As I understand it, the usual liberal and progressive point of view is that there are certain immoral and greedy individuals at the pinnacle of capitalist society and that if these people are done away with (or persuaded of the error of their ways), everything will be hunky-dory. This is a deeply unsatisfying explanation, particularly to anyone steeped in Marxist thought. That we have the specific structure that we endure on a daily basis should itself give us pause. I contend that it is the "default structure" of our times, given our technological modernity and the concomitant stage of history we are presently at.
This is not to say that we should not struggle. We should. But this notion of "default structure" does, however, suggest two important caveats. The first is that we need to have an alternative very clearly delineated. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We don't want the fiasco of Orwell's "Animal Farm." Or in other words, without a very clear and detailed idea of where we want to go, we will unknowingly replicate the "default structure." The second caveat -- closely related to the first -- is that this default structure exerts a magnetic pull; in scientific lingo, it's a point of "stable equilibrium," towards which any artificial system -- even if carefully designed -- will naturally gravitate.
This mix of finance capitalism, plutocracy, sham democracy, militarism, a global economic web controlled by a hegemon, growing disparities between rich and poor, both globally and in nation states, deteriorating biosphere -- this is our present structure. Whether revolutionary force can change this set-up at a fundamental level, and transform it root and branch, is an open philosophical question.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I find this topic (and this post) fascinating.
"I contend that it is the "default structure" of our times, given our technological modernity and the concomitant stage of history we are presently at."
Yeah.
"without a very clear and detailed idea of where we want to go, we will unknowingly replicate the 'default structure.'"
Yeah.
My concern is that a "revolutionary force" would destroy (and eventually re-create?) the "present structure," not "transform" it. I think, if there are "open philosophical questions," that there is no "clear and detailed idea of where we want to go."
I also think that a lot of people who are explicitly unhappy with existing conditions -- and perhaps are more ready for revolution than you -- are lining up behind "certain immoral and greedy individuals at the pinnacle of capitalist society."
Me? I don't really like change.
I consider myself a "socialist" of sorts -- at least in the sense that I'm not happy with the "default structure" we have. Yet I'm sceptical of the notion of an egalitarian "worker's paradise." Even in animal societies we see hierarchy and oligarchy -- certainly among chimps, baboons, and gorillas. Oligarchies of the energetic and intelligent emerge naturally -- it's in the order of things. Take one thousand people at random, put them on an (inhabitable) island and revisit the place after ten years. There will be a ruling council of 20-30 individuals and a looser supervisory group of a hundred people below them, with the other 900 passively doing as they're told (unless they're pushed too far). The will, dynamism, and intelligence of a small group is matched by the apathy of a larger group that wants to do as it's told and no more. Every post-revolutionary society will revert to an oligarchy (albeit perhaps not one as ruthless as the present one). This was the lesson of Orwell's "Animal Farm."
Today I was at a meeting where there was talk of the "workers' state" supplanting -- through revolutionary effort -- the present capitalist state. I remain profoundly sceptical.
On a different note, our present capitalist society has a life of its own -- like a medieval golem that has been animated, or like Dr. Frankenstein's monster. It will not be easy to demolish this golem.
Class structure teaches people to be passive. However, the breaking of the class structure 'could' release people from passivity.
Of course, going from a bourgeois parliament to complete democracy is not possible. That desert island might have leaders, but not exploiters. That is improvement.
The real question is whether the U.S. population will recover from their narcolepsy; the opium of the people is not religion so much as entertainment. And America is a very 'entertaining' place.
"That desert island might have leaders, but not exploiters. That is improvement."
So Red, you want to change the economics really, not the politics. If I read you right.
AA writes: "The will, dynamism, and intelligence of a small group is matched by the apathy of a larger group that wants to do as it's told and no more."
I was gonna respond: I'm in the "apathy" group. But I don't see it as apathy. I see it as the willingness to cooperate. It's the same in government as it is at work: I don't have to be in charge. But I need the people in charge to be good enough that I can respect their decisions.
I decided not to make that comment. But now I have to say it, because Red Frog makes a similar evaluation: "The real question is whether the U.S. population will recover from their narcolepsy; the opium of the people is not religion so much as entertainment. And America is a very 'entertaining' place."
I do not look forward to the disruption of my life. Everything that I can do by habit, I do by habit. This increases the time and energy I have for thinking about stuff like this.
Peace.
Socialism is democratic at its core. You can't change the economics and leave the politics intact.
The majority of any population does not really want to taken an active role in governance. It's something I've seen time and again. They can be called upon to vote once in a while (if that) but not any further. It's exactly like Orwell's "Animal Farm." The perennial problem is elected representatives cannot be trusted and sooner or later you end up with an entrenched and self-serving elite. As has been said before, with a population of sheep, you get a government of wolves. The reason I'm saying all this is because I think socialists are not realistic about the human condition and what can be expected from the mass of people. They are too utopian, too idealistic. Unfortunately there is no pot of gold at the end of the revolutionary rainbow.
Post a Comment