All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds - Dr.
Pangloss in Candide (Voltaire)
Anarchists have tried to combat the seductive domination of
spectacular capitalism by ridicule, by argument and by physically fighting
back. The logic and rationality of creating a truly democratic society that
rejects capitalism may seem obvious. Corruption, desperate marketing of
increasingly useless and unnecessary goods, a selfishness that defies humanity,
never ending warfare and an economic system that screams “The Emperor has no
clothes” might indicate a society teetering unsustainably on a precipice.
Let us be clear:
We have nothing to demand of this society.
It is a house of cards.
And yet, perhaps it is time to face the unspoken and even unbearable
case that the Spectacle MAY have won and any notion of trying to change society
from within is a waste of time. In a world where most people are happily
aspiring to the variations on the same old theme of pointless products and
believe all the truths that are spun for them, is it now the historical moment
when those who refuse these values and lies have to draw a line in the sand?
Information democracy allows most people to access a whole range of ideas,
information and critical theory, yet they still choose the marketing swinging
pocket watch and the manipulation of truth by those in power. Perhaps spectacular
capitalism has reached the point of no return and must continue either to
destruction or the total eternal control of the world.
Why should individual anarchists sacrifice their lives in a
struggle, and a global one at that, to create a better world when the oppressed
and conned simply want to ape their rulers? For every mighty act of
revolutionary enlightenment, there are a thousand reinforcements of the shallow
status quo. Sometimes it seems that radicals are opposing without constructing.
Commodity fetishism actually seems more hysterical among the poorer groups,
especially as they are now given tempting access to the apples of accessible
cheap goods. There is a sense that everyone has the right to be happy consumers
and should be able to acquire consumer durables that promise some selective
notion of happiness.
The essentials of life used to be shelter, food and
clothing; now it is deemed essential to have smart phones, increasingly complex
televisions, a new car replaced every few years etc. In fact the true
essentials for survival have become secondary to being sold the idea that ALL commodities
are absolutely imperative.
We have created a society where everyone knows their rights,
but few will accept that there are responsibilities that balance that equation.
We have become soft. We have become soft because of a nanny state that will not
allow failure and champions a warped interpretation of equal rights (with no
equal responsibilities). The welfare state has protected the vulnerable, but it
has also very deliberately created a bitterness that divides the haves from the
have nots.
I now argue that anarchists who believe in no role for the
state and government must face up to the practicality of no welfare state and
no government protection too. These are harsh realities that have been avoided
for too long; and ironically have also been a stick with which the opponents of
anarchism have beaten its proponents – how can you demand an end to government
while taking the benefits that it offers? There is a hollow ring to any
argument that because we are expected to live in a Parliamentary democracy then
we are entitled to take its benefits. This is the same as notionally opposing
capitalism, but buying into the illusory marketing of more “stuff”, which
perpetuates all the inequalities, corruption and greed that are so evil.
The UK 2015 election was seen as a surprise by many, yet
should really have been expected. Many people in the UK are doing very nicely
because they have profited from the privatisation of goods and services that
were created for everyone. It started with council house sales, where everyone
paid for them to be built yet individuals could suddenly profit by buying the
property at a reduced rate, while also taking that property out of common
ownership. Since then, the privatisation has snowballed by issuing shares that
only the wealthiest could purchase. Of course, this is just theft as those
goods e.g. British Gas, British Telecom, Post Office, housing association
property etc. etc. were created by the nation and were then sold to
individuals. This is the nature of Conservative capitalism because it generates
money for the Treasury and privatisation simply channels the money back to
those contractors who already have the power and wealth; with services in
private hands the government cannot be blamed when they go wrong.
The Conservatives only got the votes of 36% of those who
voted and just 24% of the electorate. Those who champion Parliamentary Democracy
with a capital D simply resign themselves to this being somehow fair and barely
anyone questions the legitimacy of the Conservatives to govern. Of course, the
Left would do exactly the same in the situation. As anarchists we must reject
this political ideology and look beyond the concept of state government. I have
outlined elsewhere in this blog the reasons why modern electoral Parliamentary Democracy
is a farce. Rather than scream and stamp our feet from the sidelines, or be
tempted to enter the pantomime of political actors, it is now time to consider
more practical alternatives.
Bizarrely, many anarchists seemed to celebrate
Jeremy Corbyn being elected leader of the Labour Party, despite a stance that
would increase the role of the state and government in our everyday lives. And
most people lambast me for even hinting that voting in an election is a waste
of time, even if it is delegating responsibility for our own lives to a
self-interested careerist.
I also wonder if real community has died among the most
deprived people, where capitalism has divided by race and petty differences? Those ordinary people who work seem more
hostile to those who do not work and depend on the welfare state that towards
those who profit from their labours. We should not shy of criticising our own
class – something groups like Class War do indeed shy from, even in the face of
vile and antisocial behaviour – and accept that many working class (whatever
that is) people are selfish, thoughtless, careless, grasping and have little
concept of cooperation if it does not benefit them. I have lived in working
class northern towns and in rural villages; sadly, I have to concede that genuine
community is stronger in smaller, rural and even more affluent society.
It is much easier and much safer to just accept capitalist
consumer society as the best of all possible worlds, in which the unsavoury
elements are a price worth paying. In fact, we need to see that all the
comforts and freedoms provided by the state are simply tools to buy our
passivity and avoid critiques of the totality.
My belief is starting to shift to look at establishing
genuine communities based on common ownership and common interests. These
communities could try to operate within the constraints of current spectacular
society, but I suspect will ultimately have to be separate from mainstream
society. The Hacienda must be built. While the working class built our cities
and many beautiful buildings, they are largely dictated by the whims of
politics, architectural specialists, taste and economics. Our cities of unitary
urbanism have simply become tools of capitalism. I question whether we can
humanise and environmentalise structures that have become misanthropic and
unsympathetic to the wider ecology. I am perplexed that truly wonderful
buildings are now left to rot (but are absolutely secured from any community
use) while modern soul-less glass, concrete and steel blocks still spring up.
Urbanism and architecture are just one part of trying to
envisage a society without government. It also needs clear analysis of work, transport,
human relationships, food and clothing production and supply, energy, nature,
education, health, water supplies, technology etc.
It is difficult for class struggle anarchists to contemplate
an amalgamation with lifestyle anarchists, but this may be the situation we
find ourselves in. In forthcoming posts I hope to explore how this could work
in theory and perhaps in practice, developing notions of mutual aid,
solidarity, cooperation and council communism within the context of the
sovereignty of the individual and harmony with the natural environment.
