Radical Practices and Basic Macroeconomics.

Oh, the internet, it is a web! I touched it and now i'm tangled again. Fuck. I've got a tour to book!

But Kurt Hartwig cued me into some cool shit, which has me thinking more about this stuff.

My initial response to this cool shit, and Kurt's assertion that what i'm doing has been done before, would be that merchantilism, that transition period between feudalism and capitalism took a LONG time. Our transition might take just as long, and be just as start-stop and bizarre.

But, more specifically, i'd say the 90s (when his RAT example went down) were a boom time for capitalism, if the RAT happened now, during a bust, the infestation would be much easier. I've seen work from Theatre in My Basement, performed at Salvage Vangaurd, perused the Rat Sass blog, so i know at least some these groups still exist today. Lets make something happen now when the time is right.

But, I wonder... it seems (and i might be wrong here) there's an unfortunate correlation that frustrates my central claim here. Seems like radical Theatre is strongest when the economy is also strongest. Which means radical theatre is most present when it is least likely to succeed. This makes sense; theatre (even poor theatre) is something like a luxury for audiences, and something like an expensive hobby for the artists. In hard times we're too busy trying to eat to make or see a whole lot of radical theatre. Hurns.

But, this adversity is a challenge! An opportunity. It only means we need the discipline to aggressively pursue our "hobbies" even though we increasingly can't afford them. It'll be a tough slog, but i'm ready for it!

BUT... there's also the flipside of the correlation, the other causal relationship that kind of makes sense. Radical artists working extra hard to succeed in bad economic conditions will, like any hard working entrepreneurs, eventually contribute to ending the bust and reinvigorating the economy. Then the mainstream theatres with funding will siphon off talent and audiences (just like corporations with investment capital siphon talent and customers off the entrepreneurs). The architects of the reconstruction will be crippled and marginalized by their own success. Hurns. Major fucking hurns.

Well, then fuck it. Looks like compromising, communicating with, working with, or in anyway helping the establishment theatres is inherently against our interest. I withdraw my advice, the BTC can fuck off and die, the sooner and the more completely, the better.

Sheesh! That makes me a tactless asshole, doesn't it. A bitter, curmudgeonly, negative vibe merchant. But, really, i'm not. I've met some very nice well-intentioned people who work at the BTC, people who started with Theatre X's help, and then accidentally dug X's grave. Lots of people i know or could hope might come see my shows probably also know someone who knows someone who works there. Really, only surly punks like someone who says anyone else "can fuck off and die" like i just did, and surly punks mostly spend their money on cheap beer, not theatre. Looks like I'm better off keeping my mouth shut, feining ignorance, saying "oh, Skylight, oh, BTC renters, i feel your pain" and then privately celebrating their demise, and capitalizing on their absence.

But... that feels really dishonest. It feels like pretending i don't know my own interests. That i don't know something in order to better use my knowledge to my advantage later. I'm uncomfortable with that, cuz i might be an asshole, but i'm not a creep or a liar. (I'm fucking terrible at it). Maybe i shouldn't be. Maybe i should take a certain friend's advice and get better at lying. I mean, this is basically what the Skylight did to Theatre X to get that building in the first place, isn't it? They have it coming.

Except maybe their ignorance wasn't feined. Maybe they really didn't realize they were fucking X over. Maybe they had good intentions and just didn't realize what the long term effects of their actions would be. Maybe they don't understand how economic necessity undermines even the best of intentions.

So, then, seems like the proper tactic is to be completely open, lay everything out on the table. Make it so no one can pretend not to know. Maybe i oughta write an open statement to every established non-profit theatre in the country during this trying time, here's a rough draft:

"Hey mainstream theatre establishment! I'm about to commit the next ten years of my life to rebuilding theatre in america. I'm gonna live out of my car producing theatre for free in basements, bars, classrooms and alleyways for audiences that you can't even begin to tap now but who'll probably be ready to subscribe after they settle down and squirt out some babies. I'm gonna burn myself out doing it, (i'm already 30, so i've got a late fucking start) and when i'm done, i'll have contributed some small portion to a rebirth of theatre as an art form (and a growing economy.)

I know full well that once that rebirth happens there'll be a moment when you have the leverage to buy me out. If I've been successful, you'll be ready to buy out everyone I've surrounded myself with, you'll buy out my actors, my audiences, my techs (shit, you're already are buying them out now). If I've been really successful, you'll kiss my ass and talk about how much you love and respect me, and you'll frame the buy-out in terms that make it sound like an opportunity. But, i know that if i take that opportunity it's a devil's deal, it'll break my organization, and it'll leave me begging for scrap roles in your shitty shows. I'll turn you down, and everyone will think i'm a stubborn irrelevant shithead.

Except that now i've written this. I've taught you and everyone else how the economics works, how your well-intentioned offers of opportunities, community, networking, are actually a bad fucking deal. I know it, and I've told you, so you can't pretend not to know it. I've also told my friends, my actors and my audiences. When these people look at your intentions and ask themselves if you're being deceitful, or ignorant, they'll know that if you're ignorant, you've chosen to be ignorant. Willful ignorance is feigned ignorance, it's deceit."

Hmmm... seems viable. The success of the revolution depends on everyone better understanding economics. What's the best way to teach? Demonstration. By looking at Theatre X's history from a distance, in terms of how the economics played out between the institutions, the organizational structures, not how the specific individuals acted under these economic pressures, i'm able to learn things that might apply to me, that help me avoid the situations under which the bad decisions that broke that company up look reasonable. Same applies for every failed revolution of every kind. If we're always learning, learning, learning then nothing anyone has done was for naught.

Discussion at Bedlam

Last Saturday i gave a presentation at Bedlam Theatre in Minneapolis about my thoughts on art-as-revolution and theatre's role in that. Preparation for this presentation invovled first writing it out in long form, (cuz i'm a playwright, starting with writing a long monologue, somehow makes sense) then I condensing it to an outline and talked from that (so i wouldn't just be reading at people). At anyrate, this means i've got a rough essay-like document of what i said, which i will now post here for the reading pleasure of probably nobody but my own future self.

Bedlam Discussion

Our intention as a theatre company, or at least my intention as a theatre artist is to participate in and advance a revolutionary change of the global political economy, a change I've already observed in progress. Today I'm going to do four things.

1. Outline the change
2. Discuss theatre's role in that change
3. Explore how this intention impact the work we do.
4. Take questions. I plan on keeping the part where I'm talking at you relatively brief and general, then go more in depth about things based on what you seem interested in.

Objective 1: outlining the revolutionary change in the global political economy.

I need to start with Marx, since that's who I'm lifting most of my terminology from. Marx has been read many many many different ways, and I don't want to get bogged down in Marxist polemics, so I'm going to keep this as simple and concise as possible. There are two things about Marx, one is what he did right, and the other is what he got wrong.

First, Marx created a radically different and in many ways superior description of capitalism. He starts with the most basic abstract description of the relationship at the core of the capitalist system. From there he describes what happens in the aggregate, when that core relationship comes to dominate and define an entire economic system. This is where all kinds of wonderful concepts come from: exploitation, labor theory of value, commodity fetishism, worker alienation, the inevitable collapse of capitalism. Really beautiful stuff. Some of these concepts have proven more accurate or useful than others. I'd like to get into them all more thoroughly later.

The important thing is that Marx's predictions that in capitalism, the rich will grow richer and the poor more numerous, that these classes will be in conflict, and that this conflict can be seen at the root of all political conflict has been validated by history. His prediction that these trends will cause the entire system to collapse might be coming true now, with amendments to account for the unexpected craftiness of corporations, the power of advertising, and the alchemy of monetary and economic policy-making.

His prediction that this conflict and immanent collapse will result in the spontaneous mobilization of a class-conscious proletariat is where I think Marx went wrong. Some Marxists will defend his position on this. They'll say that historical examples like the USSR are a terrible misapplication of his theory, and they're right, but still, I think any approach that uses the dictatorship of the proletariat, or this kind of top-down-government-first revolution is doomed to follow a similar path.

The revolution has to start on an economic level. We need to develop a new more efficient mode of production, based on a different core economic relationship. Once we've done that, then we can let new classes, new political institutions and revolutionary actions grow naturally out of the conflict between this system and the dominant capitalist mode.

Marx considered this approach, but rejected it because he believed the ruling class wouldn't allow such a system to develop. He was unable to imagine a historical situation where something radically different can co-exist in competition with capitalism. There is a historical precedent for this though: the capitalist revolution.

Class antagonism in feudalism was between serfs and lords. The capitalist mode of production was developed by the merchant class, the bourgeoisie, who had a better way of doing things. They competed economically with and eventually politically defeated the lords, ushering in a new system. If we graph Marx's approach onto this historical situation, it the equivalent of serfs spontaneously rising up, taking the crown off the king and then designing a new society from that position. It's absurd. The proletariat can no more replace the bourgeoisie today than serfs could replace lords then, the revolution needs to come from a third class.

So, then the question is, how do we do it? How do we repeat the method of the capitalist revolution in order to replace capitalism itself? The answer is: we already are. If we look at art as a mode of production, a new "core economic relationship" then we can look at the "rise of the creative class" as the beginnings of a revolution. Punk Rockers, D I Y crafters, and independent musicians and filmmakers are building networks and institutions that function under a radically different sort of economy. As artists develop and improve these alternative approaches, we become a more powerful challenge to the capitalist world.

Capitalism responds, as Marx predicted, with all kinds of laws, barriers to entry, power grabs, bribes and attempts to co-opt the revolution even as it occurs. The creative class lives up to it's name, over the years we've worked our way around them all. Modern business practices, flex-time, profit sharing, informal work environments, and fake "independent" subsidiaries are all examples of businesses benefiting by adapting to and trying to imitate this radically different economy. Early capitalists were imitated, bribed and co-opted by the monarchy as well.

I predict that eventually, the growth of radical alternatives and the slow mutations of the establishment will result in an undeniably altered political economy. This is starting in the arts and entertainment sector, but it has the potential to transfer to other economic sectors.

Poll the audience: move on, or discuss?

Objective 2: Theatre's role in this

That last part, about innovations in the arts and entertainment sector transferring to other sectors of the economy is key. There is historical precedent for that as well. Capitalism beat feudalism because it was better at making wealth through the production and distribution of durable goods. Feudalism was all about agriculture. Capitalism rode the rise of commodities to the top, and then took over agriculture with great success and in the long term, disgusting catastrophic results like factory farms.

Revolutionary artists can do the same thing. The arts and entertainment sector of the economy has been growing faster than any other sector except for the military since the war started. Artists are better at making art than corporations, we can dominate this sector, ride it to the top, and then transfer our efficiencies to other sectors. This transfer has already started. Craft fairs are multiplying like little crocheted rabbits. Organic and community farming is growing rapidly, with results that are quite the opposite of disgustingly catastrophic.

So, lets look closer at the arts and entertainment sector of the economy, this thing we're gonna ride to the top. Different economic systems create different environments in which arts and culture themselves are manifested. Different mediums function differently under these changed circumstances. Painting and sculpture did well in the feudalism because the art economy there is based on patronage, art products are symbols of status. It's essential that they be one-of-a-kind, owned by some powerful figure and on public display, preferably larger than life. This kind of patronage continues to exist today, and it continues to fund visual arts. Under the patronage system performing arts were reshaped to fit the funding model. Theatre developed the proscenium stage, musicians assembled into symphonies. Everything was based on showing how big and glorious the art that the patron financed was.

Capitalism changed that. It created the age of mechanical reproduction, which as discussed by Walter Benjamin, greatly altered the way art is created and distributed. Within the capitalist world the art forms that best fit mass production do best. Photography, film, recorded music burst unto the scene and largely replaced everything that came before. They were easily commodified and mass produced. The biggest profits came from moving many small cheap identical replications, rather than a few unique expensive objects. This created a desert for theatre and live music, who hobbled along on the crutches of merch sales or the holdovers of patronage.

We're now entering a new system of reproduction. The age of virtual or digital reproduction is going to change the landscape just as drastically as the age of mechanical reproduction did. Now mass identical units can be created and distributed by anyone at almost no cost. This has three effects: 1. the evaporation of profit from mechanical reproduction, the RIAA will inevitably lose their war against piracy. 2. the democratization of these art forms, anyone can make the stuff, you don't need a record contract anymore. 3. a sea of mediocrity. If you've spent anytime on YouTube or myspace, you know what I'm talking about. A few diamonds in the rough, but also lots and lots of unremarkable shit.

If the profits of mechanical reproduction evaporate, then we're going to see far fewer successful big budget movies, or high profile bands. This is already happening, the logical conclusion is replacement of movies and TV with YouTube and myspace. Which means these mediums are going to drown in the sea of mediocrity, just like they starved theatre and live music during the age of mechanical reproduction.

So, if reproducible mediums become awash of mediocrity, what'll happen next? Consumer demands shift. People want something valuable, something remarkable. They can't find that in film or recorded music anymore. If they do, they don't have to pay for it, which means they can spend their money elsewhere. They'll want to spend it on an experience. And, that's what theatre can provide.

But, not theatre as it exists today. Theatre as it exists today is defined by the system of patronage that helped it hobble along for the last 100 years. It's mostly still stuck on proscenium stages, and full of snobbery, polish, and ornamental status symbols. It's a weak form, a dying art. Which means it's vulnerable. Which means the revolutionary core of the artist class can gain control of it. If theatre is now near the bottom of the ladder of art mediums, but has an opportunity to rise to the top of that ladder, and is vulnerable to an insurgency, then that insurgency can ride the rise of theatre to the top of the arts and entertainment sector of the economy, and then ride the arts and entertainment sector to the top of the economy in general. From there, we can take the efficiencies we've found and apply them to other forms of production.

Poll the audience: move on, or discuss?

Objective 3: how these intentions impact our performance technique.

So far I've been working under the assumption that "new" is better. That a post-capitalist mode of production will be an improvement. I don't want to give the impression that this is an unexamined assumption. I think the new mode of production will be like organic farming v factory farming. It will solve many of the problems created by capitalism. Most importantly, the new mode of production seems much less hardwired for gross and arbitrary inequality than the capitalist mode.

I can go more in-depth with this, but first I'd like to get through the part about how we produce and perform theatre. There are three parts of this, the organizational part, the context part, and the technique part.

The organization part is most important to me. It is essential that Insurgent Theatre be run by artists for artists. The large bureaucracies that mediate and dominate the theatre world are counter productive. The "artistic temperament" that says 'I am a creative soul! My genius cannot be encumbered by monetary of business concerns!' is equally counter productive. These set up a division of labor, a conflict of interests because the artist group and the admin group. This conflict naturally exists in any artistic endeavor, but dealing with it by making two groups of people exacerbates the problem, and privileges the admin group- who has the power of the purse, over the artist group. Mike Daisy's monologue "how theatre failed America" explores the negative effects that this division has had on theatre. I instead approach the creation and organization of Insurgent Theatre as an exciting creative challenge on par with any of our productions.

How it's organized: All profits from any production are shared equally by the people involved in the production. These profits are small. The people involved need to be motivated by the work as it's own reward. The shows are mounted with little or no budget. All advertising, design, promotion, and admin work are done either by the artists involved, or by volunteers.

We hold open auditions for most of our productions. Artists involved in one production are encouraged to take part in discussions of future productions. Decisions are made and tasks distributed by consensus and volunteering. In this way we've built a constantly evolving ensemble. People come and go, only 2 of us have been involved in every production.

Many aspects of this organization aren't radical at all. They're typical of many small theatre companies, they are the product of necessity as much as by choice. What I hope to do is to identify the virtues of this organization, the ways in which it is more efficient than other production methods, and focus on developing them in order to successfully compete with the increasingly corporate approach that big theatres take. One exciting aspect is the organization of labor. Our evolving ensemble is based on labor that is at once liquid, and empowered.

On context: this is also very important. Our versatility and low overhead allows us to produce theatre in non-traditional contexts, to connect with non-theatre audiences, often the exact demographic that traditional theatre's talk about needing to get in their seats. We were inspired to get even more ambitious with this and start touring when we met The Missoula Oblongata. Now we've performed Paint the Town in bars, basements, art centers, black boxes, a public park, an alley, and a dining room. We've performed with a wide variety of different musical acts: folk, noise, punk, metal, hiphop, experimental, pop, shoegaze, etc. Often the audiences don't know that they're coming to see a play, especially not a full length, text heavy, esoteric reference ridden one like this, and they are usually pleasantly surprised.

Organization and context are more important to me than content. What we do doesn't matter as much as how we do it. But, the more we develop the organization and push the context, the more the content reflects these processes. At least in the projects I write or spearhead.

What I'm trying to do is continue the experiments that Bertolt Brecht pursued. Creating a critically engaged audience that makes decisions and isn't merely inspired to act, but is forced to take a side in an argument and let that argument shape their life. Many of the techniques we employ come from Brecht, Grotowski, Peter Brook, and others, with our own interpretations, and punk-rock conventions. Most of us are self-taught, researching these things on our own, and those of us who have formal training, it was mostly in a much more traditional direction.

Perform for intimate audiences.
Perform on the same level as the audience seating.
Lights and tech operated by the actors themselves.
Direct address to audience.
Actively involving the audience.
Reciting stage directions while performing them.
Brechtian "distanced" acting methods
Actors prepare in the open, and mingle with the audience before performing.
Setting up the scene on stage after the show has begun
Disregard for dramatic suspense.
Presenting audience with naked exposition
Presenting images as symbolic puzzles for the audience to solve.
Most importantly: stories that serve as little more than a vehicle for an ideological argument which remains unresolved on the stage.

A not so quick word about the economy.

From a Marxist perspective the only thing unexpected about these events is the fact that they didn't happen 100 years ago.


Marx's prediction is that capitalist business cycles will grow increasingly severe until they reach a point of such violence that the system itself collapses. This prediction didn't come true for two reasons. 1. government used some unexpectedly ingeneous controls to buffer capitalism's excesses and restrain those cycles. 2. new products (like the automobile) create a wholly new economy, which kind of re-sets the self-destruct clock. These are the most convincing "capitalism can survive" arguements i've heard. I can't remember the sources though.

So, a decade or so ago it could be argued that capitalism can maintain itself through a combination of more aggressive socialism when things get ugly and creating innovative technologies to re-set the cycles.


But, recent events counter this argument. First, with the tech bubble we discovered that capitalist business cycles can become so violent that new technologies, rather than re-setting the self-destruct system can actually accelerate it. The PC and the internet promised much more as far as building a whole new economy than the automobile did. But the economy was already too unstable when these things were invented, and instead of creating long term growth in new industries and new markets, the internet and the PC created a severe short term spike, a bubble. Then investors, hungry for something to invest in, became addicted to bubbles and artificially created a housing bubble, which burst even more quickly and violently. New technology didn't save us.


We're left with creative governance, then. Problem with that is, it seems economic cycles fit within political cycles and these political cycles grow more severe over time as well. When the ups and downs of the market become severe enough to create a major crash or depression, the government can swing more aggressively socialist to get things back under control. Once things are more stable the government loosens the reins and we get more growth, more pro-business government, and less of the ugly things associated with socialism (waste, corruption, entitlement programs). This continues and periods of socialism and laissez faire ideologies occilate regularly. Theodore Lowi has chronicled trends to support this idea in his books "The End of Liberalism" and "The End of the Republican Era". Since the 60s the american government has been on a steady deregulation track and it's no wonder economic instability has accompanied it.


So it's time for this political cycle to swing back the other way, right? Unfortunately that doesn't seem likely. With the democrats continuing to pander to "the center" rather than leading from the left and the republicans debating over expanding the free market or just bailing out corporate cronies, I don't see any chance that any politician will have the guts to use the word "socialism" positively.


I suspect that capitalism's political cycle is as unstable as the business cycle. Our political systems are so controlled by businesses (the media, the lobbiests, the parties) that a swing back to socialism just isn't in the cards.

This concerns me, not because i beleive in socialism. I don't. Socialism is not a complete system, it's merely capitalism with comprmises and redistribution of the wealth. It concerns me because while i want to see capitalism replaced, i do not want to see it go down in a fiery wreck where i'm liable to get burned.


I need capitalism to stick around long enough for a viable replacement to get up on it's feet. A more aggressively socialist policy has the best chance of getting us there. Trouble is, such a policy is anathema to American politics. This is an ideological question and the ideological structures in American politics are totally fucked. The reason laissez faire capitalism appeals to so many on an ideological level is because it is a set of principles that in the imagination of it's proponents will create a utopian society. Regardless of how far off the actual results are from this prescription, free marketeers are at least giving us a prescription. Socialism offers nothing at all in this area. It's not a system, it's a compromise. It might be based on simple moral ideals, but that only makes it seem impractical and naive.

I don't think the economy can be fixed, i only think it can be buffered, and i think the buffering of it requires not only a drastically different set of government policies, it requires an ideological shift in the american population. We need to stop beleiving in the broken system that free marketers and libertarians keep selling us, and unfortunately, we have to replace that ideology with an uninspiring compromise. In other words, america needs to grow up and stop beleiving in itself.


I hate the way that sounds as much as i'm sure everyone else does. But the fact is we're facing a choice between a self-destructing system (capitalism), a compromised slower version of that system (socialism) or a new replacement system that hasn't yet emerged organically and would have to be forced prematurely with disasterous results (communism).

Chat with Chad

Last night i discussed all this theoretical stuff with Chad Van Schoelandt. Chad is a philosophy grad student at UWM. He's studied many of these things far more thoroughly than i have, from a philosophical angle. The discussion was very useful. We surely didn't agree on things, but Chad's opinions and responses, mostly skeptical, helped to redirect my thoughts. These are my impressions / conclusions, cuz i like to have all this stuff in one place at one time. Chad is largely responsible for many of the ideas contained here, but i may be misrepresenting or mistating them, and i am definitely taking them out of context, so don't expect it to make a lot of sense.


Process: tell a story, non-capitalist system discovers benefits and efficiencies and applies them. Mindset adaptations, not moralizing. The intentions of the producers do not matter, the results matter. The results, per Marx's predictions are that if artists are developing a new mode of production, it will either become capitalism, or will exist alongside but subordinate to capitalism.


Becoming capitalism: artists compete for resources, those that attract and earn the best talent, most fans, highest donations, most downloads, etc etc will succeed economically, regardless of their intentions, and those that do not attract or earn such things will fail. The failing artists will then have no choice but to work for the succeeding ones, or work with them under an arrangement of unequal returns. Any idealistic band that resists this stands to lose in the long term. The market does this automatically. You could avoid it by forcing fans to like and fund everything equally.


My response is that a truely radical mode of production can resist this tendency. That new social norms will allow a less competitive arrangemet. This required much discussion on the definition of capitalism. Chad maintained that capitalism is defined by private property ownership, and a free market. I tried to define capitalism based on a particular labor relationship. Chad cautioned against using Marx's term "exploitation" to describe this relationship, because that word carries technical baggage and is more specific than i want to be. I agrued that Chad's definition of private property was over broad, and didn't leave room for non-private property arrangements. Various examples were used, which got rather absurd and humorous. There's a boomerang collective in washington state somewhere that just makes boomerangs and gives them away, cuz they love making boomerangs and don't need to get paid to make them. But, while they're working on the boomerangs, the half-finished boomerang is "owned" by them under private property rights, so they're still capitalist. capitalism then becomes monolithic and there is no allowance for "not capitalism".


We got into a discussion of social norms. Capitalism maintains itself because private property rights are socially accepted. Capitalism requires "civil society" in which a vast majority of people do not shoplift, or swindle, or bribe, or otherwise con the system. Post-soviet russia and poland are examples of people adapting to this mindset. Shoplifting is possible. The police cannot enforce or prevent shoplifting on a grand scale. The reason most people do not just take what they need out of a store isn't because they're scared of the security guard, it's because that is not done. When you look further at this mindset it's a socially ingrained acceptance of the idea that if everyone stole from the store, then there'd be no store anymore. Therefore i ought not steal from the store. This kind of thinking is automatic and ingrained in social norms.


I propose that a different mindset can be automatic and ingrained in social norms. The post-capitalist mindset can involve the recognition of the system on a broader scale. I shouldn't shop at walmart because when everyone engages in the capitalist mode of production, unpleasant things happen, ie: externalities, inequality, crime, pollution, big government, etc etc etc. or even, I should donate money to this artist even though i could get it without paying, or download the songs for free because i want him to be able to live off creating art, because i want more art created. The post-capitalist mindset includes a solution to the free-rider problem. Not only do we not steal, we pay for things that we could get for free. Or even give away things for free with the knowledge that, if everyone gives things away for free, then i can get whatever i need.


This line of argument is uncomfortable for me, because it's impractical. I don't seek to alter the mindset of everyone, it's more important to discuss how we can get there. Chad also insists on this. Now, it seems to me that mindset shifts of this sort grow out of habits and develop in a mutually reinforcing process with new economic practices. Chad doesn't see these practices developing systemically. he admits that it is within human nature to adopt this sort of mind set 5% of israelis do it in kibbutz. But, kibbutz is not an independent self-replicating system, first of all, and secondly, if it was, that doesn't make it a replacement for capitalism.


This gets into the "alongside capitalism and subordinate" problem. If artists acheive and maintain an alternative mode of production, along with this new mindset, then all we've done is what churches and kibbutzes have always done without at any point challenging or threatening the capitalist mode of production. Replace "religion" with "art". Obviously, this is not what i want. At all.


For art to do more than religion, to actually challenge capitalism, we need to have an amoral reason that we are more efficient or otherwise superior to capitalism. I need to define efficiency quickly here, cuz people often get caught up on this. Efficiency is creating greater value with less resources (materials, equipment, labor, time). In the capitalist approach to efficiency, lesser value is created, but with much less resources, especially less of the most expensive resources: time and labor. Also, capitalism ignores many costs, steals the materials, and creates externalities. So, in today's society "efficiency" is associated with factory production of low quality objects. This does not have to be the case. The post-capitalist mode could be more efficient than the capitalist mode by creating much greater value, at the same or slightly more resources, or a shift of resources: more labor, less materials. As materials become more scarce, such a shift seems likely.


This goes back to the rise of capitalism. When the feudal property relation (divine right of kings) became a fetter on capitalist production, and the capitalism proved more efficient, the capitalists replaced the feudal system in revolutionary wars and created a new legal system based on their property relation (private property). Chad argued that a post-capitalist class won't become revolutionary until they encounter private property as a fetter on their more efficient mode of production.


I disagree. it is possible that the private property relation becomes, rather than a fetter or roadblock to post-capitalist production, simply a competitive disadvantage. It is possible that a transition will not require severe violent over-through, but a slow take over in open competition, given our more open and adaptable political and social systems. It's also possible that our political and social systems will become more rigid on this subject, that new much more prohibitive laws protecting the capitalist property relation will be written, as capitalists recognize that they are being threatened. The RIAA and intellectual property rights law seems to indicate tightening of this sort. Also, in history (i need to check this out) i kind of doubt that the divine right of kings was enforced as a law until merchants became wealthy enough to try and own land. Similarly, an alternative property relation could become outlawed once it is potentially practiced by artists.


Actually, this is kind of happening to some degree. Many artists squat in abandoned buildings, or rent out unwanted buildings for low cost and turn them into studios or performing spaces. The government then comes in and kicks them out or forces them to get an occupancy permit. Street art is another example. Squatting in an abandoned warehouse and transforming it into a vital space, creating events or experiences of value, is sort of like the other side of the free rider problem. Capitalism creates empty spaces on the train and doesn't allow people to put them to use. This is ineffcient. Punks exploit this inefficiency, put the spaces to use, hop the trains and otherwise become free riders. But at the same time, punks create communities that voluntarily support themselves, communities that don't fall victim to the free rider problem, or that manage to sustain themselves inspite of the social acceptance (even celebration) of free ridership. I suppose chad would just say that these punks are free riding on goods that capitalists create. But i think it merits further investigation. The fact that these punks are exploiting the free rider problem whenever they can (dumpstering food, hopping trains, sneaking in to concerts) and still creating small economies, means that there is a significant portion of the population who is actively confronting the free rider problem from both sides. If a solution comes, it seems likely to come from this group. My guts say part of the answer is in connection between consumer and producer.


This connection between consumer and producer is an important part of my theory. This rising consumer demand is, i think, anti-capitalist. The fact that more consumers want a connection, an understanding of where their purchases came from, especially favoring buying directly from the producer, as in hand-made craft fairs, or merch sales at concerts, indicates a distrust with the capitalist producers, and a rejection of commodity fetishism. Chad warns against using the phrase commodity fetishism because it holds a precise meaning for Marx. But i think, in this case it holds. people no longer think of objects as independent of people, as doing things on their own. Consumers today are increasingly curious about who is behind the objects and what that person's intentions and ethics are.

This demand itself gives post-capitalist producers, especially artists, a significant competitive advantage. I beleive there is objective evidence to suggest that:

1. artists are begining to develop a truely non-capitalist mode of production
2. the artists' mode of production taps the above-mentioned, and other competitive advantages
3. these competitive advantages are strong enough that they grant artists leverage to threaten and eventually replace the capitalist mode of production, either through peaceful transition or through violent response to restrictive laws.

Chad does not agree that there is any such evidence, but if there was, then he acknowledges that this is a process through which a revolutionary change could occur.

a quick list of other potential competitive advantages:
- non alienated labor, cooperation can be more efficient than competition.
- less hardwired tendencies for inequality
- fewer externalities (pollution, crime, stress related health problems, etc)
- greater attractiveness for most talented individuals.
-

Insurgent Summer

I don't want to go in depth about the experiences of this summer. We mounted two local long-run shows simultaneously, took part of one to the Minnesota Fringe Festival, and toured out east for two weeks with the other. Forget the details, here's the conclusions: 1. We learned a lot. 2. I hate being back in Milwaukee. 3. I find myself most motivated by revisiting and refining my theory, rather than continuing to try and apply it.

See, this theory galvanizes me. I drives me to action, very specific and direct of actions. But, it has the same effect on very few other people. This means that either: I'm crazy, my theory has not been stated clearly, or nobody gives a shit about the kind of things that i find absolutely compelling. Of those three possibilities I can only do something about the second, so i'm about to start spending more time improving the theory and stating it more clearly.

To this end, i will be posting no more reviews here for a while. Since getting back to milwaukee, going to shows and galleries has pissed me off more than anything. Not because the art isn't great, but because the audience is so obviously there for reasons other than genuinely appreciating, engaging with, or supporting the art. I'll still go see art, i love it, but i'm done trying to talk about what i see. Instead, i'll be retreating breifly into academic research and using this blog to share the developments of my theory.

You can expect future posts to deal in depth with the following subjects:

First, there's "Paint the Town" itself. This play is a theatrical statement of my theory. The creation of the play, critiques of it, experience touring with it and discussions with audience members afterward have impacted my thoughts on these subjects in many interesting ways.

Second, there's "Towards a Practical Revolution" this is a consise, general and incomplete (though more complete than any other single document) statement of my theory of political revolution through artistic production. I sold copies of this for cheap on tour, spreading the ideas to the east coast. I'm also distributing them to certain people and places locally to try and elicit feedback, communication and development. I'll be putting it up on the insurgent website soon, but it's a bit long for reading off a screen, so if you'd like a hard copy, email: insurgent.ben@gmail.com or call 414 305 9832 and I'll sell you one for $2 (to cover printing costs).

Third, I'm reading Richard Florida's "Flight of the Creative Class" and will be re-reading "The Rise of the Creative Class" taking better notes and thoroughly incorporating his findings into my theory.

Fourth, i'm continuing to have ideas and looking for additional supporting evidence to my many claims and ideas.

In the next six months i hope to get together a much longer, more thorough statement of the theory, with more supporting evidence, works cited, academic analysis of Florida, Marx, Adorno, Daisey and many others whose ideas have contributed to the theory.

I don't know what, if any, art i'll produce during this time. I hope to tour more with Paint the Town.

Conversation with Jennifer Rupp

I recently let Jennifer Rupp read the working draft of Paint the Town, my new play which we'll be taking on tour out East this summer. Her reaction spurred a long email exchange that helped me articulate my ideas better. I've cleaned this conversation up a bit and present it here now.

JENNIFER RUPP: I think you will do very well with this piece. It will appeal to your audience because of the danger it suggests, the railing against everything, the frustration of wanting change but not knowing why or how or what for, the notion of tearing it all down and starting from nothing.
And some day, I do think you will use your super powers to make a positive change - perhaps to heal racism, end war, feed children - something real and achievable. But in the meantime, this stuff will sell tickets.

REX WINSOME: I'm glad you think it's good, that it'll be successful. I can see where you're coming from with your critique. I like to think that using my "super powers" to advance a radical position (something that isn't just tearing everything down, but that's still radical, the thing that is only suggested in this play, but will be overtly stated in literature distributed along with it) is the most realistic way to truly achieve any of the solutions you mention. But, that's a matter of political differences.

JR: If you can send me any of the other literature that might help me understand what it is you are trying to do, I'd really appreciate it. I had thought your radical stance was one that had to do with changing the face of theater, increasing it's vocabulary, revolutionizing what we accept as entertainment. I hadn't really thought that you were more political and were using conventional theater to communicate radical ideas. Or at least that's what it seems like.

RW: I've got weird ideas about the relationship between art and politics. It's largely informed by Marxist economic theory. I'm working on a thorough and concise statement, which I hope to distribute on the tour. The initial summary of that is here. (http://rwinsome.blogspot.com/2008/02/abstracts.html)

To me, the process of creating art in this alternative way is a political action because it challenges the dominant economic system, the content of the plays is secondary. I write about what I find interesting because I think it's more entertaining. I'm pre-occupied with political action, so that ends up being in all my plays. My experiences have proven to me that conventional politics are useless and that non-violent demonstrations are just self-absorbed back-patting more than actual attempts to change things. This leaves violent action- but it seems (I can't REALLY say, having no actual experience with it) that violent action falls for many of the same problems as pacifism. That's what Bring the War Home was about. It's critical of all forms of political action, but it doesn't state any alternative other than the implied alternative of theatre, implied only by the fact that what we are doing is theatre.

Ulysses' Crewmen is a big two act play I've been writing for years (before forming the theatre company even) and hope to produce by summer of '09, does the same thing as BTWH only more thoroughly, and touching on a variety of other issues.

Paint the Town is the first time I'm trying to talk about the alternative. The characters are fully immersed in violent political action, in tearing everything down, but at the end Nadia discovers and embraces art as a positive constructive alternative. That's what it's supposed to say, anyhow.

JR: Rex, I can't remember if I sent you the link to Charlie Rose's interview with Tom Stoppard, but the gist of one comment Stoppard made that affected me so deeply what that, in societies where freedom of speech is non-existent and where people are constantly in jeopardy if they speak against the system, poets and artists are valued. They are a precious commodity because, embedded in their work is the voice of freedom and change. They are precious because they are heroic. They risk their lives every day. Unfortunately, in societies where everyone is free to say whatever they like, whenever they like and can rail against the system as much as they like, artists and poets are devalued. They are a dime a dozen, so to speak. No one listens to them. They no longer seem heroic.
This comment really bothered me and maybe because I fear it's probably true.
At any rate, addressing political action on stage is good and I think the theater is a powerful medium for it. Your abstract is great. I have a little trouble following it only because I'm not familiar with all the references you make. Right now, it sounds more like you are preparing this for your masters or doctoral degree. Students have a need for prefacing an argument with, "This is all the stuff I've read, so I am very smart, so you should believe whatever I say." However, if you are preparing this to give to your audience, they don't give a rats ass about all the stuff you've read. What they want to know is, what are you selling. I can't tell yet what it is you are selling. You talk a whole lot about what doesn't work. You talk a whole lot about revolution and radicalism. But you never talk about the thing, the end result. To what end is all this revolution? What is the utopia? And who will drive the buses?

RW: The abstract, to some degree, is overly-academic. I want to bounce it off some academic types to make sure it holds water before writing it in more plain-speak. But, at the same time, the end product won't just be a description of what I'm selling, because Utopianism is part of what I'm trying to get people to think outside of. Selling dreams of Utopia is a flawed approach. Marx went to great lengths to refute Utopians, to advance a scientific socialism, and as a result had a HUGE impact on economics, philosophy, and (with Max Weber) the invention of sociology.

Marx wrote three huge volumes (thousand pages each) describing direct observations of the tendencies of capitalism and how it's inevitably flawed. Modern economists have been able to disprove many of his claims, and have forestalled capitalism's collapse, but no one has solidly refuted the essence of the argument, that the two central tendencies of capitalism are self-destructive. The tendency toward the accumulation of wealth in an ever smaller number of hands and the immiseration of an ever greater number of people is unsustainable. This claim is also supported by observed evidence. I'm sure you've heard the stats, the top 10% controlling 90% of the wealth (and that's conservative, cuz I don't know the numbers off hand, and don't want to overstate myself).

So, the gist of what Marx spoke of when he was observing and talking scientifically holds true today. He resisted talking about the revolution and the future society because he couldn't speak scientifically about it. Eventually, he submitted to calls similar to yours, and did talk about it, one chapter in Capital I, a section of the manifesto, and a few other documents. These are some of the most flawed parts of his work. This is the part where he says the proletariat will rise up, appropriate the means of production from their capitalist oppressors, form a dictatorship of the proletariat, and then end all class conflict for all time, causing the state to wither away. These claims are mostly illogical and without merit. He falls into the kind of Utopianism he railed against. These are also the passages that Lenin and Stalin ran with to justify the creation of the USSR, and Mao for the cultural revolution, and Pol Pot for Kmer Rouge.

The purpose of my whole project (the theory, the application of the theory, the play, indeed the whole company) is to say: Marx shouldn't have given in to utopianism, the results aren't pretty. But, it doesn't have to end with "capitalism is doomed" we've reached a point where we can start to observe, describe and participate in the revolution, and the revolution I'm observing is completely different from the revolution Marx described, or that Stalin applied. It's a lot more like the capitalist revolution, which is nice, cuz the capitalist revolution 1. succeeded, and 2. brought democracy, scientific advancements, and "freedom" with it.

My goal is for people to understand this process, that the process is happening, and that we can participate in it. As far as what exactly it will result in, I can't really say without making the same utopian mistake that Marx made.

I can say it looks like there's a growth in the value of non-material goods, ie experiences (which should make for more environmental sustainability, especially if those experiences aren't, y'know, pro-sports, or offroading in your SUV). I can say that the results don't seem to be as much hard-wired for the accumulation of wealth in an increasingly small section of the population (which should make for less poverty, racism, etc). I can say that my process is based on greater interaction between consumers and producers, that it reduces the role of owners, who are basically middle men who mediate consumer's wants and exploit producer's labor. This should tend toward more freedom, and a more decentralized social organization.

As far as audiences not giving a shit about what I've read and how smart I am, I think that's first, a false conceptualization of what's going on when someone references something and second, it's half of what I seek to change.

Your comment "This is all the stuff I've read, so I am very smart, so you should believe whatever I say." is, I think, an anti-intellectual bias on your part. It's a somewhat offensive stereotype not only of myself as an academic, but also of audiences. Academics (the good ones) aren't seeking to show how smart they are, they are trying to put what they're saying into a historical and cultural framework. Many of today's audiences might not "get" it because they lack that framework, but that does not have to always be true. If you look at the effort some audiences are willing to do to understand Shakespeare, or even more to the point, the pouring over statistics, rules, and methodology involved in being a sports fan, it's clear that people are capable of engaging with sophisticated entertainment, including these kind of ideas, and some audiences, myself for example, already do.

This is where the part about "revolutionizing what people accept as entertainment" comes in. If we can get audiences to engage with the questions about who is controlling their lives and how they interact with the world with as much rigor as they engage with Monday-morning quarter-backing, then we're well on our way to some kind of social change that I think it's safe to assume with be an improvement. If instead, we spoon-feed them utopian visions the best we can hope for is useless dreaming, because the historical result of people acting decisively on impractical hopes for a new society is worse than nothing.

JR: Rex, this is awesome. I am missing much of what you reference from my reading list and so it's difficult for me to make the leaps. My comment, (which I realize now sounded insulting and I'm sorry) was made more to remind you that many people haven't spent the same amount of time studying the same material you have and need be filled in (not just sited). Plus, many of us have spent a lifetime being taught to mistrust any form or Marxism or Communism and have seen first hand their sad demise. It's so hard to get through those barriers. It's like telling a Christian there is no God. It's embedded at such an early age. Younger people don't have that incredible bias - the learned fear. They will be easier to reach. They will be more open to consider alternatives. But it does need to start now. The seeds of social change are almost always planted in our art. You will do this. You can start a political theater movement and I think it will be wonderful.

Why do you suppose it's so hard or dangerous to talk about the end result? It kind of reminds me of how politicians running for office tell everyone that they have a plan for changing something and when people ask them to explain the plan they tell them that it's all up here (gesturing to their small brains) and that they will reveal the master plan once they are elected. But, of course, there never is a master plan and nothing changes when they get into office. Do you have an understanding of the mechanics of changing from a Capitalist to a Socialist government? Is it gradual? Do we start with socialized medicine and move on to other projects from there? Do we insist on breaking up monopolies and tax the hell out of the wealthy? I'm so resistant to more government in my life that it's really hard for me to visualize a new way of life without fearing that I would give up some of my freedom to some governing monster.

France is Socialist, right? How's that working out?

RW: I don't like utopias for two reasons. First, Utopians embrace the future perfection as an ephemeral hoped-for object. This kind of hope (impractical, ungrounded) doesn't direct real action and becomes a paralyzing force. Second, Utopians seem to hate the existing society and embrace some nostalgia for the past, and when the past is shown to be messy they move further to the past, and pretty soon people are advocating a return to primordial divine savage pre-agriculture society, because we can't prove that wasn't perfect and flawless. These people (I've known many of them, used to be one myself) get caught in very negative guilt traps, where the things they want (and maybe even need) on a day to day basis go against the utopian ideal, they're constantly compromising their principles, hating themselves for it, then acting in a symbolic way (anti-war protests for example) to reassure themselves that they are good people, but these actions are only symbolic, whereas their actual actions are ones that perpetuate the system they hate, which feed back into their self-hatred. It's a cycle, which can easily tapped by opportunistic politicians who can advance an agenda of radical destruction to break the cycle, which is actually just a cover for a corrupt and oppressive regime. This is the thing that Red [in the Paint the Town] would do, and that Mensche is struggling with, and I hope to make it a bit more clear in the new draft.

I prefer steady progress toward the future, embracing that which works well in capitalism (which I think is the best economic system to date) and building on that to improvements (which requires a radical rejection of the inefficiencies or excesses of capitalism, but only in favor of something more efficient). If we focus on the process economically and let the future society form organically out of that, we can have specific impetus and direction. If we look at how artists are challenging the basic labor and property relations going on in our society (which they are, some of them) and participate in those challenges, help win them, then an improved world (which we can't know the exact shape of) can come out of that.

It doesn't involve government and I wouldn't call it socialism. Government is a mechanism that perpetuates capitalism by reducing it's worst excesses. If capitalism is not sustainable, government intervention serves capitalism by slowing down it's self-destruction. Socialism (in France and elsewhere) just redistributes the wealth that capitalism creates. The basic economic relationships (exploitation, private property, market exchange) are unaltered.

The basic economic nuts and bolts of this are: 1. Capitalism is based on commodities, but today many people prefer to act on the basis of art experiences. 2. Capitalism's property relation is private ownership, in the realm of art this property relation is enforced through intellectual property laws. These laws are being challenged or ignored by many people who prefer to share with indirect compensation. 3. Capitalism's labor relation is based on wage-slavery, exploitation. I'm using these terms scientifically, not judgmentally. Exploitation is "the appropriation of surplus value" and I consider it a good thing. It's what makes capitalism better than the outright slavery that came before it. But the creative class is doing something better still: free-agency and cooperative collaboration. 4. Capitalist exchange value is based on supply and demand, the "free" market. I have to admit I haven't really got an answer to that one yet, but three out of four ain't bad.

It seems to me the people who employ these alternatives to the capitalist way are creating greater value with less tendency for negative side effects (environmental destruction, social inequality and instability), this makes me confident that these people are doing something that is better than capitalism, and will make for a better world than the capitalist world. Thus, I choose to participate in the alternatives, and promote them.

On Marx

So, I've been thinking a little bit about Marxism... it's been a few years since my serious studies of Marx, but i think i can still clarify a little bit of the distinction between myself and Marx, and thereby between myself and soviet style communists, Lenin, Mao, Castro, etc etc...

I agree with Marx on how history works and on how capitalism works, for the most part.

Where i think he went wrong primarily is in the outlines of a revolutionary change. He doesn't want to say a lot about this. Because, we can't know the nature of the revolution until it begins happening. He does give some information, which isn't completely consistent throughout his career, but the conclusion that many of his followers drew was wrong headed, and to some degree at some time, he agreed with them. His actions were directed toward that sort of revolution.

He believed that the proletariat was a revolutionary class, and that the proletariat revolution would be the last revolution. He thought capitalism was so effective in the way it organized massive numbers of people into factories that it would eventually result in those masses developing a class consciousness, rising up, and appropriating the factories and the entire economic and social system.

Many modern communists will argue that this theory is not necessarily flawed because it has not been tested. The Russian application of this process was totally fucked, capitalism wasn't fully developed in those countries, etc etc. but i argue that the theory itself is also flawed.

If you look at history, at Marx's understanding of how the capitalist revolution happened, it's a totally different process than what he thought would happen in a communist revolution.

A basic outline of feudalism-to-capitalism:

there were two major classes, nobility (lords) and peasantry (serfs). The lords ruled based on divine right of kings, inheritance and brute force. The serfs provided labor in exchange for protection from neighboring lords or from barbarians. the economy was primarily agriculture based. the primary economic arrangement was ownership, consensual slavery, serfdom. A third class developed, the bourgeoisie (merchants). They worked under a new system (capitalism). They embraced new technologies (factories, manufacturing plants). They focused on a different sort of product (commodities). They had a more efficient mode of production (exploitation). They created a new working class (the proletariat). Their system was superior to the existing system, more efficient. The nobility kept the bourgeoisie down through force and law, rules of land ownership. No matter how much money the capitalists had, they could not own land and had to work with the king's consent. Eventually capitalists became so wealthy, their system so superior that they were able to rise up overthrow and replace the existing system (with help from the serfs who they promised things like freedom and opportunity). The capitalists then set up their system, exploited the serfs and turned them into the proletariat.

The Communist revolution described by Marx follows a significantly different format than this. His revolution doesn't include a third, rising class, it doesn't include a period of both economic systems existing side by side with the obsolete one using state power to syphon off the wealth of the new more efficient mode. If history followed Marx's prescription for revolutionary change, it would involve the masses of serfs gaining class consciousness and rising up to steal the crown from the king. That idea is absurd and not really revolutionary, the base relationships of the system would either be unchanged or would be abolished without a replacement.

The history of failed communist revolutions are similar. Soviet Russia set up the capitalist system, except with the state in the place of the bourgeoisie. Mao in China began revolutions against his own government, called for a permanent revolution. The Khmer Rouge became homocidally desperate in their search for a replacement for the abolished system.

my outline of the capitalism-to-communism:

Two major classes, bourgeois (investors) and proletariat (labor). The investors rule based on private property rights, inheritance and brute force. The workers provide labor in exchange for wages. The economy is primarily commodity based. The primary economic arrangement is exploitation, wage slavery, appropriation of surplus value. A third class is developing, the creative class (artists). We work under a new system (art). We embrace new technologies (the Internet). We focus on a different sort of product (entertainment). We have a more efficient mode of production (cooperation). Our system is superior to the existing system, more efficient. The capitalists keep us down through force and law, rules of copyright and intellectual property. But we are becoming more independent, our system is so superior that will soon be able to rise up, overthrow and replace the existing system.

I'm not totally faulting Marx here. He was very responsible in not describing the revolution in detail, and he was right. There's no way he or his contemporaries could predict this sort of situation, but it is observably happening in our society today.

Just look at the music industry. The big five companies are all struggling, blaming all kinds of outside forces, trying to change the laws in their favor, and trying to make the new system fit into the boundaries of the old (iTunes, fake indie labels, alternative workplace designs). at the same time, independent labels are thriving and independent artists are able to organize their own tours and promote their product without any labels at all. Our music is better than their music. An empowered artist is a more efficient worker, making a better product at lower cost, than a bunch of career songwriters and marketing teams hiding behind the glow of their pop icons.

A General Outline

This is the simplest statement of how i see the revolution happening that i can muster at this point. It's light on evidence and assumes some basic knowledge of Marx. Hopefully, with other posts i will back up and reference these statements, but for now, it's an outline of assumtions. I'll surely need to edit this, but i am going to keep the post here as a beginning point for anyone interested in my theory.

1. The revolution is already beginning, i am not aiming to instigate it, only to describe it and participate in it.

2. The Proletariat is not a revolutionary class. The revolutionary class will be a third class radically different from both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie (as the bourgeoisie was radically different from both serfs and nobles) The new class is developing a radically new form of economic relationships.

3. These new economic relationships will prove to be more efficient and will evolve into an economic system to rival and replace capitalism.

4. Political action (violent or peaceful) will be a part of this revolution only when the capitalists use state power and force to maintain their obsolete system by attempting to outlaw or inhibit the growing power of it's replacement.

5. The new economy is based on creativity. The revolutionary class is the creative class. Art is the new form of economic relations.

6. This new economy will begin in the growing art/entertainment sector of our economy, but will spread to other sectors as it proves superior to the capitalist form (exploitation).

7. Live performance (theatre, live music) is the most revolutionary (and will shortly be the most popular and important) art form. If we can gain control of the live performance section of the entertainment industry, we can kick start the revolution.