Should Today’s 193 Nations Divide into 2,000? 

Interview of Dr. Chris Hables Gray (UC Santa Cruz professor) by Hank Pellissier

Hank Pellissier:  How you define yourself politically and how did you reach that position?

Dr. Gray I’ve been an anarchist since I was 14. As a frosh at Stanford in 1971 I was arrested and beaten during an anti-war protest and as I became an organizer, I realized that feminist process, consensus decision-making, and anarchist organizational principles were what I believed in. For people interested in the anarchist-feminist perspective I strongly recommend the autobiography of Emma Goldman, the fiction of Ursula Le Guin (especially The Dispossessed), and the writings of Alexander Berkman and Colin Ward.  I am a pragmatic revolutionary, working toward the logical conclusion of the saying (popular with American revolutionaries such as Thomas Jefferson): “The government is best that governs least.”

Do you support all separatist movements, or just the ones that aim for certain ideals? 

For me to support a movement for independence (I think this is much more positive framing than separatist) the intended new nation must have democratic processes and equal rights for all, whatever their gender or ethnic or religious identity. There must be a Bill of Rights. I think it is also fair to insist the movement recognize the reality of climate change. Why support, even marginally, people who aren't working to solve the worst crisis humanity has faced? One could also make this argument about inequitable wealth distribution. Not only is it bad for democracy; it is bad for the planet.

The movements I'm totally in harmony with are Scotland, Wales (up to 25% support or so now), Cataluña, Euskadi (Basques), Rojava and other democratic expressions of the Kurds, and Tibet. Hawaii, Vermont, and California are the only independence movements in the USA that I totally support. Texas people who want independence are, not to put too fine a point on it, racist assholes. 

Would California thrive if it seceded from the USA?  

The United States as we now know it will not last forever. I am working toward an autonomous California that will be part of an American (North) Union, not unlike the European Union but with much less bureaucracy and most of the power at the local level. Empire is the enemy of democracy and if the US is an empire, we will see our democracy erode. California (Alta) has more in common economically and culturally with California (Baja) than with Alabama. We share a bioregion and culture with Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia while we share much less with Missouri (where majority of people don’t even accept the reality of evolution).

Humans are profoundly social, and so I believe in belonging to many different associations. It certainly makes sense for California to keep relations with places such as New York and Chicago. A looser system, think of the Articles of Confederation with a Bill of Rights made stronger by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is what I dream of.

What are your long-term ambitions in terms of world governmental structure?

Decades ago, Peter Berg argued that politically we should move toward what he called devolution. Basically, as much as possible, decision-making power should be vested in the smallest units that make sense and grow weaker the higher up the food chain it goes. But it is one world, and we need one world governance system, although at the highest levels it should be very, very weak—a network really. Bioregional and cultural realities should underly political organization. Democracy to be real must be as direct as possible.

The thing about anarchism is that it is very complicated and varied. For every window-breaker there are dozens of more nuanced anarchists working at the grassroots to bring power back to our communities and to empower ourselves by defending our freedoms of thought and action.

The ends cannot be divorced from the means and the appeal of violence, especially to young men, must be contextualized in any useful strategic or tactical analysis. In some cultures, armed defense makes sense (as with the wonderful Zapatistas). In others, taking the streets involves strong (yes violent) actions.

How many nations do you think it would be ideal for the world to divide into? Entities of 5 million or less? The result would be 1,600 nations. Does that seem right? 

The "small is beautiful" idea has much to recommend it. Peter Berg (devolution!) made this argument very strongly. I am in sympathy with it and support the smallest governments with the most power as is reasonable. But with three major caveats. 

a) As Peter Berg argued, we must be very aware of bioregions. It makes no sense to carve up the SF Bay Area, for example, just because it is more than 5 million people. Some coherent local bioregions will just be more people, that is just the reality of overpopulation and urbanization. And at the far end, there has to be some sort of World Alliance (a reformed UN might work). It is one Earth 

b) That said, I think it helps to think of government in layers. The most power must be local with less power going up the food chain. This is what Federalism is supposed to be in the U.S. with all powers not handed over to the governments in the hands of the people, states with more power (that should be handed down locally) than the Federal govt. and so on. But the Iron Law of Bureaucracy is powerful. The higher levels of govt. must be tightly constrained, or they become dangerous as the EU (in many ways a model for a future N. American Confederation) has by proliferating government by administrators and regulations. I am in the strange anarchist position of advocating more (but weaker!) governments, with most power (constrained by a strong Bill of Rights) locally, perhaps even in New England village direct democracy. But that's just me.

c) Technology can play a major role in linking people, alleviating wealth differences, living in harmony with the environment. Bookchin's Post Scarcity Anarchism (so popular in Rojava!) is full of insight on this issue.

How could California secession be accomplished? 

We should campaign for a US Constitutional Amendment that would allow the renegotiation of the relationship of States to the Federal Government including the right to withdraw from the United States with a supermajority vote (55%? 60%?). I believe enough rightwing States would support such an amendment to make it possible, along with support from blue states such as Hawaii and Oregon. Then, in California, Independistas must rethink government and show how we can catalyze a better, decentralized government that brings more democracy to key areas of life, especially work. It will be, and should be, a process that takes some years.

Did you read Ecotopia? Would you want Oregon and Washington to join us or are we just better off alone?

Ernest Callenbach’s novel Ecotopia certainly has been an influence, although I supported California autonomy years before I read it. The focus on bioregions is wonderful and the specificity of his vision is fascinating. Another great book I love is Starhawk’s novel of a post-collapse San Francisco, The Fifth Sacred Thing. But neither of these are exact models for what to do. The great thing about the future is how surprising it is. I don’t want to move to the next level of political development through violence or even the threat of violence. I’d look to Le Guin’s The Word for World is Forest for a model of nonviolent change before I try and steal nukes or hope for apocalypse.

Any books you recommend reading?

Besides David Graeber’s Debt, the other great books I have read recently are John Keane’s The Life and Death of Democracy and Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. Between them they demonstrate that the struggle for a better world goes back to the very origins of humanity and much progress has been made. Democracy is an ideal that has been advanced by many different cultures throughout human history.

Things can get better. Things must change. Things must get better, or we are lost. Real Democracy is possible and necessary. A better world is possible and necessary. And we can win it if we are brave and persistent. If we live, in the words of my friend Carl Harp (murdered in Walla Wall prison by the State) with “Love & Rage”.