on Action (part 4/4)

this one really brings it home, y'all. read through for a baseline discussion of how we need to bring high energy democracy to the forefront in order to respond to the ever changing landscape of modern society! yee haw!

an understanding of Action in relation to the Labor/Work/Action discussion is predicated on a suspension of the modern western practice of politics. Action is the working together of a society's members to respond to external and internal stimuli in a way that guides the community towards a more enjoyable and equitable tomorrow. “Action...is never possible in isolation” (Human Condition 189) and, interestingly enough, is equally composed of thinking as acting. it is high energy democracy.

Action has the opportunity to parallel and then extend the ideas set forth originally by Hannah Arendt, further being inspired by the writings of Roberto Unger: “to give practical effect to the central teaching of democracy, the doctrine of the greatness of ordinary men and women.” (False Necessity XIX) a new and more proactive governmental framework is possible with Action more equitably distributed.

Aristotle accidentally speaks on an early understanding of Action: “if all communities aim at some good, the...political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.” (CW 1986) however, where there must be a point at which to differ and forge a separate path from that laid by ancestral choices, is who gets to be involved in the conversation of what constitutes the highest degree of good for a community. Aristotle believed it to be free men - a category further whittled down in western societies over the centuries to be limited to white land owning men. as the inclusion was expanded through liberalism in the 19th and 20th centuries, there has also been an accompanying widening of the gap between the legality of voting and the ability to actually respond to problems through voting. even those taking the best efforts - Norway, Iceland and Sweden most pronouncedly - experience distance between the problems and their associated conversations.

the hierarchy of late stage Capitalism correctly values Action as the highest of roles in a society // those who have risen to the top of political parties, the Fortune 100 corporations, and a handful of other powerful individuals from public facing backgrounds (ie. entertainment, sports, investing) handle the decisions of what gets focused on and what the two options for an outcome might be, rejecting pluralism almost entirely and removing this role of Action from the people. the direction of society is chosen by those already in power, who are largely insulated from any sort of consequence for the actions they take for their own gain, at the expense of those further down the hierarchy.

american politicians are voted for every 2-6 years and therefore as long as they don’t rock the day-to-day boat are very likely to maintain these footholds of power; as the uninformed masses arrive biannually to their polling place of choice, they are allowed to check one of 2-3 boxes: the current officeholder that continues their role of extending ‘debates’ into near perpetuity oftentimes receives their vote. comparably, a need fulfilled by a service or product generally only has a few options to choose from as well - is it more ethical to purchase from amazon, walmart, or target? with all products on their shelves sourced similarly, equally siphoning wealth from communities and redistributing it to executive suites + their respective shareholders, they are structurally nearly synonymous; as long as profits continue rolling in, there will be no changes in those entrenched pockets of power. it has reached a point where the leaders of supposedly democratic sovereigns are maintaining power through “mastery over capital and productive labor, access to governmental power, and familiarity with the discourses by which (the peoples can) reimagine society and govern nature.” (FN 33)

Action arises as the rightful heir to politics: it makes possible the destruction of these “context preserving routines” in exchange for the beautiful “context transforming struggle.” (FN 32) with a societal embrace and the discipline required, democracy might finally be democratized.

Action allows liberation from the chains of hierarchy. Action allows growth to arise from stagnation. Action allows freedom.

Action is antithetical to classism, ableism, and even meritocracy. it is the inclusion of all community members engaging in bringing up the situations that they feel need improvement; how this differs from a townhall-type event is that instead of harping + complaining to an elected or bureaucratic official about things that need fixing, conversations can more readily be started by those experiencing the issues most vividly as they work on developing solutions.

whereas most futuristic, be they utopian or dystopian in their perceived nature, societies in the collective imagination are shinier, without chaos, organized in very neat and tidy hierarchies, a society that promotes Action will veer a sharp turn from this idealization of sterility and instead embrace a comfort with pluralities of thought, messiness in conversation, and being a cousin to anarchy in day-to-day problem solving. disagreement need not equal war, and agreement need not equal echo chamber-esque sameness.

there are several starting points, which can cede - as time goes on - to more structural changes. those structural changes can be discussed and debated once the groundwork has been set. for now, let's take a look at some quick pivots that might direct us in a more sane direction:

localized decision making

the individuals who will be living out a future should be the ones dictating it. when parameters are set by statists on a federal or state level, they might be acting in the best interest of their own money + power, first off, but even in the best case scenario they will be making choices that adjudicate upon hundreds of communities equally, despite each community having its own goals and needs.

cities and counties can be unified with their surrounding communities by a common set of groundworks, for example: murder is bad, no dumping pollutants, make new friends but keep the old because one is silver and the other's gold. that sort of vibe. however, beyond the absolute bare minimum, when we start moving towards guidelines that provide a framework for how day-to-day life + the bureaucratic process is outlined, is where decisions need to be made on a much more local basis than state or nation.

the united states had 3.9 million people living in it (not counting the indigenous populations, who of course were completely fucked over by the entire process. fuck colonialism fr) at the time of the constitution's adoption in 1788. of that, only 43,000 people voted for george washington as the country's first president. that's what this american experiment was based on. a handful of individuals deciding in massachussets or virginia what would happen to towns as disparate as atlanta, ga and amherst, nh. this continues to be the case, with those in mississipi individuals having an equal say on what happens in washington, as those living in new york have on utah. humanity spans canyons as far as each community's needs and desires: we must let each community decide for itself how to procede via communal autonomy.

so. we've brought up america's founding and the protocols set forth by the constitution, huh? well that brings us to the next major change that is long overdue.

a renovation on madisonian democracy and its false practicality of checks and balances

james madison + his fellow 'murica founders set forth a means by which a majority, hopefully, would not be able to be a mobocratic dictator over the minority. this was done by creating so many minority segments, through representatives + the senate + the executive + the supreme court + electoral politics + ethnicities + genders + farmers + industrialists, etc. with his hope being that no single faction would arise above the rest and minority groups would have to work together. a lovely idea in theory, but not what has happened in practice. even during his own life, he started to mistrust the masses (aka the poor) and was happy with the transition to a minority rule by the economic elite.

through the creation of a system that created barriers to factions forming a consensus, he placated and equipped those with sociopathic tendencies to take advantage of the situation and rise to power // no longer representatives of their neighbors, but of their own brand. this obfuscated version of democracy can cede to more equal and direct means of arriving at the best path forward.

we can't dismiss him and his peers, this was the best system to this point in history. it did bring more control to normal people than what previously was allowed. however, that doesn't mean that the living must be ruled by the dead, just because they were good for their era. we have inherited a new era, and it is up to us to create a better structure within which society might flourish.

high energy democracy

we live in a context where stalemate is success. how often have politicians been celebrated and held on a pedestal not because of the legislation that they author or the ideas for society's future that they hold, but because of their stopping the ideas of the other factions?

in direct opposition to teddy roosevelt, american politics say it is the critic who counts. it is amendments and filibusters that create the rising political star and no longer the creator of new ideas

well, in order to move forward, this can no longer be the case. and you wouldn't believe it, but i have some ideas!!!

firstly, this voting along 'party lines' has got to go. in the short term that means getting rid of positions like "majority leader" "minority whip" and even "speaker of the house" - equal representation across the country // the representative, due to her outstanding political and power grabbing acumen, from san francisco, should not hold 1000x power over those well-intentioned (i'm sure there are a few, right..?) representatives from less funded or connected regions.

part two of this first perspective is to remove the gatekeepers - generally those who have been in office the longest, and therefore are most connected with outside finances that might lead to decisions that aren't in the best interest of the people - deciding who can/cannot have their bill reach the floor for a vote, or what wording can be included. if society as a whole cannot be more egalitarian, at least the room within which our representatives debate should be.

secondly, since factions will invariably form when 51% is all that's required, leading to 1-2 swing votes holding substantial power, yet again, we must enable ways for more free voting separate from factional lines. one way of doing this would be requiring a 2/3 majority in either direction when a bill is brought to the floor. 67% needed to pass or defeat a proposed protocol. what might happen in the gray area - many of the representatives believing it would be good for society, many disagreeing - is that these bills are brought to the people affected, in a form of direct democracy. if we are electing the wisest + most well intentioned individuals from each of our communities, then it shouldn't be too difficult for them to work together to create guidelines that most can agree on, no matter their background.

taking a bit of power back to the people will have two foreseen positive outcomes: 1) keeping the citizenry more engaged in the facts, as opposed to just the drama of politics: what will they be voting on and what are the arguments in each direction? 2) moving from accountability to equity: instead of simply checking in on our representatives every other year, our stepping in when they are unable to do their jobs will increase the heat of democracy and hopefully empower them to author and enact legislation that might make their communities proud. when were you last proud of your congressperson...?

thirdly, obfuscatory language must be eliminated. get it da fuq outta here. for real. what this means is bills that are no longer thousands of pages long and have effects on dozens of highly diverse aspects of a citizenry's life. there is a time and place for dynamic overarching plans that cover the details and nuances of multiple aspects of society to ensure a smooth transition into a direction that the populace wants to go (think, for example, of a reworking of economies to mitigate the effects of globalism in favor of localized neighborly decision making - this would require a dynamic overhaul), but this is the exception that proves the rule. no more working 'pork' and pet projects into unrelated bills that have a purpose in order to win a representative's vote. if an amendment or rewording is not in the spirit of the proposed law, then it must be eradicated.

fourth is expedited voting procedures. no more filibustering, pocket vetoes, or bills getting caught in committee. 'politics' can and must be rephrased as Action. our representatives are elected and paid to help guide society in the direction of our mutual best interest, not for grandiose dramatic gestures. we can see where one's interests truly lie the more that Action is put into place - if votes aren't able to reach a consensus then they head to the people, and if the votes of our representatives aren't very representative, then we can feel comfortable allowing someone else to Act on our behalf. term limits should be a given at this point // there are many within a community that have perspectives + skillsets that would be appropriate in the role of representative democracy; the constitutionally protected entrenchment of power does not allow them the opportunity to shine and so that must also be removed from our lexicon.

bringing it home

roberto unger prophesied, “we cannot come closer to the...dream of a less oppressive form of social coordination by allowing an allegedly natural private order to emerge as social interference recedes. we can more fully realize that dream only by inventing more ingenious institutional instruments for our objectives.” the proper development of localized and direct Action, via high energy democracy, can become that more ingenious institutional instrument to ensure that the artifices created by humanity do so in a way that guides communities towards justice and progression, instead of increased hierarchies and ecological degradation.

the ideas brought forth in this essay are just scratching the surface of what an Action-focused society might look like through the lens of a high energy democracy. it starts with removals, as you might have noticed: these serve to get rid of the protocols + protectors of a stagnated state. once the entrenched powers and preference for stalemates are no longer in the picture, the positives of Action can proliferate: quick response times, equal opportunities for voices/opinions to be heard, nuance in our discussions and voting choices, the list goes on + on.

the way it begins is by warming up our ability to discuss ideas outside of the soundbites provided by the factions in power. we must be able to talk with our neighbors irrespective of their or our background, catch ourselves before being triggered by conditioned talking points to rebut with our own internalized talking points or shut down, and instead focus on the root of what they're wanting to change coupled with their thoughts on what might be done to fix the problem. individuals both in support of the availability of firearms and those seeking to put in effect more strict gun laws are trying to deal with the root cause of having a more safe society.

what's the root cause and what's a proposed solution? look inward, look outward. let us leave fear to our ancestors and discuss the future with passion + civility, then put our ideas into Action.