffice it to say, first of all, that a lot of people have spent a lot of time coming up with models for how a really democratic, healthy society might work; but second, and just as importantly, no anarchist claims to have a perfect blueprint. The last thing we want is to impose prefab models on society anyway. The truth is we probably can’t even imagine half the problems that will come up when we try to create a democratic society; still, we’re confident that, human ingenuity being what it is, such problems can always be solved, so long as it is in the spirit of our basic principles-which are, in the final analysis, simply the principles of fundamental human decency.

The Holy Grails: Wellbeing and Environmental Sustainability.

This piece was written by Caroline Lucus (leader of the Green Party, UK) in ‘do good lives have to cost the Earth?’ It describes how well being and the envrionment need to be the primary goals of policy makers. Also, how both are undermined by GDP and the pursuit of endless growth. Its a smashing article, have a read!

As politicians jump on the bandwagon and support Richard Layard’s Happiness: Lessons from a new science, a positive indication that politicians are beginning to understand that happiness does not depend on endless economic growth and material wealth, but rather on contented families, strong communities, meaningful work and personal freedom. They are beginning to understand that treating GDP as a useful proxy for wellbeing can be extraordinarily misleading; and they are therefore groping towards conclusions that good lives, defined as happy and fulfilling ones, don’t have to cost the Earth. And whilst Government ministers might accept the proposition that it is relative, rather than absolute wealth which matters most in addressing wellbeing, they have still presided over a period in which policies have widened, not reduced, inequalities.

But nowhere is the gap between the warm words on wellbeing, and the reality of business as usual, more apparent – or more serious – than in the debate of how to tackle the greatest threat we face, climate change.

Here is the most extraordinary opportunity to bring the politics of wellbeing to bear on today’s greatest political challenge, and yet, mainstream politicians are spectacularly failing to do so. Action to address climate change is currently impaled on the hook of economic growth: in other words, politicians dare not advocate the policies so desperately needed to avert the worst of climate change, because to do so might negatively affect the holy grail of chasing ever-rising levels of economic growth.

Nevermind that Nicholas Stern (author of a government funded review on the impacts of climate change) has demonstrated unequivocally that the impact of economic growth of inaction would is hugely more serious. And nevermind either that this is the best possible occasion to demonstrate that the politics of sustainability and the politics of wellbeing go hand in hand: that if policies to address climate change do require a different economic paradigm, one that isn’t based on ever increasing resource-based growth, then that’s to be welcomed, since such a paradigm might just have a better chance of improving our well-being as well. Put simply, the policies we need to lead good lives are precisely the policies we need to tackle climate change. The failure to grasp this opportunity risks devastating consequences. Let me explain what I mean. Sir David King, the Government’s chief scientific advisor, accepts that in order to keep the rise global temperatures to below 2^oC, we would need to keep greenhouse gas content ratios in the atmosphere at a maximum of 450 parts per  million (ppm). However, he has refused to call for a target of less than 550ppm on the grounds that this would be ‘politically unrealistic’ by which he means that it would involve such a dramatic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that levels of GDP might be affected.

Sir Nicholas Stern echoes him. According to Stern, stabilisation at 450ppm would require global emmissions to peak in the next 10 years, and then fall by 5% per year, reaching 70% below current levels by 2050. “Stabilisation at 450ppm is almost out of reach” Stern says, “given that we are likely to reach this level within the next 10 years and that there are real difficulties in making the sharp reductions required with current and foreseeable technologies. Costs rise significantly as significantly if mitigation efforts become more ambitious or sudden.

Since aiming for 450ppm would as much as 3% of global GDP annually to achieve, Stern implies we should aim for between 500 and 550ppm, a more politically achievable objective, since it would only cost 1% of GDP. And yet, with all probability, this upper target will take the climate beyond tipping point, with temperatures rising above the 2% increase – the point Stern makes clear carries ‘significant risk’ of major environmental collapse, albeit less risk of economic meltdown. We are effectively playing a game of Russian roulette, and betting against a scenario which according to the science, could have a 63-99% probability of tipping us into the worst of climate chaos. If we loose, we risk the lives of million of people and face a future of ever more devastating famines and floods. No wonder Stern himself calls this ‘the greatest and widest ranging market failure ever seen’. Indeed, it is the centre of our economic paradigm.

The merge of sustainalbility and wellbeing: Enlightened consideration of what contributes to happiness and wellbeing points not only to the direct need to protect the environment, but more deeply to the need to move away from the endless consumerism and materialism: the very changes that lie at the heart of a more sustainable society. Put the other way round, a society based on green policies, rather than on the endless economic growth, would in fact be one which resulted in much greater levels of happiness and wellbeing because of both the direct and indirect effects of greater environmental protection and stewardship, and the multiple positive direct and indirect social, cultural and spiritual consequences.

This is the real challenge for green politicians and campaigners: to emphasise that the changes we need to make to deal with climate change are positive ones, and that the outcomes are desirable in themselves. A low-carbon world is likely to be one in which we experience greater levels of happiness and wellbeing. In richer countries, once our basic needs are met, it seems that greater money does not make us happier. Beyond a certain point, people’s satisfaction with their income depends on its comparibility with a norm which is governed by two universal forces in human nature: social comparison and habituation. Since both of these tendencies are very strong, as Richard Layard puts it, ‘it is quite difficult for economic growth to improve our happiness. For, as incomes rise, the norm by which income is judged, rises in step.’ Clive Hamilton in his book ‘Growth Fetish’ eloquently charts this process in more detail:

“It is vital to the reproduction of the system that individuals are constantly made to feel dissatisfied with what they have. The irony of this should not be missed: while economic growth is said to be the process by which people’s wants are satisfied so that they become happier - and economics is defined as the study how scarce resources are best used to maximise welfare – in reality, economic growth can be sustained only as long as people remain discontented. Economic growth does not create happiness: unhappiness sustains economic growth. Thus, discontent must be continually fomented if modern consumer capitalism is to survive.”

Worse yet, research shows that as we have become richer, indicators of real mental wellbeing have been deteriorating. The environmentalist Alan Durning found that, compared to the 1950s, the average US family owns twice as many cars, uses 21 times as much plastic and travels 25 times further by air. GDP capita has tripled since the 1950s, and yet satisfaction levels have fallen. More Americans say their marriages are unhappy, their jobs are unfulfilling, and they don’t like the place where they live. In the UK, per capita grew 66% between 1973 and 2001, but has failed to translate into higher satisfaction levels. Suicide rates have risen, as have the levels of violence, alcoholism, drug addiction, and substance abuse.

As more and more people come to recognise that good lives don’t have to cost the Earth, there is cause for hope. The last 50 years has shown us all the things that don’t work for human happiness and wellbeing (principally what Oliver James calls ‘selfish capitalism’: ever more growth, privatisation, deregulation, and material accumulation.) The last few decades have shown us, with increasing starkness, what doesn’t work for the planet (principally burning fossil fuels). The urgent task before us now, is to put these facts together. 

My 1st Gypsy Festival

Blimey! I have just been to a religious festival whereby the Narikuravars form Devarayaneri and surrounding communities came together to praise their God - Kalhi. The focus of the event is the sacrfice to Kali which this year meant that four goats and three bulls were to be killed/murdered/offered/sacrificed, depending on how you want to view this. For me, I struggled to get to grips with the occasion and found it difficult to throw away my cultural goggles to try and understand this tradition free from my own views, perceptions and understandings. I found that I couldn't do this and that the beatings which the bulls received were unjust, cowardly and made me want to hit people! I actually became ashamed that I was just observing and not trying to stop it but gained confidence from one man who was persuading a group of young men not to hit one bull, he was comforting the bull by stoking its head. The young men went off to
beat and pull the tale of another bull in a game of trying to knock the bull over, at which point they jump on top of it triumphantly. I failed to persuade them to stop their game and my gesture and stern expression with the word ‘NO!’ simply brought quizzical looks before they continued. I also tried getting in the way but this was no better and a friend told me the bull was fast before leading me back to an observing distance. I watched as the holy men then asked the bulls for permission to sacrifice them the next day. To do this, rope was tied around the horns before being set alight. This had the effect of causing the bull to shake its head which in Tamil Nadu is the gesture for ‘yes’, contrary to British gestural norms which would mean ‘no’. This subtle difference has caused me confusion in everyday conversations and when asking for directions!

By the end of the evening I felt that the sacrifice couldn’t come soon enough. It was really odd because being an outsider, people treated me so well and made feel very welcome. Everyone wanted to greet me, find out about me and to teach me about their traditions, religion and to share in the practices, including hitting the bulls. Since arriving at NEWS, I have always found this with the Narikuravars who have always been so welcoming to myself, Sharon and Melody. The lack of respect for the animals I found contrary to my upbringing and social identity and therefore difficult to accept even as the traditional practice of a completely different culture.

The sacrifice of the bulls and goats came the morning after. This at least seemed to have more purpose - families feast on the meat as well as the animals being an offering to God. Also, perhaps the main purpose of the sacrifice, is to allow everyone to see which section of the Nariukuravar community you belong to. As a Narikuravar family you either eat the beef or the goat. In choosing a partner, males and females will choose someone from the other half of the community so as to avoid marrying a family member. Everyone will therefore pay attention to who is eating what. The vibe was excitement in the morning and community members and families worked together during the final preparations, killings and meal prep. It is a time when all families forget their differences and unite as a community.

The most surreal part of the event was watching the holy families undertake practices which go back for centuries. One of their duties, as well as helping everyone to receive a blessing, is to channel their God through their bodies to enable him to accept the offering. Whilst the animal is killed, they seemed to dance in a possessed, trance-like and energetic manner before drinking the blood which drains from the animal’s neck.  

I was warned by our development worker colleague Tintu that the event would be unpleasant at parts and would risk me loosing respect for the Narikuravars. In some ways she’s right, I find it difficult to respect anyone who treats animals in such a manner. However, I also gained respect in other areas such as being impressed by the hospitability. I must also thank Seetha, Mahinderin and their family who for the whole time looked after me, introduced me to their friends and family and made me feel safe and secure throughout the whole weekend. I also feel privileged to have been so openly accepted at such an important community occasion and happy to have witnessed something completely different. I think that’s part of the fun of traveling and that I need to keep an open mind to new experiences, particularly as you’re never going to completely understand someone else’s motives which are fuelled by cultural, religious, societal and personal attributes.  

Gypsies, Poverty, and Social Exclusion

Recently I have moved into lodgings at Devarayaneri, a village inhabited by a gypsy tribe, the Narikuravars. The Narikuravars are semi-nomadic, meaning that they often leave the village to travel around India and neighbouring countries for their livelihood - selling Malya - religious beaded jewellery, hand crafted by community artisans, which is just about every adult.


Deverayaneri consists of about 1,750 people, which is large for a Narikuravar community. Poverty is widespread, the illiteracy rate is high and most families live in government housing built during the 1970s. Overcrowding is a problem in the community as there is not enough housing for everyone and families of 8 to 12 people often share these decrepit two-room houses, sleeping on the floor or outside under a mosquito net.


One key hindrance to community development is social exclusion. Although the traditional Hindu caste system was outlawed in India, the Narikuravar still experience discrimination from others, often more powerful groups who reflect, reinforce and enforce social attitudes and values which have continued to exist in spite of legislative changes. As institutions which govern society are run by people with prejudices, the effects are often negative for tribes people who are denied the same rights and opportunities as others and who also suffer pschologically, with reduced self-confidence and aspiration. This in turn reduces peoples' ability to challenge the system and slows the rate of development. It also means that poverty will not be solved simply by throwing money at it, but will need a paradigm shift of perception at a societal level which will not happen overnight.


One organisation which has been set up by Narikuravars from Devarayaneri is the NGO I have been lucky enough to be placed with for my spell in India. The Narikuravar Education and Welfare Society, or NEWS, is tackling social exculsion by inspiring tribes people to challenge the status-quo, raise their aspirations and access services which will improve the welfare of the community, by targeting health, education and livelihoods. Also, by encouraging Narikuravars to participate in decision-making, empowering people to take an active role in decisions which affect their lives, NEWS is striving for long-term benefits such as an increase in literacy and enhanced commitment to schooling. They realise the importance of involving excluded people so that they can successfully challenge the social structures which cause their exclusion. Then, obstacles currently in the way of accessing opportunities or equal rights can be dismantled, and communities can develop on a level playing field.



     

The Globalisation of Protest

Joseph E. Stiglitz is University Professor at Columbia University, a Nobel laureate in economics, and the author of Freefall: Free Markets and the Sinking of the Global Economy.

He is also the inspiration behind the Occupy Wall Street Movement's slogan 'We are the 99%'. Read his article about inequality in the US at http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

NEW YORK – The protest movement that began in Tunisia in January, subsequently spreading to Egypt, and then to Spain, has now become global, with the protests engulfing Wall Street and cities across America. Globalization and modern technology now enables social movements to transcend borders as rapidly as ideas can. And social protest has found fertile ground everywhere: a sense that the “system” has failed, and the conviction that even in a democracy, the electoral process will not set things right – at least not without strong pressure from the street.
In May, I went to the site of the Tunisian protests; in July, I talked to Spain’s indignados; from there, I went to meet the young Egyptian revolutionaries in Cairo’s Tahrir Square; and, a few weeks ago, I talked with Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York. There is a common theme, expressed by the OWS movement in a simple phrase: “We are the 99%.”
That slogan echoes the title of an article that I recently published, entitled “Of the 1%, for the 1%, and by the 1%,” describing the enormous increase in inequality in the United States: 1% of the population controls more than 40% of the wealth and receives more than 20% of the income. And those in this rarefied stratum often are rewarded so richly not because they have contributed more to society – bonuses and bailouts neatly gutted that justification for inequality – but because they are, to put it bluntly, successful (and sometimes corrupt) rent-seekers.
This is not to deny that some of the 1% have contributed a great deal. Indeed, the social benefits of many real innovations (as opposed to the novel financial “products” that ended up unleashing havoc on the world economy) typically far exceed what their innovators receive.
But, around the world, political influence and anti-competitive practices (often sustained through politics) have been central to the increase in economic inequality. And tax systems in which a billionaire like Warren Buffett pays less tax (as a percentage of his income) than his secretary, or in which speculators, who helped to bring down the global economy, are taxed at lower rates than those who work for their income, have reinforced the trend.
Research in recent years has shown how important and ingrained notions of fairness are. Spain’s protesters, and those in other countries, are right to be indignant: here is a system in which the bankers got bailed out, while those whom they preyed upon have been left to fend for themselves. Worse, the bankers are now back at their desks, earning bonuses that amount to more than most workers hope to earn in a lifetime, while young people who studied hard and played by the rules see no prospects for fulfilling employment.
The rise in inequality is the product of a vicious spiral: the rich rent-seekers use their wealth to shape legislation in order to protect and increase their wealth – and their influence. The US Supreme Court, in its notorious Citizens United decision, has given corporations free rein to use their money to influence the direction of politics. But, while the wealthy can use their money to amplify their views, back on the street, police wouldn’t allow me to address the OWS protesters through a megaphone.
The contrast between overregulated democracy and unregulated bankers did not go unnoticed. But the protesters are ingenious: they echoed what I said through the crowd, so that all could hear. And, to avoid interrupting the “dialogue” by clapping, they used forceful hand signals to express their agreement.
They are right that something is wrong about our “system.” Around the world, we have underutilized resources – people who want to work, machines that lie idle, buildings that are empty – and huge unmet needs: fighting poverty, promoting development, and retrofitting the economy for global warming, to name just a few. In America, after more than seven million home foreclosures in recent years, we have empty homes and homeless people.
The protesters have been criticized for not having an agenda. But this misses the point of protest movements. They are an expression of frustration with the electoral process. They are an alarm.
The anti-globalization protests in Seattle in 1999, at what was supposed to be the inauguration of a new round of trade talks, called attention to the failures of globalization and the international institutions and agreements that govern it. When the press looked into the protesters’ allegations, they found that there was more than a grain of truth in them. The trade negotiations that followed were different – at least in principle, they were supposed to be a development round, to make up for some of the deficiencies highlighted by protesters – and the International Monetary Fund subsequently undertook significant reforms.
So, too, in the US, the civil-rights protesters of the 1960’s called attention to pervasive institutionalized racism in American society. That legacy has not yet been overcome, but the election of President Barack Obama shows how far those protests moved America.
On one level, today’s protesters are asking for little: a chance to use their skills, the right to decent work at decent pay, a fairer economy and society. Their hope is evolutionary, not revolutionary. But, on another level, they are asking for a great deal: a democracy where people, not dollars, matter, and a market economy that delivers on what it is supposed to do.
The two are related: as we have seen, unfettered markets lead to economic and political crises. Markets work the way they should only when they operate within a framework of appropriate government regulations; and that framework can be erected only in a democracy that reflects the general interest – not the interests of the 1%. The best government that money can buy is no longer good enough.

Diwali!

Diwali is crazy. Like India. It's a celebration of craziness. To get close to describing it, its a lot like a cross-breeding experiment between christmas and bonfire night which went wrong and produced an adorable, lovable, if ever-so-slightly-rabid mut. Diwali, in our neck of the woods, is celebrated on one day - last Wednesday 27^th October to be precise. The build-up sees everbody busily running around cleaning the place up, making repairs so that everything seems extra-lovely for the main day. Diwali, popularly known as the festival of lights, is the biggest Hindu celebration in the calender. Hindus celebrate the love between Rama (incarnation of the Hindu God, Vishnu) and Sita, in a story involving a childless King, mother-in-laws, demons, exile in a dark forest, seduction, rescue and a monkey army. The build-up to the day also sees friends, neighbours and colleagues exchanging gifts - we learnt a lot about home-made Indian sweets - very sugary, very fattening, very yummy! And people packed into the shops and tailors to buy the most eye-catching saaris or pristine shirts.  

The first of seven gopurams.

Close up of Gods on the first gopuram.

The viewpoint was a hidden treasure - on the roof of one of the temples.

On reading the guide book, which talks about people setting 'flickering candles afloat down rivers' and 'homes illuminated by twinkling fairy-lights' I anticipated a relaxing, tranquil sort of atmosphere. The reality in Tamilnadu is a war zone! Our own contributions having spent an hour debating which fireworks to get at the shop and settling for the 'hydrogn bombs' is that we nearly set our neighbour's tree on fire when it exploded in the wrong direction! The neighbours out-did our measly display with their own which would put London new years to shame. I think they started at 5.30am as revenge for the tree incident - I'm not convinced its tradition to start that early! The rest of the day continued much as it started really. Fireworks take the central role from an outsider's perspective with bangers and firecrackers being set of in every direction and from any location - including in the middle of roads and pavements. We were on our way to a meal with our Deverayaneri hosts at NEWS with the Narikuravar community. Being a poor community, a feast wa being laid on as paid for by local businessman who are doing a charitable deed (and have done for each of the last 16 years) which makes a lot of people happy, whilst earning themselves some dharma browny points (dharma, in Hinduism, is the moral code and behaviour which affects the quality of your re-birth in the next life. By fulfilling your  dharma, you increase your chances of being born into a higher caste and better circumstances, and of achieving moshka: liberation and escape from the cycle of reincarnation). Anyway, having woken early and being in a mood, I gorged on a bowel of comfort-food-coco-pops which left me ill-equipped to deal with the feast. We presented our gift, box of fireworks of course, to the children who live in the community at the hostel, and watched and learned how to maximise the fun at the expense of health-and-safety. The kids really don’t have very much so it was great to be able to contribute to their happiness for the day. Notice in the photos too that they are wearing their very best for Diwali and that everyone in the community looked dapper or beautiful!

The bangers have short fuses!

The hustle on/off the bus - personal space is a luxury, a seat is a stroke of good fortune!

From Dev’ we caught a bus (packed, even by India’s standards, with young people on the way to the cinema) back past our home and into Trichy to visit a temple. We’d already been to Rock Fort Temple which overlooks Trichy on a 600ft hill and had been very impressed. But the temple complex of Sri Ranganathaswamy (Sri Rnga for short) was on a completely different level. I thought the gopuram (big stacked tower with carved Hindu gods) was the temple – it was awesome, in size and colour. We wandered under it, ignoring the people who sat begging beneath it, and I realised this was not the temple but the first of seven gopurams that lead you into the temple complex which feels more like a city – sort of like the Vatican in the sense of great architecture of a religious kind. We took our shoes off before entering and haggle with a guide before deciding against it. He had massive grin when we returned to him with a look that suggested he’d pin-pointed the moment we’d decided we did need him after all. He was knowledgeable, charismatic, rude, cheeky, funny and bossy. He could tell if you were switching off and would chuck an accusatory question at you about what he’d just been talking about to make sure you were listening! This meant that you had to be alert at all times but took in a lot more. He would also take your camera to take photos of his favourite bits – mainly the naked stone women carved into the exterior walls!

In the olden days (I think the temple complex was built over 700 years from round 1100) sexual adventure was more acceptable in society. Today if you metion the kama sutra, people would get embarrased - I haven't mentioned it though, i'd get embarrased!

These holy men are Braman - the upper class of the Hindu caste system.

This is the temple elephant. We got blessed by him. To do, we handed him a rupee which he gave to his colleague and touched the top of our head with his trunk, as we were bent over!

The setting sun made it all the more splendid!

These are 4 of the 10 incarnations of Vishnu - to whom the temple complex was built for.

By the end of the tour it was nightfall and we stood watching the fireworks which were going off all around. The combination of explosive sounds, dazzling sights, and smells from the smoke, food stalls and sewers was an assault on the senses - it was mesmerising, and it felt great to have made the most of one of India's most important days.

The art of doing nothing.

The following points are extracts from the book ‘Do Good Lives have to cost the Earth?’ in the chapter written by Tom Hodgkinson, ‘The Art of doing Nothing’ - an alternative, non-capitalist way to live.

We agreed that the individualist-Protestant-expansionist-capitalist experiment had gone wrong, having caused gloom, despondency, and servitude for individuals, and potential environmental disaster for the planet. “Clearly we will have to live differently, cutting down on plastics, travelling, oil consumption.” “But you can’t have a programme based on giving things up” she said (she being Barbara Ehrenreich, author of ‘Dancing in the streets’ – in which she argues that the removal of festivity, ritual, and regular partying from Western culture over the last two to three hundred years is to blame for our current malaise, bipolar disorders, anxieties and melancholy). That would be too ascetic and self-denying. “We have to show the world that there is a new world of pleasure and fun there for the taking.” Pleasure and fun, these are the keys. We have to carve out an ethical approach that demonstrates good lives, far from costing the Earth, will actually save the Earth. We need to show that the good life means grabbing hold of a new life, one far richer and more enjoyable than the money and status dream that motivates us today.

…We found that thrift, far from being a self-denying virtue, was a positive and joyful one. Thrift is creative. It is creative because it is anti-waste… it is anti-capitalist. Capitalism loves waste. Waste is at its essence. Waste is money. It means more spending… But a good life means plenty of abundance as opposed to a sickening glut, which is the capitalist way. In medieval times, feasts followed periods of frugal eating which served to increase the pleasure of the feast. For Lent this year I gave up alcohol, partly so as to get more pleasure at the end of Lent when I could drink again. Puritans hated lent and the idea of fasting: it was a pleasure-based idea, not a self-denying one.  But anyway, it is important to recognize that the opposite to consumer capitalism is not some sort of boring Cromwelian, Lenninist world (Cromwell banned colour in clothes, dancing and music).

…So how do we smash the system? We do nothing. Or at least a lot less. Doing is the problem… it is man’s scurrying around, his self-important interference, his urge to do things, which has got us into this mess in the first place. If we had the good sense to just sit around and contemplate the heavens rather than plundering and subjecting the world and it’s people, then we wouldn’t have caused the crises we’re in now. .. Instead of marching, picketing, writing letters and all the rest of the ineffective  panapoly of consumer action, just go and lie on a hill. Get out of the way. Don’t go on holiday. Don’t drive a car. Don’t bother.

Capitalism was originally hostile to the green movement but has now embraced it whole heartedly. This is because capitalists have realised that there are massive new profits in store. And why? Because of new technology. New technology means money. It means more growth and that’s what they love: growth. They love growth because the whole system depends on greed: I buy shares in a company because I want those shares to increase in value faster than inflation. Therefore, it is not the bottom line that interests business, it is the rate of growth. But they can only grow by feeding, and feeding very greedily: feeding on human labour, or by mining the Earth of its resources. No one is interested in companies that stay the same size. 0% growth means death to business.

So be weary of the green movement. To me it looks like the other side of the coin: a lot of work, a lot of money spending. The good life avoids both. We need also be on our guard against the Puritan-socialist strain in the green movement, which looks to me a lot like Methodism in the way it imposes austerity on other people, and comes across very much as anti-pleasure. And too much worrying! Worrying itself is a capitalist concept, like the future. Worrying leads to the purchase of more stuff as we try to shore up our anxieties with objects.

We need to abandon fear and the first fear we need to abandon is the fear of not having enough money. Of course we need to be sensible about money – we need it for rent and food. But do we need money for fun? …When you reduce your outgoings, you reduce your dependence on wages. When you reduce your dependence on wages, you do not need to work so hard. Therefore thrift leads directly to idleness and self-sufficiency. Idleness creates time which you can spend with loved ones rather than working.

The alternative to capitalism is not the self-denial of a monk. It is not a serious-minded, Puritan austerity. It is rather the embracing of a new world of pleasure and fun and freedom. When you stop working and stop spending, you start living.