That I am no fan of capitalism or any of the Abrahamic religions should come as no surprise to anyone who has read any of my essays. To me capitalism is merely a reworking of feudalism where one can become a lord by buying the lordship and the serfs under him/her besides being born into it.
The results are generally the same. A few elites at the top of the heap making hey of the miserable lives of those underneath. “Any difference that makes no difference is no difference.”
That the Abrahamic religions go so well with feudalism and capitalism should come as no surprise either. Truly a codependent relationship. Or that the constitution says separation of church and state but nothing about church and commerce or commerce and state. Which makes the sate and the church second cousins, as it were.
Nor do I like any kind of hierarchical for of government. Leaders – whether you call them presidents, prime ministers, premiers or what have you – will invariably become dictators and/or absolute rulers, however benign they may appear. And will nearly always kowtow to those with the most monetary influence.
There are those who think the answer to this is to just let everything run amuck and it will take care of itself. They also seem to think that they themselves would some how be immune to the consequences of this. Interestingly enough, they are also the same ones who want to stock pile the equivalence of Fort Dicks in weapons. I guess their immunity comes from Smith and Wesson.
Then there are those who think we can regulate this to get a kinder and gentler version of feudalism. With kinder and gentler robber baron scum bags at the top. That these people at the top will “see the light’ and “the error of their ways” and not try to change the rules once again. And that worked so well last time. Problem with regulations is, who regulates the regulators ?
And then there are those who think everything is just fine, lets not rock the boat. These are the ones who were called bourgeoisie, who are all chummy with the elites and are more than willing to lick the elites rear ends clan when required. What these people refuse to accept – along with right – is that they too could and probably would – become victims as well. Tolerated until replace by a computerized but washer.
The third act will be a lot more of a noire troisième acte. Desperate and brutal. There are those who seem to think that the end of this act will culminate is a rising up of the people in revolt somehow and cause a capitulation of the PTB. With visions of France and Russia in the early 19th century, forgetting that the PTB have them horribly out gunned. That any stand could – and most likely would – become suicidal. In those earlier revolutions, the people and the PTB were pretty well matched. That has ceased to be the case for quite some time. For what should be obvious reasons. Like those on the right and the preppers who seem to be living under the delusion that they too could fight off a government assault. Not bloody likely. This is not Syria where rebel forces would have access to the kinds of armament needed to be successful. All supplied by sympathetic outsiders. As those same outsiders are part of the PTB.
Nor is this Egypt where the military was supportive of the protestors, but only up to a point. Remember that the military – any military – is highly structured and hierarchical and ordered. And is little concerned with how this is maintained. The situation will become more oppressive and more desperate as time goes on.
The good news is that the last act can turn out much better but will require more work and more sacrifice and a completely different view of the world and community and interpersonal relationships there in. More of an anarchist view with little or no central government. Either locally or regionally. A consensus approach not unlike OWS. As viewed by such visionaries as Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman . Or even Dimity Orlov. Small groups who come together by desire rather than by any decree. But it will not be easy by a long shot.
The tentacles of the system reach far. Consider real estate taxes. Even if you own the land you are living on out right and choose not to even engage in commerce and use the monetary system, you still have to pay them or you lose you land. And this sort of thing will become more and more draconian. Count on it.
The answer may even be to relocate to a smaller and yet more corrupt country. Where the corruption on a local level can be of use in this way. Ironic but maybe necessary. For large countries – like here – have the corruption institutionalized and are a closed system in this respect.
And those who choose to live outside it will be view by the PTB more and more as some kind of threat to them. Which they are, but not necessarily in the way they imagine. For the real threat would be to their status and the dependency there upon. Not wishing to be part of, or supporting of the status quo would be seen as subversive.
Working toward the kind of society we envision is never a lost cause. And passing on this vision – even in the family structure – is what will bring about any real and lasting change. And put a halt to this sick, dark comedy we have been living for the last few thousand years. Where teachers and guides replace leaders, and wisdom and enlightenment and virtue and altruism are cherished and valued.



24 Comments

I agree with your comparison of capitalism to feudalism, but I respectfully disagree with you about hierarchy. Hierarchy of one form or another is as unavoidable as breathing to human beings who live in any sort of family or community. Why? Because in any community, there will seldom be 100% consensus on anything. That’s just human nature as well.
In some ways, we’re basically pack animals. There will always be those who are dominant in some facets of life and more or less submissive in others. It’s in our genetic code. Anarchism, IMHO, is just as much a fool’s belief as beneficent capitalism.
As for revolutionary France and Russia, the PTB, in theory, had the populace hopelessly outgunned as well. In both countries, the revolutions were successful, in the sense of overthrowing the old regimes, because the military either disintegrated or joined the revolutionaries, or both.
America is no different. There can be no successful revolution, peaceful or otherwise, without at least the tacit support of the military. And our servicemembers and veterans aren’t just automatons programmed to blindly follow orders.
I know. I’m a veteran.
I feel you on the property taxes– they take a third of my income.
When the worries of the world get worse it helps me to remember that I’m generally powerless over the state of things– and must accept it. Even if I conclude that we’re fu@ked. Perhaps something good and unforeseen can come from it. Pain is a great motivator. Perhaps it will motivate you to look down south for a retirement spot that’s worth the hassle. If you find one let me know. Rec’d
This is why any attempt to directly defy the PTB will fail.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy
Rest assured they would have no problem with disappearing people for ever. And I still do not believe that the military – who are even more corrupt than the civilian police – would intervene.
Yep, the PTB have us right where they want us so much so that we can’t even agree on who the PTB are. It’s amazing how divided the serfs are, the democratic party animals were elated that Obama got 51% of the vote. Wow. The two parties are the same fucking thing and they still have us divided with only 1% having the gumption to vote third party.
I tell ya though, if we could just bring down the central banks.
Mahalo, cmk…! An excellent synopsis of what we face…!
Massive Civil Disobedience is the only answer to what ails us…!
I think it’s fruitless to find “human nature” beneath all of the historically-based cultural conditioning that circulates throughout all human societies. Versatility is what’s in our genetic code, and we really haven’t explored all the possibilities yet — not even close.
tweeted and recommended cmauk.
cmaukonen, the advantage of consensus process as used by Occupy is that mere voting tends to militate against minority factions within a group time and time again, and so it’s inadequate to the organization of small, tightly-knit groups with ironclad solidarity between the members. This is the real issue of social hierarchy — are we trying to design groups in which decisionmaking involves domination, or is everyone being listened to and are all interests being granted a fair hearing?
You do not own the land. It is rented from the state.
So, I’m not sure what to make of this.
I guess you don’t like organized religion, or at least the ‘abrahamic’ faiths. I guess hinduism and Jainists are OK? Sikhs? Not sure why you’d leave them off your list. And you don’t like capitalism…whatever that is. Or organized government. Or people that don’t do anything to fight the system. Or those that arm themselves, potentially to fight the system. Or the military. Or regulators.
And your ‘solution’ to this is…anarchy with low level local integration? For 6 billion people, you advocate a system that would barely work for an amish co-op. A ‘consensus approach’ when exactly what would happen if consensus isn’t reached? A child-like approach to governing in a world with nuclear weapons and disparate groups.
Sorry…my bad.
Oh and the current system works so well too. /snark
But really there is no case where a hierarchical system did not become dictatorial, benefiting the few at the expense of the many.
Ideally I would like to see a community where membership was voluntary and decision making considered all views but majority conscientious was the rule.
Where all views and abilities are valued and property ownership was not as important as what one contributed to the community.
No, the flaws of the current system are obvious. But to say ‘throw it out’ and replace it with…well, tbh nothing, isn’t really an answer.
Eventually it will be replaced. But to replace it with a slightly different version of the same thing makes no sense.
And the main reason people want to hang on to it is because it is familiar. It is what they know from childhood as most families are run that way and some even more harshly.
Change is always uncomfortable and hierarchical systems appeal to the mentally and emotionally lazy. Hierarchical systems require considerably less personal responsibility and honesty.
Every time I hear someone on TV or radio say “what we need in this country is leadership”, I want to vomit. No, goddammit, what we need is to stop wallowing in this hero worship/daddy fetish bullshit. But then I have to concede that Ohio Barbarian is probably right: people aren’t going to do anything without some charismatic figure to follow. To what extent, if any, can the fabric of existence be altered? How can we change course if, as Schopenhauer (among others) insisted, we didn’t set the course to begin with but were preprogrammed?
I’ll never say we shouldn’t try. If only out of contempt for the people who chain us down and abuse us, we absolutely should try. But bringing about any substantive change is such a massive, backbreaking task, and we shouldn’t expect much of a perpetually distracted, frightened, dopey populace that can’t think straight enough to channel its anger into constructive activity.
Oh I just love it. My father said almost exactly the same thing and this was back in the 1950s. HA
Dang me you nailed it right there !
Comment recd’
Hey cmaukonen ,I don’t know how violent resistance would shake out once monopoly and feudalism are seen as synonymous ,and your prediction is as good as the next ,but I don;t believe your logic passes muster .Feudalism antedated capitalism’s belief in wealth expansion and enjoyed an extractionist ethos of just taking others ‘assets and labor value via a zero-sum expediency .
Within this framework ,it would seem logical that a ruling order willing to slaughter millions would never countenance the anarcho-elegance of your vision ,which is also pretty much my vision .
Everyone I encounter believes this will end in anti-government violence ,from which we will endure massive suffering .Accordingly , I’m sure your vision would receive overwhelming support if it weren’t deemed wishful thinking .
I live in Berkeley ,so this is a discussion that elicits ever-increasing interest .
“that stone Buddha deserves all the birdshit it gets
I wave my skinny arms like a tall
flower in the wind” Ikkyu
And that goes for every damn statue of a president, congressman, sports figure, financier, corporatist and religious figure as well.
My view is that mother nature is the real equalizer. The next 50-100 years is just the flailing of under educated masses. Most of which will never know good peanut butter.
ARG !!!
I agree with you that both feudalism and capitalism are class systems in which the immiseration and exploitation of the many is used to prop up the few. At the same time, and as defogger mentions, I think a fundamental shift occurs in the transition from feudalism to capitalism, which has to do with accumulation. Feudalism is an essentially static system with direct appropriation, whereas capitalism introduces the notion (and necessity) of infinite expansion and capital valorization along with that of wage labor. In other words, the feudal lord can (in theory) subsist on a flat rate of wealth extraction over time, whereas the capitalist requires not just continual but expanding wealth/profit. This is a qualitative as well as a quantitative shift.
Where I disagree with you is in the notion that we can replace the current order with “small groups who come together by desire rather than by decree.” This kind of model makes sense for small communities which themselves produce the vast majority of the products they consume, i.e. hunter-gatherer societies and the like; in a complex, developed society it is no longer feasible. The production of things like iPhones and indoor plumbing requires the coordination of a tremendous amount of people and processes across the globe (and over time); I fail to see how micro-level consensus governance could could coordinate the necessary production and circulation of the various raw materials and resources which go into your toilet seat. The “free” market provides such a mechanism, albeit an imperfect, error-prone and highly exploitative one; it seems to me our task is not to abolish this mechanism but to replace it with a better, more equitable and more democratic mechanism. The alternative is to revert to some primitive clan society in which we weave our own clothing, subsist through the winter on onions and root vegetables, and shit in the woods–which, while a romantic notion, is one I don’t find particularly desirable.
It seems to me that there is a fundamental error in your logic: “democracy under capitalism is unjust and exploitative, therefor the solution is to abolish democracy!” You confound the two things–democracy and capitalism–when it’s the latter that we need to abolish. Democracy under capitalism leads to exploitation and inequality because we live in an exploitative system with a social conception of private wealth; the problem would not then be democracy itself but rather its interaction with such an economic system. I think it was Horkheimer who said that anarchism and authoritarianism are flip sides of the same (capitalist) coin because they both conceive of authority only as a violent and oppressive force… which is to say that they conceive of authority only negatively (as coercion) and likewise conceive of freedom only negatively (as freedom from coercion), when what we need is a positive notion of both authority and freedom. The ideal of an empowering and genuinely democratic authority with broad social backing and operating in the interests of the whole is not an objective impossibility; it is merely impossible under capitalism.
I guess this is why I remain a democratic socialist in the broadest sense: because I locate the root/source of the problem not in the governmental system but the economic one; as Horkheimer also said, the ideal of democracy would be “the Greek polis without the slaves.” Of course, the question of how a democratic socialism could coordinate the global processes needed for advanced production remains an unanswered one; Seth Ackerman has an article in the latest issue of Jacobin which, while tentative, tries to explore some possible answers to this question. I’d urge you to check it out.
The anarchy of the free market is what coordinates? This reflexive and oxymoronic credit aggrandizes coordination to a legal system which frees individuals to exploit “their property” at each individual’s will. This legal system is not coordinating, it is freeing powerful individuals to coordinate for their self-aggrandizement. Capitalists got away with this logic because they fought the feudal concentration of authority in the aristocracy and the church. But capitalism is now responsible for it’s own crimes. “Freedom” is not the root for coordination, it is an appeal to evade undesired coordination – oppression.
And here we are, oppressed by the threat of extinction at the hands of the “free”, and you attribute “free” markets with the exclusive power to coordinate the production of toilet seats. It’s ludicrous. Ossified, Panglossian, TINA thinking.
Yes to your appeal to positive leadership (but not to authority) and democratic governance. But parallel to the capitalist fraud of “freedom”, is the cloak of democracy the hegemonic capitalist empire exploits. Naturally capitalist monsters so would sell their empire. But “democracy” is also advantageous in empire management, both as an anarchic front to the collusion of the truly free and as an object of their hypocritical ridicule.
Democratic socialists may want to salvage that governmental system from the tyranny of the free market, but it is disturbing question just how much “democracy” in embroiled in capitalist fraud.
I look forward to reading Ackerman’s article. Thanks.
Thanks! I wish more had changed since then…I really do.