Socialism v. capitalism - ultimately it's just a squabble over who owns the means of production. Socialism purports to organise wealth and power more democratically but, if the violence inherent in that wealth and power are the real problem - all you end up with after a (violent) revolution is another elite. Both socialism and capitalism rely upon economic growth to drive forward their visions of society. Unfortunately the planet's resources are close to exhausted after 200 years of this macho nonsense so the claims and counterclaims of conservative/Marxist philosophy are pretty much redundant. Marx was a genius, of course, but his thinking was confined to the 19th century paradigm of progress and development which after (for example) the images from Abu Gahraib prison seem a bit quaint. I reject socialism and capitalism because they are both creeds based on power, and violence against nature.
I think the word squabble is appropriate when the class struggle is viewed in the context of ecological crisis. I can accept entirely that class struggle has been the prime motor of history hitherto. But if the proletariat are now fighting for control of a wrecked planet - then it starts to look a bit futile. In any event, I think capitalism has effectively defused the socialist bomb by two means: firstly consumerism - whereby everyone is addicted to what they can buy; secondly it has exported all the truly filthy labour conditions to distant lands. Out of sight, out of mind for most pampered Western workers, unfortunately...
I think we also need to look at the mindset of people who wish to lead us. Why do they feel able to determine the future of others? Have they achieved a personal moral perfection from which they can gain the confidence to prescribe solutions for others? Or maybe they have certain psycho-sexual difficulties which are alleviated by the approval of others? Put it this way - I'm very suspicious of anyone who thinks they know what's best for any other adult human being. (Or animal for that matter).
The 'welfare' of people doesn't fall out of the sky. It's built by burning resources. More welfare, more resources, more economic growth...now it may be that Marxists have developed a hidden manifesto of completely sustainable subsistence for everyone. If they have they're keeping it pretty quiet. I suspect they still favour car-jacking Bill Gates's limousine and driving it themselves, if you know what I mean. 'The environment' isn't a bourgeois adjunct to political ideology. It should be the starting point of everything. Evidently the genuine desire to help others and save the planet is nice. But it's all about means. I'd suggest that any remedy that identifies people as 'workers' and prescribes 'overthrowing' the present system is actually part of that system - locked in by a reductionist and violent philosophy.
I reckon that vagueness is a necessary part of political religions like Marxism. In this instance, revolution is cited as the means to an end (communism) with no historical precedent or satisfactory explanation as to why such a social pheomenon would have a lasting transformative effect on society. Sure workers may feel better for a revolution but communism requires an alchemy of the human condition to work. I've noticed that Marxists state with confidence that a mass following of their creed will make good stuff happen, conflating all sorts of struggles into their own (including, bizarrely, that of radical Islam). But the central proposition of Marxism - that humanity can be liberated through social revolution - is untested and untestable, about as much use as claiming Jesus Saves.
In my opinion, the liberation theology of revolutionary socialism is founded on faith, not science (or even common sense).
Perhaps it's about how to respond effectively to violence? Joining an anti-war march is portrayed as an effective, non-violent response to the state's aggression. And yet, the huge march in London before Iraq War 2 was a failure - the war happened regardless. Compare the net effect on suffering in the world if the million people on that march that day had decided to, say, stop eating meat instead. Or given up using their car....I understand the anger the war in Iraq invokes. When I saw the pictures from Abu Gahraib I couldn't sleep for a week. The urge to meet fire with fire is very strong. But the fire - that cycle of violence - is the problem. The cycle has to be broken somewhere and I think that will always be an individual decision. Engaging with capitalist bullies merely exacerbates the problem.
I think you can only change the world non-violently (and therefore effectively) by changing yourself. Politics, by its nature, is prescriptive and adversarial - both forms of violence against others in my opinion. If political projects were abandonned and the energies they squander were diverted to peaceful personal change, I'd suggest you'd have a real evolution in human kind...almost overnight.In the meantime, I suspect that the real powers-that-be tolerate 'democracy' and party politics simply because they are a great big dumping ground for aspiration and energy of the masses...
No comments:
Post a Comment