Post-Scarcity Anarchism PDF

Preview

Summary

read some of it and summarize at least a chapter...

Description

Jeffrey Mensah Prof. Bomba English 302 May 15, 2017 A Critical Look at Post- Scarcity Anarchism Introduction Anarchists believe the present systems of government oppress rather than liberate the poor. It attacks the states use of power to safeguard its interest and those of the propertied classes. It shows that Democracy is under siege by the capitalist class of societies all over the world. This paper takes a look at the positive and the negative side of this kind of theory. Throughout the paper, it seems the Utopian community that anarchists envisioned is formed on ideals rather than the reality that human nature is. In response to that, a criticism on this system of social organization is sufficiently covered. In its place, a softer kind of anarchy is needed to liberate people from the present hardships enabled by the current systems . What Anarchy Means in Contemporary Society Anarchist propose the removal of all kinds of violence in societal relations. The philosophy of anarchists is based on freedom of the humans from the intervention of the state. Anarchist opposes the right of the state to control its subjects by violence. At the state level, anarchist believe that the elite capitalists control the state. Coercion sublimed by the law is not

different from the slave master’s weep. Human relations in a state is a forced though violence. The capitalist use their power to enslave the proletariat; a citizen has to work or face starvation. Anarchist terms it stupid to force another man to obey the will of the state using a stick or a gun. In a utopian society, violence is justified when used in self-defense (Murray, Bookchin pg 5557). Anarchism Compared to other Kinds of Social order. As opposed to other revolutionary forms of government that rose on people led revolutions, anarchists believe theirs will not be the replacement of one kind of oppression for another. Communism and Fascism are cases in point. The two rose on the backs of common people but turned out to be another form of oppression. Anarchists believe freedom and authority are incompatible. Authority is not difference from what it was during the slavery period. The sublimation of violence into the law and government does not change the reality that a class exists that lords over the rest of other people in the pretense that it is doing so under the mandate of the majority. The anarchist’s proponents (Errico, Malatesta) do not exempt the Republic with its democracy. Anarchists believe violence as the stuff of the capitalists and other kind of oppressors, but to achieve complete revolution violence is needed. Therefore, the notion that anarchists are violent people out o disrupt social order is true or wrong depended on the side you choose to follow. For anarchists to achieve what they want, they have to overthrow the present systems of social governance, and that can only be achieved through violence (Errico, Malatesta). Anarchism and Technology

Technology is vouched by anarchists as great enabler. The industrial world was organized around towns where electricity and piped water was available. However, in this age electricity and telecommunication infrastructure is available almost everywhere. This enables small groups of people to form their own industries and sell the commodities to large cooperations. Currently, Large American corporations have shifted their manufacturing bases out of the traditional manufacturing cities to third world countries or small villages within the United States. Anarchists believe technology gives people the same power that the capitalists had. Using technology, anarchist’s communities can trade with others thousands of miles away (Murray, Bookchin pg 64-67). Through technology decentralization is broken down, the key distinguishing feature of the present oppressive societal structure. Through the empowerment of small communities by telecommunication technology, small communities can become semi-states on their own. You can apportion your allegiance without the constraint of physical boundaries. And through technology, pro-anarchists believe such a utopian community will be orderly (Murray, Bookchin pg 64-76). Is Technology an Enabler or an Inhibitor of Anarchy? Jeremy Brecher (1973) Criticizes Bookchin on his assumption that everybody will be willing to abandon city life or prefer to live communally. The varied nature of humans makes this kind of life impossible. Not everybody will be tired of the city life or embrace communal living. Some people love city life very much while some socially awkward people would rather live in social seclusion. It is like imposing normal social orientation to gays and lesbians. One size fits all kind of thinking has proved not to work at all.

As Jeremy Brecher (1973) shows, a group of writers and social influencers estimated that the 1960s was the height of materialism. That after the sixties, conspicuous consumption and love for material things would reduce giving way to a society that cared less about material acquisition. The hippie movement was an example of this kind of idea. Bookchin attributes some of this transformation to the potential of the Cybernetics technology- what we call the digital technology. The 21st Century is here but nothing of the sort that he talks about has sufficed. Alvin Toffler (1990 pg 161-232), a futurist, gave a better prediction of the 21st Century. He envisioned the empowerment of other areas of the world as well as the breakdown of industrial organization of labor around the conveyor belt and emphasis on specialization. He talked about the transformation of power and decentralization of the workforce enabled by high connectivity through the internet. At the time Bookchin was creating his theory, the industrial economy was at its death bed, cornered by superior technologies such as telephones and an upcoming telecommunications technology. A shift of the workforce from the factories to supermarkets and fast-food restaurant- all enabled by automation of labor intense jobs. The autonomy made possible by digital technology has not broken down social structures. It is true that much has changed. Mass cultured has disappeared with the demise of mass production of the industrial age. The centers of the world have shifted from the Western Eastern divide to numerous centers of social-economic advancement; a good number of them found in the Southern Hemisphere (Toffler, Alvin pg 43-55). Democratization of cultural identity might be the closest thing to Bookchin’s idea of the community. It is no coincidence that his ideas sprung up around the time Feminist ideology was gaining popularity.

Brecher gives the example of Cuba as similar to the ideas espoused in the Post-Scarcity Anarchism. Cuba, like communist USSR, tried to centralize production. What ensued was dysfunction and confusion. There is a need for people to understand that social structures are complex systems that cannot be attributed to a single individual or regime. It is like attributing development in technology and science to one person. Just like the railroads, it took large companies to organize railway construction in the US. Hierarchy has proved to be necessary to hold society together (Brecher, Jeremy). Living in small communities gives a better chance for authoritarian kind of leadership. In the past, patriarchal societies held everyone in a leash. A small group of people lacks the complexities and dynamism that make absolute authority impossible in today’s bureaucracy. Therefore, it is easier to dominate such kind of group. The Russian revolution was a workers’ revolution, but it needed coordination to be successful. Lenin is often quoted as saying the revolution needed central co-ordination by people committed their energy to the revolution. An elite was formed before the revolution even begun (Brecher, Jeremy).

Socio-Ecology and Anarchy Anarchists of in the Fashion of Murray Bookchin pray for a dismantle of the present ‘Hierarchical’ society blaming it on the Bourgeois. This Anarchist prediction borders on the radical Marxist philosophy that failed spectacularly with the communist regime of USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republic). What we call the capitalist way of doing things has stood the test of time despite the prediction of anarchists and social revolution evangelists the like of Murray Bookchin. Technology is re-arranging society in fundamental ways unpredictable before, in the same way we cannot correctly predict the future. History has proven that society has always been

stratified even when man tried to eliminate the difference. Murray refers this a social capitalism when referring to Russia and China. The Bourgeois is not a group or generation of people who pass the mantle of economic dominance to their next generation as many people would like to believe. The dominate class changes with time-whichever race/society that was dominant some few hundred years ago is not dominant today. Anarchists believe human race is re-organizing itself into autonomous groups in defiance to class and hierarchical stratification. This might not be the real reason why this is happening at this time. Bookchin attributes some of this to technology and the freedom that it affords people today. This paper prefers to take the view that widespread of knowledge and the perverse nature of technology has empowered people across the world creating multiple centers of social and economic advancement. To this effect, Western domination in culture and economy is giving way to a system in which every-culture is well informed to appreciate its uniqueness. In matters economy, the once peripheral societies are catching up. This re-alignment is giving scholars new ways to identify and label a new social and economic Hierarchy.

A Critique of the Socio-Ecological Philosophy Bookchin is absolutely right by criticizing the ‘eco-faddist’s’ who roam the western world. Their shallow romantic ideas about nature are misplaced. It is true that a crop of intellectually shallow eco-activists has emerged that seem to advance the ecological agenda in the western world. One wonders whether one has to be brilliant student of philosophy to suggest solutions to the problem of ecology (Murray, Bookchin 79-81).

Bookchin Critical outlook on ecological activists, especially those with shallow knowledge, is that nature is more than just scenic views that we so cherish. Quark Yoga teachers and Eastern religion gurus often bandy around ‘Being one with nature’ in western capitals. Difficult solutions to implement are what we always get as solutions to ecological problem. Society has detected a lack of honesty to those restless ecology crusaders. It would be prudent for ecological philosophers to note that non-human nature has the capacity to evolve. Moreover, in that capacity lays the potential to evolve past some damages done by this capitalist society. Bookchin is right to dismiss biocentrism on their radical approach to solving problems. Most of them are so immersed into the biocentric utopia that they place societal development secondary to nature. (Murray, Bookchin. pg 115-118 Ibin 4). However his philosophy ignores solutions that these ‘less informed’ group of people bring forward. His damning view on human exploitation on nature is alarmist. It is true that solutions to ecological problems might be purely social. But must they be exactly the way Bookchin suggest? Must we alter our current social system for us to realize oneness with nature? This kind of radicalism is not necessary. History has shown that a radical approach to solving social or ecological problems often breeds new kinds of suffering that are worse that those previously resented. A hierarchical society might not be the only reason why ecology is suffering under human’s appetite for material gain. He gave the example of oil spills as the kind of problem that we should concern ourselves more than world life conservation. Nature evolves as human evolves. Geographical evidence points to a glacial age when most of the earth was covered in huge swaths of thick ice. Existence of animals like dinosaurs and Sabers that no longer exist. To radicals and ecology prophets of doom, ecology evolves just as humans evolve and society accepts new systems. Bookchin refers to a humanity that is

considers itself not part of nature as the most dangerous to nature. This humanity he clearly defines as the capitalist one; the one obsessed with material accumulation and domination of fellow men and nature. It is difficult to judge whether humans consider themselves part of nature or potentially different from nature (pg 131 Ibin 4). A perfect situation in which man has little regard for nature and destroys it in pursuit of his own selfish interest is impossibility. The wrath of Mother Nature is occasionally a reminder that we need to co-exist with nature. Calamities supposedly cause by our careless exploitation of nature has set the ball rolling on matters nature conservation. Through man’s ingenuity, he is healing the damages that he has caused to nature. The emergence of conservation efforts and restoration of damaged land is part of these efforts. The technology of which Bookchin abhors is giving nature a new lease of life. Innovations in the areas of electric cars and trains, use of wind power to generate electricity and other varieties of alternative fuels show that man is evolving to adapt to the demands imposed by nature. A co-dependency exists between man and nature that makes the notion that man is a master of nature doubtful. The utopian community that this author talks about is absolutely unnecessary to assure us of the future. Bookchin’s attend to prescribe what society needs to do comes across as reactionary to problems that can be solved. Philosophy and Nature The society and ecology have evolved together. Thomas Hobbes in his state of nature described man, and essentially ecology, as a war of all against all. That granted absolute freedom from the state and social organization, we would savagely fight for resources indiscriminately and the winner takes it all. In the Philosophy of Social Ecology the same ideology is applied in relation to man and nature. It predicts that man will eventually destroy nature and himself or he

will adapt a radical social structure that will unite him and nature. Aristotle named the ‘’Principle of the Golden Mean as the’ as the underlying ethics principle. For people like Bookchin, an ethical approach to socio-ecology would guarantee us utility while we look for better solutions. Human existence is supported by nature. Few unethical exploiters of natural resources should not cause as widespread panic to an extent where we paint grim pictures of our future (Murray, Bookchin pg 40-45 Ibin 4). Plato, in the Republic, conceptualized a stratified city-state as an ideal structure for ensuring justice for all. The structure is hierarchical as the capitalist system that we love to vilify. It is better when Bookchin agrees elite politicians patronized communist states. The Ecology philosophy suggested by Arne Naes forgets that its only humans who can tell when the ecology is damaged or when the ecology needs a break from exploitation. That in itself already creates a hierarchy in which humans are at the top courtesy of their superior mental faculties. Non-humans such as wildebeest have no ability to stop ecological degradation. A suggestion that humans ought to adapt to assumed needs of the environment for survival is too radical if not laughable. Anarchists do not appreciate the need of ‘guardians’ in society. Not all ecological problems should be hipped on a bourgeois class hell-bent on material accumulation. Conclusion Well-meaning individuals came up with a proposal on how greater freedom can be achieved through another re-organization of Society. However, gray areas exist on how that can work. Utopian ideas are just that, Utopia. Human nature has proved that ideals cannot work perfectly. A power hungry, well-organized group who ran thriving economies to the ground hijacked good ideologies like Marxism. A possibility that the anarchist ideal might follow the

same path is very likely. However much we criticize Capitalism, it is still the system that has stood the taste of time. An overzealous anarchist movement might get society into more problems than the present system.

References Errico, Malatesta Anarchy. 2014, Create Space Independent Publishing Platform Murray, Bookchin Post scarcity anarchism. 1986, Second edition, Black rose books, New York. Dolgoff, Sam,. Modern Technology and Anarchism. 1986, Libertarian Labor Review#1, pp7-12, Retrieved on 6 May, 2017 from radicalarchives.org. Bamyeh, Mohammed A.. Anarchy as order. (2009) Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Brecher, Jeremy and Murray, Bookchin . Post Affluence Anarchy : A Dialogue. 1973, Retrieved on 6 May, 2017 from radicalarchives.org. From Root & Branch No. 4 (1973), pp. 7– 31. Murray, Bookchin. The Philosophy of Social Ecology. 1996, Black Rose Books, New York.

Toffler, Alvin. Power Shift: Knowledge, Wealth, and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century. 1990, Bantam Books Williams, Dana M... "Review of Anarchy as Order: The History and Future of Civic Humanity by Mohammed Bamyeh. 2012" Societies Without Borders 7 (1): 128-131. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/swb/vol7/iss1/8...