Conviviality Part 2 Ft. Andrew

Andrew and Mia discuss how to bring anarchism into conviviality's often statist theorization and look at a few of the Convivialist Manifestos

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:05):
Welcome to part two of conviviality. What is it? What
are people thinking about it? Always this funky Latin would
changing and evolving and sitting into an entire movement, and
how is it affecting other movements. Last time we spoke
about the idea of conviviality, you know, which is essentially

(00:29):
good vibes, fun, happy, chill, cool interactions between people you know,
living well together and and joint life in the company
of others, making sure people are included and welcomed so
they can relax and have a great experience. We spoke

(00:49):
about the illest multi hyphen it that is ivan Ilich.
We spoke all the philosophical foundations of being built around
for reality and what those implications have been on metaphysics
and philosophical anthropology and epistemology and more. And so now
we're going to get into the actual movement. So the

(01:12):
first Manifesto was published by the Center for Global Cooperation
Research in twenty fourteen. It discusses some of our current threats,
including global warming and its consequences, ecosystem degradation, nuclear disaster risk,
resource karse ty, poverty, wealth disparities, political disintegration instate conflicts,
terrorism and security, criminal networks, influences, e specultive financial politics,

(01:36):
blah blah blah blah blah. You know, you know the drill.
If you're in this space, everything sucks. It could happen here.
That's the name of the show, et cetera. The central
challenges that we could drive ourselves to extinction right now,
and if we don't turn this car around, and we
could take most of the world with us. This particular manifesto,

(01:58):
which is asking four basic questions and their considerations and
what we should consider about them. Right For one, for
moral question, what may individuals legitimately aspire to and where
must they draw the line? And the Manifesto answers with

(02:19):
considering that every individual has a legitimate aspiration to be
treated with equal dignity, to have access to the necessary
material conditions for their vision of a good life, or
considering other's perspectives, and participate meaningfully in political life and
decision making. However, individuals must also avoid exceed in bounds
and succumb into this infantile desire for power and control,

(02:44):
which jeopardizes social cohesion and the principle of common humanity.
What that means is that we need to actively be
combatant corruption, refusing to engage in actions that compromise please
vive personal gain, opposing the corruption others to the extent
of wuntabilities encourage fighting hierarchy. I mean to Manifestor doesn't

(03:09):
say a thing about fighting hierarchy, which I think is
a faul to the manifesto. But I think for an
anarchist reading that the implications are pretty clear. And that's
what I have to do with a lot of stuff
I read, you know, like read between the lines and
pick up the points that the author missed. And so
that's the moral consideration, right, What should we aspire to?
Where must we draw the line? We aspire to being

(03:31):
trud with equal dignity, have an access to decision making power,
having a good life by having access to material conditions met.
And we try to avoid exceeding boundaries our social boundaries,
and we should try to avoid exceeding social boundaries related
to hierarchy and control and power. The second question is political.

(03:57):
It asks us which are the legitimate political communities. So
the Manifesto argues that the establishment of a single world
state in their future is unlikely and the political organization
will continue to be based on the plurality of states,
and that I think demonstrates the limitations of this Manifesto's
imagination are configurabism. That's what happens when you have this

(04:20):
clearly radical idea and you try to squeeze the radical
idea into a fundamentally unradical and statistical idea as nation states.
But let me not excessively editorialize. I'm just presenting this
movement and what its proponents have been arguing. Right according

(04:41):
to their perspective, states and political institutions are considered legitimate
only if they uphold principles such as common humanity, common sociality, individuation,
and managed conflict. To me, that's wishful thinking. But I
digress submit states and it pains me to even say this,

(05:03):
but just communicating, just communicating what the manifesto argues. The
legitimate states extend rights beyond civil and political rights, encompass economic, social, cultural,
and environmental rights. They ensure a minimum income for the
poorest citizens, while also implemented a maximum income to prevent

(05:24):
excessive wealth accumulation. The legitimate states maintain a balance between private, common, collective,
and public goods and promote associational activities within a global
civil society. They view digital networks as cools, as tools
for democratization, and treat them as commons, foster and openness,
free access and partiality and sharing. And they also revive

(05:50):
the tradition of public service and prioritize the preservation of
existing common goods while promoting the developments of new common
goods for the benefit of humanity. Again, it goes without
saying I take issue with this investment in states. I
think a lot of their goals are noble, if not

(06:14):
if they were not so tied down whether this investment
in this state structure, because for an anarchist perspective, many
of these ideas are not compatible with the structure of
a state. And even theoretically, even hypothetically, if a state
would implement all these changes where people had full prisipery

(06:38):
involvement and decision making, where the where the hierarchies were flattened,
and where everyone had free access and open access and
their commons and all this laddida some anarchists, not every
but some anarchists wouldn't even consider that to be a
state anymore. But let's just get into the weeds of

(07:02):
anarchist discourse and we're moving on the third question that
the Manifesto ask is an ecological question, which is what
we may take from nature, and which is what we

(07:25):
must take from nature? Which is what we may take
from nature and what we must give back? And the
Manifesto asks us to consider that human beings should no
longer see themselves as owners and masters of nature, but
rathers interconnected with it. Right to ensure ecological justice and

(07:46):
preserve a well managed natural heritage for future generations, humans
mus establish a relationship with nature based on giving back
as much or more than they take. The Manifesto argues
that the level of material prosperity that can be sustainably
extended to the entire planet is roughly comparable to the
average wealth of the wealthiest countries in the nineteen seventies,

(08:08):
and that wealthier nations must be the responsibility to reduce
their demand on nature relative to nineteen seventy standards, even
as they maintain their current quality of life. Priorities of
this Manifesto include reducing to two emissions, emphasize and renewable
energy sources over nuclear and fossil fuels, and shifting away
from viewing animals as mere resources for industry. The principles

(08:32):
of gift and interdependence should thus guide relationships with animals
and the earth as a whole. Lastly, the first Manifesto
leaves us with an economic question, which is how much
material wealth we may reproduce and how should we go
about producing it? If we had to remain true to
the answers given to the moral, political, and ecological questions,

(08:56):
Manifesto asks us to consider there's no proven connection between
monetary or material wealth and happiness which promotes any then
to explore alternative forms of prosperity beyond economic growth. As
you can see early on, we're making those connections to
the idea of de growth. More on that later, and
so this cause for a plural economy that balances the market,

(09:19):
the public sector, and social solidarity economy based on the
nature of goods and services involved. Again their perspective, but
while the markets and profitability are legitimate, they must align
with principles of common humanity, social cohesion, and ecological considerations.

(09:40):
And by addressing the issues of the financial economy such
as renterrorism and speculation through strict regulation, oversight, market restrictions,
and elimination of tax events, humanity can tap into a
broader spectrum of riches beyond economic and material wealth, including
fulfillment derived from duty, solidarity, enjoyment, and createivity inferious domains,

(10:02):
which of course highlights the importance of creativity and meaningful
relationships with others as an essential component of a prosperous society,
even if not materially or monetarily prosperous. The manifesto goes
on to define convirivulism, the term that they use to
describe all those elements and existing systems of belief that

(10:25):
help us identify principles for enabling human beings simultaneously to
compete and cooperate with one another with a shared concern
to safeguard the world and the full knowledge the reformed
part of that world and that its natural resources are finite.
When it comes to Convivialism's crucial for us to hold
on certain principles that can guide us imagine conflict, prioritizing

(10:50):
cooperation while being mindful of the limitations posed by scarce resources,
recognizing respect, alter into viewpoints and doctrines, opening the doors,
engage in die logue and praise to perspectives, and being
open to question and growth. All of that this manifesto
sees as essential to the idea of configulis. It even

(11:10):
goes on to propose convivialist policies, right, you know, the
minimum maximum income, protecting natural resources through various reforms and regulations,
tackling unemployments, promoting reduced working hours, supporting the growth of

(11:32):
the Associationists economy. Of course, I feel that's where the
manifesto falls short. But I do appreciate they had some
of the ideas that it introduces or that it expounds upon.
I mean, I'd appreciate all of the answers to the
questions that itself that it raises, but I appreciated raising

(11:54):
those questions, even if I might have slightly different answers
to them. This thesis of this manifestore seems to be
that a different kind of word is not just possible,
but crucial and agently necessary. I don't like that it
doesn't call out capitalism sufficiently or really at all.

Speaker 2 (12:14):
Yeah, it seems to have an overly cozy relationship with
the state, too.

Speaker 1 (12:17):
Which is yeah, yeah, great, not cool. They do say
quote there will clearly be as many, perhaps conflicting permutations
of convivialism as there are of Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, liberalism, socialism, communism,
et cetera, not least because convivialism in no way invalidates

(12:40):
these So fair enough, in a sense, I appreciate that
they can accept that their particular interpretation is not the
only one that there can be. I'm sure by this
particular passage they mean that there will be socialist orientations
of convivialism and liberals of convivialism, and Christian orientations of convivialism,

(13:04):
and et cetera, because they don't see convivialism as incompatible
with any of them. I think I might take some
issue with, I guess, not refining contrivialism. Further, I appreciate
that they themselves didn't refine it, because you know, they're
clearly quite liberal, But I think that contribualism as an

(13:26):
idea is something at least we uh distilled. Further, because
when you have this sort of free for all everybody
and everything goes approach to the ideology, I think it
opens up a lot of room for states and corporations

(13:48):
and NGOs to kind of slip in there and be like, oh,
look at us, we are going to add confrivilism to
our constitution and that kind of thing. Like then they
go and everyone applause and like wow, xyz. Government just
added contribualism to their constitution and three chairs for them.

(14:09):
And then the government just continues doing what it usually
was doing before it added convidism to its constitution. You know,
it's like with the whole I spoke about with my
Vivere podcast episode. Yeah, it's kind of like a situation
Yasuni it t right. Ecuadorian government was like, we are
going to protect this forest. We're not gonna drill for

(14:29):
oil in this forest, even though it has a bunch
of oil in this forest, over six billion dollars with
oil in this forest. We're just gonna ask the international
community for like three point six billion of that oil
and once you'll pay that, we're not going to drill
the oil. And we want to set this precedent for

(14:49):
other countries to follow, and YadA YadA, and we added
to our constitution and all our cash money. Right, but
then they got like two hundred million dollars worth of
pledges and then they were like, actually, you know, we're
still going to do it even though we didn't get
all the money, and then he lad, They're like, nah,
we're not going to do it anymore. And then a
couple of years after that they started drilling in the

(15:13):
National Park, and then a couple of years after that, yeah,
they started drilling even for the even closer to indigenous
territories within the park. So you know, that's like it
caught up in the fluffy words of states and corporations.

Speaker 2 (15:27):
And yeah, there was a there's a there's a version
of this that happen in Bolivia where they did like
a very similar thing, and then within half a decade, uh,
like riot police were storming the offices of like of
one of the giant like digious confederations.

Speaker 1 (15:39):
So it's you know, yeah, I mean keep in mind
a lot of what states do a lot of politicians too,
is just pr right, And I think a lot of
people are able to recognize that when it's happened in
their own country, but due to ignorance perhaps of other countries.

(15:59):
This a politician doing the same thing in another country,
and they're like, wow, why can't we be more like them?
And it's like, well, yeah, it to be fair, you know,
there are politicians and governments that are doing better than
other politicians and governments, and I'm I'm not going to
like blind my eye to that, but yeah, you know,
at the end of the day, there's still politicians, there's

(16:21):
still governments. They're still doing their pr putting out their
best image, put on the best foot forward to hold
on to whatever power they have.

Speaker 2 (16:32):
Yeah. Well, and with both Ecuador and Bolivia too, it's like, well, okay,
if if you want your politicians to have pr like that,
like you two can block every single road and your
country start starving your capital out, like yeah, Yeah, Politicians
do not descend from the heavens. They are the product

(16:52):
of a combination of material conditions and social forces. So
get better social forces.

Speaker 1 (17:00):
Exactly, exactly. That's the that's our elevator pitch for anarchism.
By the way, But I did say there were two manifestos, right,

(17:20):
So what about the second manifesto? Right, Concivulist Manifesto number
two published by the Concrivilist International in twenty twenty recent
and they define Confibualism as a comprehensive philosophy that encompasses humanist,
civic and political principles aimed at foster and harmonia scooing

(17:42):
systems in the modern era emphasize and the importance of
living together and outlining normative principles to guide that. In
deeval second manifesto of Concriviualism emphasizes the need for a
new political philosophy to challenge neoliberalism drast global issues. Pause.

(18:03):
This idea of it's something that you see a lot,
particularly in that sort of Engio space, right, A lot
of not radical organizations and movements will speak about challenging neoliberalism.

(18:23):
And it could usually tell because they specify new liberalism.
They don't say capitalism. They're not anti capitalists, they're just
anti neoliberalism, which in itself is not radical because newliberalism
in itself is just a recent permutation of capitalism.

Speaker 2 (18:39):
Yeah, and I should point out, like there as bad
as neoliberalism is, like, there are forms of capitalism that
are worse than it. So yeah, yeah, you know, see
see as evidence World War two. Uh yeah, yeah, I
just wanted to put that on the records.

Speaker 1 (18:58):
Yeah yeah, yeah, but just just for the sake of
people's own ability to scrutinize information and scrutinize movements. It's
an interesting trick of the language because by rallying against neoliberalism.
They're able to like bring a lot of the anti
capitalist people into the mix and draw from that crowd.

(19:21):
But a lot of these movements are not themselves anti capitalists.
And you know, if you want something more than a
nicer capitalism, that is something to keep in mind. Even
if you were and even if you know you take
part in the movement, nothing wrong with that, still something
to keep in mind. So the second matter of fest

(19:44):
to it also highlights the interconnectedness of young people's concerns
about climate change and environmental degradation. Talks about the struggles
of those seeking freedom from dictatorships or those being forced
to migrate, and it aims to offer and would say,
into vision for a post neoliberal world where promoting shared
values and the sense of agency. Furious intellectuals, activists, writers

(20:09):
and artists so all committed to this collective project with
the aim of creating this globally shared vision for the
future that is more inclusive and more participatory. The manifesto,
the second manifestor, like the first one, talks about the

(20:30):
post World War two growth in principles and human rights
and the shift in capitalism towards speculative and rent their practices,
talks about the decline of liberal democracies and the rise
of illiberal democrateurs, and speaks about resentment growing from past

(20:52):
clear domination and radical movements including al Qaeda, Reflecting that animosity. Again,
like the previous manifesto, it talks about ecological threats like
global warming and air pollution, oceanic pollution and accumulation of
plastic waste, nuclear disasters, weekends, ecosystems, rise and employment, job displacement,

(21:17):
wealth inequality, lack of regulation for transnational companies, political fragmentation,
and terrorism. All that fun stuff, and this time the
second manifesto outlines five principles to form the basis of
policies or ethics or organizational actions. Right common naturality, common humanity,

(21:44):
common sociality, legitimate individuation, and creative opposition. These principles emphasize
one the interconnectedness of humans with nature to the importance
of respecting the shared humanity of all individuals. Three the
value of social relationships for the need for individuals to

(22:06):
develop the individuality or respecting others, and five the recognition
of peaceful rivalry for the common good. These principles are
meant to be guided by the imperative of hubrist control,
which promotes cooperation and prevents the desire for power and excess.

(22:28):
The manifesto all symphasizes the importance of balance and these
principles to avoid their potential negative consequences. One of the
things that the Manifesto is really trying to get at
in particular, and the reason that it even establishes this
imperative for hubrist control, is because it argues that ideologies

(22:51):
focus primarily on satisfying material needs and overlook the crucial
role of recognition and desire, and that by reducing part
the fulfillment of needs, ideologies fail to address the problem
of limiting the desire for power and control. To me,
it just seems like the people who wrote this manifesto
aren't familiar with anarchism and anarchism's centuries long confrontation with power,

(23:20):
control and the desire for it that has altered the
course of very hvarious human societies. Right digress, The manifesto
instead points to religions as playing the historical role of
trying to curb our desire for power and control. That

(23:43):
seems to me like a very poor argument considering the
history of religion, but The point that the Manifestoro is
trying to make is that modern democratic discourses struggle to
restrain limitless desire and often reproduce the humors that they
aim to combat. And so the role of a convivialist

(24:03):
movement then should be in part on persuading individuals to
renounce the desire for dominance and reinforce the principles of
common humanity, sociality, naturality in legitimate interviewation and creative opposition. Again,

(24:25):
I don't think that the direction people are taking convivialists
and is radically enough because I think it leaves room
for it to fall into existing structures. I mean, the
manifest even talks about creating a convivialist party to reignite
hope and liberal democracy.

Speaker 2 (24:39):
Yeah. And I also want to just point out the
sort of like.

Speaker 1 (24:44):
Just how.

Speaker 2 (24:47):
How weak of a position it is to, you know,
have one of your goals just to convince individual people to.

Speaker 1 (24:55):
Want less power.

Speaker 2 (24:57):
Like I think that's just just sort of boldly anti
structural as a present prescription.

Speaker 1 (25:04):
Yeah, but I mean, I guess that's something that I've
come to expect from certain MILLI use, right, a lack
of engagement with uh structural domination and how structures inform
how individuals behave you know, like, yes, individuals act within structures,

(25:29):
but I think people have actually underestimate structural incentives, Like
it's not just about oh, if you get rid of
this bad person from a position of power, but this
good person a position of power, and everything will be
hunky dory. Like nah, there's still there's still like you
still haven't confronted the way that that structure, that position

(25:49):
incentivizes certain behavior. But like I said before, I'm an anarchists.
I take what I like, I leave what I don't.
They're also saying a manifest so they're confibulism longs to nobody.
So I've decided that, you know, my version of confivuloism
is not going to be this water down, watercress salad

(26:10):
kind of pathy, weak limpristed take on, you know, world
alter and structural change. Lastly, I didn't want to touch
on because I could say I would the significant role
that conviviality is played in the de growth movement, particularly

(26:32):
highlighted in texts like the Growth of Vocabulary for a
New Era inspired by Ivan's ideas. Conviviality and the growth
has referred to native society that values joyful sobriety, responsible
consumption and the use of limited tools that are emmansipiratory
and responsor to human needs. The ideas that Ivan outlined

(26:57):
and tools of conviviality which I spoke on in the
first part. This two parter is considered part of the
intellectual roots of the growth as an idea itself, and
conviviality is often discussed in relation to technologies, including digital technologies,
and how technology is suitable to a de growth society

(27:19):
must be convivial. One particular tool has been developed for
self assessment, political education and researcher lining with convivial principles,
and that is the matrix for contrivial technology or MCT.
And the matrix for convivial technology is to go with

(27:42):
a very basic definition, a normative schema that forsters. Discussion
concerning degrowth technologies in context of political education them city
is meant first to reflect on the dimensions of the

(28:07):
materials we use in technology is and how we produce
those technologies, how we use the technologies, how the technologies
fit into the infrastructure, how accessible they are, how interactive
they are with the environment, how adaptable they are, and

(28:28):
change in circumstances and much more, how appropriate they are
and much more. But beyond the MSCT, conviviality is also
being used in the de growth space to describe public spaces, goods,
conservation movements, and even humans. Within the growth literature, transitioning

(28:50):
to a convivial society is considered to be one of
the core objectives of the de growth movement, one of
the core shifts that needs to take place for us
to de grow as a society. And so that's the
all in short of it, the convivialist manifesto, convivialism and

(29:12):
contriviality as ideas how they've changed and been adapted, and
how people have been building on the ideas therein in
the sphere of philosophy and politics, education and technology and
more food for thought. I hope you appreciated this brief exploration.

(29:33):
As I like to say at the end of my videos,
and I consider it particularly aptain in the context of
conviviality and convivial technology is all power to all the people.
Once again, you could find me Andrew on YouTube dot
com slash aneurism and support me on feature dot com
slash saying true. And as usual, this has been it

(29:56):
could Happen Here, Where things happen, we talk about stuff.

Speaker 2 (30:07):
It could Happen Here as a production of cool Zone Media.
For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
coolzonemedia dot com or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can
find sources for It could Happen Here, updated monthly at
coolzonemedia dot com slash sources.

Speaker 1 (30:24):
Thanks for listening.