Politically, Where are we going? Is there an end game?

[Cavegirl]

One point I'd like to put to anarchists is this: Earlier in history we had anarchist society and all that happened was the law of the jungle prevailed and thugs emerged to take and dominate. They eventually became warlords, then just lords etc. You seem to be suggesting a situation where we all live in harmony with no possessions and no instinctive greed or aggression. It's my humble opinion that no matter how ideal a society could be created there will always be selfish apathetic people who want to parasite off the majority. Such amoral people will use any means to do so. Law and order and therefore a state will always be required.

 

Another point is that much of your ideology and leftist ideology relies on the fact that the media create the news rather than just reflect it. I've always despised The Sun but I realise that it simply reflects the views of a lot of 'common sense' type thinking. It's just lazy and a cop out to just blame most of the people's thinking on the gutter press and assume that if everyone listened to Radio 4 then everything would be OK.

 

These points are not idle digs either, ten years ago I considered myself a Marxist socialist and was totally sure I had all the answers. These days John Smith is my idea of the perfect politician, not Trotsky so I'm genuinely curious.

 

I studied archaeology at university at both under-grad and post-grad level and my main specialisation was late Upper Palaeolithic/ Mesolithic culture in Europe alongside palaeo-environmental studies. This society was indeed anarchist, but nothing like the law of the jungle prevailed rather it was egalitarian. Society existed for thousands of years without tribal leaders emerging. In order for this to have happened prehistoric people must have been engaged politically ensuring that group consensus continued to trump the emergence of natural leaders.

 

I've explained before, in another thread, that I believe that leaders only came to dominate the group during the late Bronze Age when people began to protect their access to valuable raw materials (tin and copper mines). Nobody protected wood and stone previously because they were too plentiful. Only in the late Bronze Age do we really see a warlike culture emerge alongside the construction of defensive settlements. People only seem to become selfish when there is something valuable to covet.

 

The modern mass media is owned by large corporations and operates for corporate interest. It was well described along with evidence in a book called 'Manufacturing Consent' by Noam Chomsky. Modern media is under heavy threat from the more anarchic idea of 'people's news' that is shared through the internet. Just as MySpace once threatened the music industry by enabling artists to access their public directly rather than having to go through production middle men.

 

The anarchic society I envisage can't happen today, we're not ready to take responsibility for ourselves yet. I see that through many conversations that I engage with and that's fine. I don't even believe that the same form of anarchy will be adopted world wide. Sure I personally fall to the left of politics, I think a focus on people rather than private property brings out the best in people, but I can also see the value of right wing anarchy with its vision of totally free markets, no bail outs and freedom for the individual. Perhaps even a mix of the two might occur in some places- the care and health industries don't seem to manage very well under capitalism, but other industries are well served so perhaps a new idea might develop that incorporates and intergrates different economies.

[Rowan22]

I studied archaeology at university at both under-grad and post-grad level and my main specialisation was late Upper Palaeolithic/ Mesolithic culture in Europe alongside palaeo-environmental studies. This society was indeed anarchist, but nothing like the law of the jungle prevailed rather it was egalitarian. Society existed for thousands of years without tribal leaders emerging. In order for this to have happened prehistoric people must have been engaged politically ensuring that group consensus continued to trump the emergence of natural leaders.

 

I've explained before, in another thread, that I believe that leaders only came to dominate the group during the late Bronze Age when people began to protect their access to valuable raw materials (tin and copper mines). Nobody protected wood and stone previously because they were too plentiful. Only in the late Bronze Age do we really see a warlike culture emerge alongside the construction of defensive settlements. People only seem to become selfish when there is something valuable to covet.

 

The modern mass media is owned by large corporations and operates for corporate interest. It was well described along with evidence in a book called 'Manufacturing Consent' by Noam Chomsky. Modern media is under heavy threat from the more anarchic idea of 'people's news' that is shared through the internet. Just as MySpace once threatened the music industry by enabling artists to access their public directly rather than having to go through production middle men.

 

The anarchic society I envisage can't happen today, we're not ready to take responsibility for ourselves yet. I see that through many conversations that I engage with and that's fine. I don't even believe that the same form of anarchy will be adopted world wide. Sure I personally fall to the left of politics, I think a focus on people rather than private property brings out the best in people, but I can also see the value of right wing anarchy with its vision of totally free markets, no bail outs and freedom for the individual. Perhaps even a mix of the two might occur in some places- the care and health industries don't seem to manage very well under capitalism, but other industries are well served so perhaps a new idea might develop that incorporates and intergrates different economies.

 

 

Great post! The only problem I can foresee with how you describe the incorporation of the corporate, is the already huge disparity in terms of wealth. Which directly translates into power and influence? The right wing notion of "freedom" is in reality good on paper, but in the actual world leads to authoritarian governments which out of economic necessity have to deploy a police state to keep the minority who are super rich safe from the masses who are not.

 

It is inherently anti libertarian in practise if not in principle. And since Anarchism, in the Emma Goldman sense asserts the fundamental right of the human being to be free from statist authority; I see this as the worst of all outcomes.

[Mr Prime]

I studied archaeology at university at both under-grad and post-grad level and my main specialisation was late Upper Palaeolithic/ Mesolithic culture in Europe alongside palaeo-environmental studies. This society was indeed anarchist, but nothing like the law of the jungle prevailed rather it was egalitarian. Society existed for thousands of years without tribal leaders emerging. In order for this to have happened prehistoric people must have been engaged politically ensuring that group consensus continued to trump the emergence of natural leaders.

 

I've explained before, in another thread, that I believe that leaders only came to dominate the group during the late Bronze Age when people began to protect their access to valuable raw materials (tin and copper mines). Nobody protected wood and stone previously because they were too plentiful. Only in the late Bronze Age do we really see a warlike culture emerge alongside the construction of defensive settlements. People only seem to become selfish when there is something valuable to covet.

 

The modern mass media is owned by large corporations and operates for corporate interest. It was well described along with evidence in a book called 'Manufacturing Consent' by Noam Chomsky. Modern media is under heavy threat from the more anarchic idea of 'people's news' that is shared through the internet. Just as MySpace once threatened the music industry by enabling artists to access their public directly rather than having to go through production middle men.

 

The anarchic society I envisage can't happen today, we're not ready to take responsibility for ourselves yet. I see that through many conversations that I engage with and that's fine. I don't even believe that the same form of anarchy will be adopted world wide. Sure I personally fall to the left of politics, I think a focus on people rather than private property brings out the best in people, but I can also see the value of right wing anarchy with its vision of totally free markets, no bail outs and freedom for the individual. Perhaps even a mix of the two might occur in some places- the care and health industries don't seem to manage very well under capitalism, but other industries are well served so perhaps a new idea might develop that incorporates and intergrates different economies.

 

An excellent well constructed answer, far better than I was expecting and I have genuinely learned something new today which is the point of SF in my opinion, when were not all insulting each other.

 

Can't disagree with anything you say, with regard to the media I'm a disciple of Paul Foot, a revolutionary socialist who happily wrote for the Mirror, Guardian and occasionally some right wing papers. He also won journalist of the decade award a couple of times. It was him I was quoting though I also agree the ruling class own the mental means of production though as you say, not so much any more with the advent of the net.

 

I expect the society you describe is possible eventually but you have hit the nail on the head in the sense that now that people have the taste for consumerism and a 4x4 and a Rolex mean so much it'll be a long time.

[Riche]

The end just like the movies. I'm sellin my house and buyin guns.

 

2012

[Phanerothyme]

Perhaps you would be kind enough to share something more enlightened with us ?

 

No need - plenty to read above, but "enlightened self interest" springs immediately to mind.

 

Human society organised on a large scale with no kings, palaces or temples is possible if the interpretation of the archaeological record is halfway correct. (Indus civilisation etc)

 

But all of these societies seem to have existed in pre-Homeric times. It's tempting to imagine those ancient people having the same thoughts and imagination as we do - but there's no way of knowing if that's true.

 

But it seems something fundamental changed and by about 1000BCE there were no collectivist, cooperator cultures left. Perhaps it was the birth of the ego, the individual consciousness that displaced what was until that point a group consciousness that did it. Perhaps, up to that point, exclusive self interest did not exist, because the self was not as we would recognise it today.

[Cavegirl]

Great post! The only problem I can foresee with how you describe the incorporation of the corporate, is the already huge disparity in terms of wealth. Which directly translates into power and influence? The right wing notion of "freedom" is in reality good on paper, but in the actual world leads to authoritarian governments which out of economic necessity have to deploy a police state to keep the minority who are super rich safe from the masses who are not.

 

It is inherently anti libertarian in practise if not in principle. And since Anarchism, in the Emma Goldman sense asserts the fundamental right of the human being to be free from statist authority; I see this as the worst of all outcomes.

 

You make a really good point and the rise of authoritarianism is a phenomenon of society that hasn't been studied enough in my opinion. In the 1940's a German psychoanalyst called Erich Fromm (in his book 'The Fear of Freedom') explained the rise of Nazism in the 1930's as a response to new freedoms (freedom from traditional roles whether they be economic, familial, social, religious etc). He suggested that when people are given new freedoms they sometimes develop a feeling of loss and insecurity which makes them more susceptible to submission in the face of strong leaders and authoritarian states.

 

If accurate, then his idea can be seen not as a right wing or left wing issue, but rather a more general human and social problem. It explains not only the rise of fascism in Germany, but also the rise of authoritarian communism in the Soviet Union. This is why I believe any social conversion to anarchy must come through philosophical transition rather than a weaker purely anti-government stance. People need to be ready to accept freedom (and all of the responsibilities associated with it), and not just be willing to fight governments for the idea of it.

 

I share your concern with right wing anarcho-capitalism. Under such a system, the rise of the corporate monopoly protected by private security could become just as great a danger as the rise of political fascism and the gestapo. Anarcho-capitalists would argue however that a free market would prevent this from occurring because competition would not be stifled and people could simply shift their spending power to another company. Again, it comes down to people taking responsibility and having a strong belief in (ie they're not disenfranchised politically from the market system) and understanding of the fact (ie through their education) that their spending habits shape their society.

 

The greatest problem with the anarcho-communist society is probably related to how people could continue to inspire creativity and innovation within a world where the money or private property incentive does not exist. Still there is good evidence to suggest that people gain most enjoyment from helping and pleasing others. The Viking word for 'work' was actually their word for 'play' and perhaps this holds the key to a successful left-wing anarchist community.

[Cavegirl]

An excellent well constructed answer, far better than I was expecting and I have genuinely learned something new today which is the point of SF in my opinion, when were not all insulting each other.

 

Can't disagree with anything you say, with regard to the media I'm a disciple of Paul Foot, a revolutionary socialist who happily wrote for the Mirror, Guardian and occasionally some right wing papers. He also won journalist of the decade award a couple of times. It was him I was quoting though I also agree the ruling class own the mental means of production though as you say, not so much any more with the advent of the net.

 

I expect the society you describe is possible eventually but you have hit the nail on the head in the sense that now that people have the taste for consumerism and a 4x4 and a Rolex mean so much it'll be a long time.

 

Thanks for a generous reply considering we haven't always seen eye to eye. I have to admit I'm curious to see what the effect of diminishing raw material resources and long-term increased commodity prices are going to have on western people's notions of mass consumerism. I imagine the time is not too far off when people begin to reassess those rolex's and 4x4s, but I'll have to wait and see.

[Rowan22]

You make a really good point and the rise of authoritarianism is a phenomenon of society that hasn't been studied enough in my opinion. In the 1940's a German psychoanalyst called Erich Fromm (in his book 'The Fear of Freedom') explained the rise of Nazism in the 1930's as a response to new freedoms (freedom from traditional roles whether they be economic, familial, social etc). He suggested that when people are given new freedoms they sometimes develop a feeling of loss and insecurity which makes them more susceptible to submission in the face of strong leaders and authoritarian states.

 

If accurate, then his idea can be seen not as a right wing or left wing issue, but rather a more general human and social problem. It explains not only the rise of fascism in Germany, but also the rise of authoritarian communism in the Soviet Union. This is why I believe any social conversion to anarchy must come through philosophical transition rather than a weaker purely anti-government stance. People need to be ready to accept freedom (and all of the responsibilities associated with it), and not just be willing to fight governments for the idea of it.

 

I share your concern with right wing anarcho-capitalism. Under such a system, the rise of the corporate monopoly protected by private security could become just as great a danger as the rise of political fascism and the gestapo. Anarcho-capitalists would argue however that a free market would prevent this from occurring because competition would not be stifled and people could simply shift their spending power to another company. Again, it comes down to people taking responsibility and having a strong belief in (ie they're not disenfranchised politically from the market system) and understanding of the fact (ie through their education) that their spending habits shape their society.

 

The greatest problem with the anarcho-communist society is probably related to how people could continue to inspire creativity and innovation within a world where the money or private property incentive does not exist. Still there is good evidence to suggest that people gain most enjoyment from helping and pleasing others. The Viking word for 'work' was actually their word for 'play' and perhaps this holds the key to a successful left-wing anarchist community.

 

 

 

Very interesting points. I have read a little of Frohms work. Have you read/heard of “to have or to be?” That's a good read. I think the points you raise seem plausible in terms of sudden social upheaval leading to a vacuum which extremism will always exploit be it left or right.

 

I think both Communism and National Socialism owe their foundations to Hegel’s statist idealism. And as such, given the assumption that the state is the final arbiter of freedom was always destined to result in models which imbued governments with a degree of control and power which was in danger of becoming a self fulfilling prophecy of authoritarianism. History certainly leaves little doubt of this.

 

I agree when you say that the transition will have to be a Philosophical one. And underpinned by people whose own values are in sync with the spirit of Anarchism. Ultimately I think the changing ecological situation is likely to be a significant catalyst in this respect. My concern is that rather than leading to a cooperative equitable model, we are likely to see more of the pattern which seems to be being established. Namely that the less power you have the more responsibility you are given.

 

So if you lose your, job your house your foundation. You are somehow written off like cannon fodder. Whilst the overextended, incompetent and inept authors of the financial collapse go on relatively unscathed and their foot soldiers likewise sheltered from the consequences while the rest are abandoned to feel the "cuts" most pointedly.

 

Wilhelm Reich’s "The mass Psychology of Fascism" is a very interesting book related to this area I think you might enjoy. Draws some very disturbing parallels to our current situation. And whether we salve our concerns with the hope that somehow this may all be for the best in the long term or not (Ecologically speaking). I worry that this to, is merely a facade for the establishment of a true Hegelian edifice of statist subordination of the masses.

[Cavegirl]

Very interesting points. I have read a little of Frohms work. Have you read/heard of “to have or to be?” That's a good read. I think the points you raise seem plausible in terms of sudden social upheaval leading to a vacuum which extremism will always exploit be it left or right.

 

I think both Communism and National Socialism owe their foundations to Hegel’s statist idealism. And as such, given the assumption that the state is the final arbiter of freedom was always destined to result in models which imbued governments with a degree of control and power which was in danger of becoming a self fulfilling prophecy of authoritarianism. History certainly leaves little doubt of this.

 

I agree when you say that the transition will have to be a Philosophical one. And underpinned by people whose own values are in sync with the spirit of Anarchism. Ultimately I think the changing ecological situation is likely to be a significant catalyst in this respect. My concern is that rather than leading to a cooperative equitable model, we are likely to see more of the pattern which seems to be being established. Namely that the less power you have the more responsibility you are given.

 

So if you lose your, job your house your foundation. You are somehow written off like cannon fodder. Whilst the overextended, incompetent and inept authors of the financial collapse go on relatively unscathed and their foot soldiers likewise sheltered from the consequences while the rest are abandoned to feel the "cuts" most pointedly.

 

Wilhelm Reich’s "The mass Psychology of Fascism" is a very interesting book related to this area I think you might enjoy. Draws some very disturbing parallels to our current situation. And whether we salve our concerns with the hope that somehow this may all be for the best in the long term or not (Ecologically speaking). I worry that this to, is merely a facade for the establishment of a true Hegelian edifice of statist subordination of the masses.

 

I just wanted to say a quick thanks for the Reich recommendation- I found a link to the full pdf text and I've been rivetted by it all evening. I haven't read 'To have or to be' by Fromm yet, but I do have 'The Fear of Freedom' and 'The Sane Society' and I can definately recommend both.

 

You've made some really excellent points in the above post and I hope we can continue our discussion tomorrow- particularly in relation to the ecological issue- I'm very keen to hear you develop your thoughts on this. I completely agree with you that statism probably has to reach its zenith in terms of total social control before people are willing to set themselves free of this institution I just hope we don't allow it to destroy us before this freedom is attained.

[Wildcat]

It seems a little trite to throw this in to such an interesting exchange of points, but it is late, it amused me today and is relevant when considering right-wing libertarian small state thinking advanced by the likes of the Tea Party.

 

 

Cavegirl, I agree with your points about an ideal utopian society being one where the state can be transcended... but as you say we are a long way from that and whilst we have corporations and multinationals with such influence across the world we need stronger democratic counterbalances to them, not weaker ones.