Keep fighting or is it time to leave spectacular capitalist society? Random draft initial thoughts

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.