As the 2020 presidential season heats up (way too early, it's still early 2019!), I am continually reminded how much the term "progressive" has been co-opted by neoliberal interests.
My frustration has grown to the point where I believe it is necessary to change how I identify myself. The "Progressive PGH" identity seems to have largely run its course, and change is in the air.
To be honest, I have experienced a transformation of my politics over the next 5-10 years anyway. While I still think of "progressive" as someone roughly around Bernie Sanders' set of politics and principles, I no longer personally identify with that system. Despite calling himself "democratic socialist", Bernie has, at least in the modern era, not been particularly critical of capitalism and neoliberalism. He has called for expanded social programs and "safety nets", which is by all means a great step that goes far beyond what most politicians call for, but falls short of the system change that I believe is needed to address climate change and poverty.
I wrestled a bit with exactly what sort of politics I want to see. Simply screaming negative criticism of every candidate isn't a political stance; I need a vision of the future that I can point to. Whenever someone tells me I have to pick the lesser between the two evils, I can point to that vision and say "No, there's another option".
The problem with progressivism is that it is too much of a capitalist apologist framework. It seeks to cover up the problems of capitalism by claiming that if only we have more social programs, and take a firm stand against government corruption, everything will be fine. This isn't true, because capitalism relies on exploitation, meaning it will always generate corruption, and always exploit poverty no matter how many social programs you have. You can't fix capitalism, you have to oppose it. Same can be said for the similar philosophy of social democracy.
The problem with democratic socialism is that relies too much on a top-down approach. Many of the people I've met that refer to themselves by some variant of this term are largely followers of Marx -- or at least today's interpretations of Marx -- who envisioned that the transition to a more communist society (a classless society) would first transition through a socialist phase, in which the state government would be used to smash capitalism. Once capitalism is broken up -- private property ended in particular -- the government would then be dissolved into more localized, democratic community ownership. Firstly, I've not heard many recent socialists talking about dissolving government -- the focus has been entirely on capitalism so far, which often segues people into politics and the idea that political parties like the Democratic Party are the platform with which to take control of government and smash capitalism. As the political party has been co-opted by capitalist forces, this idea seems wildly unrealistic. It puts the cart before the horse, in my opinion. Second, the transition of centralizing power into a state government first is a dangerous move, one that was taken advantage of by autocrats like Lenin. Concentrating power is never a good idea, and so while I generally agree with the long-term goals of democratic socialists, I'm not a fan of the methodology.
Lately I've been reading about a number of other philosophies. Anarchism is a different take on socialism, calling for a much more bottom-up social revolution against oppression by both capitalism and authoritarian government, which is much more appealing to me. Bakunin, Kropotokin, Rocker, are some good names to read about along this line of thought.
Even better were those that came later, around the 1960s, who looked fusing socialism (particularly anarchist thought) with environmentalism. Perhaps the biggest name along this path for me was Murray Bookchin and his philosophy of social ecology. Bookchin opposed capitalism as well as large government, similar to anarchism, but instead saw the world as confederation of municipalities, democratically-run communities that put ecology and human rights first.
Bookchin's philosophy more than most other people I read strongly appealed to me. Interestingly, Bookchin's philosophy played an important role in the early days of the foundation of the Green Party, which is one reason the Green Party has such strong "eco-socialist" roots.
Another interesting source of inspiration was the London Green Left Blog, which looks to authors from all of these philosophies to talk about eco-socialism, a fusion of ecology and environmentalism with anti-war and civil rights politics, taking the best ideas from socialism and even more anarchist-leaning thought such as Bookchin.
To me, the future seems to be some flavor of eco-socialism. We can't stay stuck on old ideologies; even if some are appealing, we have to recognize that today's circumstances -- a worldwide economy, connected by the Internet, facing the global threat of climate catastrophe -- are different than anything faced by past generations. By necessity, we need something new -- informed by old radical thought, but adapted to today.
So I've decided to more explicitly join that movement by renaming my account. I've decided to use the handle Pittsburgh Green Left instead. "Green" because of the focus on ecology, as well as a call-back to the Green Party's key values. "Left" because of a general support of leftist ideologies, socialism and anarchism. The whole name of course is also a nod to the influential London Green Left Blog.
Therefore, the new blog will also be Pittsburgh Green Left -- update your bookmarks! I may transfer some of the most relevant blogs from here to there, but new posts will go there specifically.
Friday, April 26, 2019
Saturday, February 16, 2019
Syndicalism and Resistance
Rudolf Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice is a short introduction to anarchist theories. In particular, the syndicalist form of anarchism holds that anarchism will be achieved only through united collective struggle via radical unions (syndicates). These unions would not only advocate better worker conditions, but demand direct worker control.
A key focus of unions is therefore teaching members, in both anarchist theory as well as self-sufficiency. Sort term, unions can demand better conditions and pay, but the long term goal must be creating entirely new power structures that can eventually grow and overtake the state and private business.
One thing I liked about the book was the concise summary of the history of anarchist thought. While acknowledging that many cultures historically held views similar to anarchism, modern anarchism was born from the ideas of thinkers like Godwin and Proudhon, who wrote that "[private] property is theft". Bakunin built on Proudhon's ideas, firmly believing only struggle would win because the ruling classes were too proud to allow even modest reform without a fight. Kropotkin expanded Bakunin's ideas even further into the realm of anarchist communism, believing the community owned not only the means of production but the products themselves to ensure everyone has basic needs met. Essentially, while all anarchists share the same end goal, there are differences of opinion on how exactly to get there. Some of those differences were very important, and discussed in the final chapter in which Rocker tracks the evolution of anarcho-syndicalism itself through the modern era.
The other thing I like about Rocker's book is that it gives a list of actions that can be taken by workers. Roughly, the possibly direct actions include:
Boycott. Workers boycott certain products and companies, not only for personal use but also for industrial use at the workplace.
Sabotage. Contrary to the typical English meaning, it comes from French and refers to doing work in a "clumsy" manner. In other words, deliberately working slowly so that one is technically following the rules and laws but is still impacting the bottom line of the company. Extreme versions of sabotage could include altering or damaging the equipment to prevent further work, even if new workers are brought in.
Sit-down strike. Workers strike but do so while occupying the workplace so that other workers can't be brought in so easily to replace them.
General strike. Workers in all industries strike together in order to bring the whole economy to a halt and make the elite pay attention to demands. Police and/or militia can be expected to respond at that point, but Rocker points out that a general strike by its nature is very decentralized, which spreads police forces thin and makes it easier for workers to resist.
All in all it is a short (about 100 pages) book that makes a great introduction if you're looking to learn the basics of anarchist thought.
A key focus of unions is therefore teaching members, in both anarchist theory as well as self-sufficiency. Sort term, unions can demand better conditions and pay, but the long term goal must be creating entirely new power structures that can eventually grow and overtake the state and private business.
One thing I liked about the book was the concise summary of the history of anarchist thought. While acknowledging that many cultures historically held views similar to anarchism, modern anarchism was born from the ideas of thinkers like Godwin and Proudhon, who wrote that "[private] property is theft". Bakunin built on Proudhon's ideas, firmly believing only struggle would win because the ruling classes were too proud to allow even modest reform without a fight. Kropotkin expanded Bakunin's ideas even further into the realm of anarchist communism, believing the community owned not only the means of production but the products themselves to ensure everyone has basic needs met. Essentially, while all anarchists share the same end goal, there are differences of opinion on how exactly to get there. Some of those differences were very important, and discussed in the final chapter in which Rocker tracks the evolution of anarcho-syndicalism itself through the modern era.
The other thing I like about Rocker's book is that it gives a list of actions that can be taken by workers. Roughly, the possibly direct actions include:
Boycott. Workers boycott certain products and companies, not only for personal use but also for industrial use at the workplace.
Sabotage. Contrary to the typical English meaning, it comes from French and refers to doing work in a "clumsy" manner. In other words, deliberately working slowly so that one is technically following the rules and laws but is still impacting the bottom line of the company. Extreme versions of sabotage could include altering or damaging the equipment to prevent further work, even if new workers are brought in.
Sit-down strike. Workers strike but do so while occupying the workplace so that other workers can't be brought in so easily to replace them.
General strike. Workers in all industries strike together in order to bring the whole economy to a halt and make the elite pay attention to demands. Police and/or militia can be expected to respond at that point, but Rocker points out that a general strike by its nature is very decentralized, which spreads police forces thin and makes it easier for workers to resist.
All in all it is a short (about 100 pages) book that makes a great introduction if you're looking to learn the basics of anarchist thought.
Wednesday, January 2, 2019
Anarchism and Social Revolution
My recent readings from Bookchin and Kropotkin had me interested to learn more about anarchism. I was recently at the Big Idea co-op bookstore in Pittsburgh, and while browsing came across a series of books. The first is "What is Anarchism?" by Alexander Berkman, which is actually two of his essays combined into a book. It seemed like a perfect introduction and so I bought it (as well as a few others that I'll hopefully write about soon -- stay tuned!).
What is Anarchism? is a fantastic read to get a "lay of the land" on anarchist philosophy. The book is written in an almost conversational tone with a natural flow from one chapter to the next, sort of meant to be an on-going conversation where the author anticipates and answers your questions as they come up at the end of each small chapter. In this way it is similar to Kropotkin's books; not sure if that's a trend of anarchists or just lucky, but either way I have greatly appreciated the "down-to-earth" writing style that isn't too heavy in jargon. I find a lot of socialist material is weighed down by Marxist economic terminology, and while I can (mostly) follow it, I always think about how inaccessible such writings can be to the general public. If our goal is to grow the movement, then we need better educational materials. Berkman's writing is clear and informative and I think would be interesting to any worker that has started on the path to questioning capitalism.
A short summary of, What is Anarchism? is that Berkman essentially makes an argument that the only realistic way to bring about change -- what he calls the social revolution, to distinguish from political or violent revolution -- to end the entrenched capitalist system is by organizing for a general strike. A general strike would mean as many as possible -- ideally everyone! -- would go on strike simultaneously, and not just those from a particular industry or business. Berkman argues that only a complete shutdown of our economy and politics would be enough to force concessions and ultimately win an anarchist socialist society. It's a pretty convincing argument, citing other authors as well as Berkman's own experience following the Russian revolution and its successes and failures.
But why is it needed in the first place? The goal of social revolution is "the abolition of government and of economic inequality, and the socialization of the means of production and distribution". In particular, social revolution is not about fighting and destruction but instead about construction -- about constructing a new system. We don't destroy farms and factories, but we take ownership of them for the workers. We "reorganize conditions for the public welfare", as Berkman says. He argues that much of the poverty and inequality that we see today is a result of capitalism, and is upheld largely by coercive forces of government authoritarianism in the form of "private property" laws, meant to keep wealth and power in the hands of a few rather than the collective benefit.
Therefore, we must at once abolition capitalism and government and replace it with a new system that ends inequality and creates democracy, and his view is that a general strike is the most likely method to be successful. Berkman calls for a social revolution because he deems that a political revolution is not possible because political parties are designed to protect capitalism and cannot be infiltrated within or via independent politics. He also deems a violent revolution undesirable and likely to fail because a citizen army cannot resist the full might of the state's police and military forces; plus, as he points out, our goal must be construction and not destruction. So to Berkman, a general strike creating a social revolution is the only way to win victory, for politics and the military machine cannot function if all of the workers throw down the tools and refuse to work for them or uphold the system any longer.
Of course, organizing up to that point will take a lot of work and convincing, and so Berkman talks about the need to educate and organize now until the movement is strong enough. A "weak" strike too early that does not include all workers can fail and hurt the workers more as capitalism retaliates. Berkman therefore argues that until the social revolution, we must spend our time organizing, educating, and building unions that treat all workers as equals and are focused on attacking capitalism and establishing grassroots democracy as a whole rather than only demanding smaller changes like higher wages. He cautions against organizing only around manual labor unions, as he cites intellectual labor like engineering will also be necessary to construct a new world. Even within manual labor, agricultural work is at least as important as industrial work. Thus a united general strike in solidarity between all manual and intellectual labor must be well organized.
The real fight isn't even so much the strike itself, but constructing a new system that can last and not fall right back into the traps of authoritarianism and capitalism. Berkman reminds us, similarly to Kropotkin's call in The Conquest of Bread, that the revolution will fail unless its first priority is getting food and basic needs to all. So a high priority of the social revolution must be unionizing farms, and creating community gardens for self-sufficiency prior to a full strike and action. Once action is under way, Berkman argues citizen committees would form to ensure everyone gets needed housing and supplies, again a call back to Kropotkin's plan. As communities become self-sufficient and needs are met, the interest in returning to the old system and economy will wane and be replaced with an anarchist society that respects the rights of individuals and encourages mutual aid and cooperation without the use of force that capitalism and authoritarian government require.
In short, it's a great read if you'd like to learn about what it means to be an anarchist and that anarchist vision for change. Like many references, a little light on details of organizing -- what exactly does it mean to organize? How do you remain united and organized prior to the general strike? How do you win enough small victories to keep workers united toward the end goal? These are difficult questions for sure, but ones I think worth visiting. While I am definitely confident a non-violent social revolution largely based on strikes and mutual aid would be successful, I'm not sure that I entirely agree that electoral politics is worthless. Expecting to reform an entire system from within is probably a little much, but I think municipal elections can be won and used to create more democratic communities. I also think independent politics at the state and even national level can be valuable as educational tools, but as we see with the Greens can also backfire if we aren't careful how we present ourselves and our vision for change. Overall, Berkman's arguments are intriguing and I will definitely be thinking about them more as I learn and organize.
What is Anarchism? is a fantastic read to get a "lay of the land" on anarchist philosophy. The book is written in an almost conversational tone with a natural flow from one chapter to the next, sort of meant to be an on-going conversation where the author anticipates and answers your questions as they come up at the end of each small chapter. In this way it is similar to Kropotkin's books; not sure if that's a trend of anarchists or just lucky, but either way I have greatly appreciated the "down-to-earth" writing style that isn't too heavy in jargon. I find a lot of socialist material is weighed down by Marxist economic terminology, and while I can (mostly) follow it, I always think about how inaccessible such writings can be to the general public. If our goal is to grow the movement, then we need better educational materials. Berkman's writing is clear and informative and I think would be interesting to any worker that has started on the path to questioning capitalism.
A short summary of, What is Anarchism? is that Berkman essentially makes an argument that the only realistic way to bring about change -- what he calls the social revolution, to distinguish from political or violent revolution -- to end the entrenched capitalist system is by organizing for a general strike. A general strike would mean as many as possible -- ideally everyone! -- would go on strike simultaneously, and not just those from a particular industry or business. Berkman argues that only a complete shutdown of our economy and politics would be enough to force concessions and ultimately win an anarchist socialist society. It's a pretty convincing argument, citing other authors as well as Berkman's own experience following the Russian revolution and its successes and failures.
But why is it needed in the first place? The goal of social revolution is "the abolition of government and of economic inequality, and the socialization of the means of production and distribution". In particular, social revolution is not about fighting and destruction but instead about construction -- about constructing a new system. We don't destroy farms and factories, but we take ownership of them for the workers. We "reorganize conditions for the public welfare", as Berkman says. He argues that much of the poverty and inequality that we see today is a result of capitalism, and is upheld largely by coercive forces of government authoritarianism in the form of "private property" laws, meant to keep wealth and power in the hands of a few rather than the collective benefit.
Therefore, we must at once abolition capitalism and government and replace it with a new system that ends inequality and creates democracy, and his view is that a general strike is the most likely method to be successful. Berkman calls for a social revolution because he deems that a political revolution is not possible because political parties are designed to protect capitalism and cannot be infiltrated within or via independent politics. He also deems a violent revolution undesirable and likely to fail because a citizen army cannot resist the full might of the state's police and military forces; plus, as he points out, our goal must be construction and not destruction. So to Berkman, a general strike creating a social revolution is the only way to win victory, for politics and the military machine cannot function if all of the workers throw down the tools and refuse to work for them or uphold the system any longer.
Of course, organizing up to that point will take a lot of work and convincing, and so Berkman talks about the need to educate and organize now until the movement is strong enough. A "weak" strike too early that does not include all workers can fail and hurt the workers more as capitalism retaliates. Berkman therefore argues that until the social revolution, we must spend our time organizing, educating, and building unions that treat all workers as equals and are focused on attacking capitalism and establishing grassroots democracy as a whole rather than only demanding smaller changes like higher wages. He cautions against organizing only around manual labor unions, as he cites intellectual labor like engineering will also be necessary to construct a new world. Even within manual labor, agricultural work is at least as important as industrial work. Thus a united general strike in solidarity between all manual and intellectual labor must be well organized.
The real fight isn't even so much the strike itself, but constructing a new system that can last and not fall right back into the traps of authoritarianism and capitalism. Berkman reminds us, similarly to Kropotkin's call in The Conquest of Bread, that the revolution will fail unless its first priority is getting food and basic needs to all. So a high priority of the social revolution must be unionizing farms, and creating community gardens for self-sufficiency prior to a full strike and action. Once action is under way, Berkman argues citizen committees would form to ensure everyone gets needed housing and supplies, again a call back to Kropotkin's plan. As communities become self-sufficient and needs are met, the interest in returning to the old system and economy will wane and be replaced with an anarchist society that respects the rights of individuals and encourages mutual aid and cooperation without the use of force that capitalism and authoritarian government require.
In short, it's a great read if you'd like to learn about what it means to be an anarchist and that anarchist vision for change. Like many references, a little light on details of organizing -- what exactly does it mean to organize? How do you remain united and organized prior to the general strike? How do you win enough small victories to keep workers united toward the end goal? These are difficult questions for sure, but ones I think worth visiting. While I am definitely confident a non-violent social revolution largely based on strikes and mutual aid would be successful, I'm not sure that I entirely agree that electoral politics is worthless. Expecting to reform an entire system from within is probably a little much, but I think municipal elections can be won and used to create more democratic communities. I also think independent politics at the state and even national level can be valuable as educational tools, but as we see with the Greens can also backfire if we aren't careful how we present ourselves and our vision for change. Overall, Berkman's arguments are intriguing and I will definitely be thinking about them more as I learn and organize.
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
The Alternatives to Policing
The problem is not police training, police diversity, or police methods. The problem is the dramatic and unprecedented expansion and intensity of policing in the last forty years, a fundamental shift in the role of police in society. The problem is policing itself.Alex S. Vitale starts the book "The End of Policing" with this summary. In fact, it appears on the cover, not just inside the book!
The central thesis of Vitale's book is that policing itself has been a failure at dealing with societal problems. After an introductory chapter on the history of policing, which traces how the earliest police forces in the US were formed not to combat crime but to brutally break worker strikes and intimidate and capture black slaves and freedmen after the Civil War, the remaining chapters of the book address a number of "case studies," specific issues that have not been addressed by increased policing or harsher punishments.
The first police forces in the US, especially in the northern states, were used to break striking workers during the Gilded Age. Business developed close ties with government and elected officials, who hired police and deputized private security forces to effectively allow them to legally assault workers. The violence was blamed on the workers, and used as an excuse to arrest workers and break up strikes and unions. A lot of this occurred actually right here in western Pennsylvania and the region, since it was the site of early coal and steel strikes that resulted in more militant unions (and events like the Battle of Homestead in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, where unions clashed with the Pinkerton private detective agency). In fact, the first US state police force was the Pennsylvania State Police, and was modeled on military occupation forces in the Philippines after the US captured the territory from Spain, so right from the beginning police have been militarized and cultivated to look at themselves as occupiers more than anything else. It's an eye-opening read that shows that unfortunately this isn't just a recent trend, but a continuing theme among police forces.
A number of issues are brought up as social problems. The author looks at the problems, or at least the perceived problems by the elite, and discusses how "reform" has already been tried and largely failed for each of these issues, then proposes some alternatives to addressing the issues without the need for police or the court system.
- Schools -- Policing in schools has been a failure, only growing the "school-to-prison" pipeline by criminalizing student misbehavior that traditionally was settled outside of the courts. The growing placement of full time officers in schools contributes to schools feeling more like prisons than places of learning, and emphasizes punishment over teachable moments. Vitale suggests police should be removed from the schools, and the schools should receive more funding and resources to hire the needed counselors and support staff to work with students. A shift toward restorative justice for managing behavior issues needs to occur, one that emphases learning and contributing to the community, rather than the typical policing behaviors of control and punishment.
- Mental Health -- Individuals with various mental health disorders may act "disorderly" and even commit some crimes, but the police response has been disproportionate due to a lack of understanding of mental health. Too often these encounters end in the police severely injuring or killing the individual, and even when that doesn't happen, individuals become stuck in a court system that does not have the mental health resources necessary to help the individual. Vitale suggests that while police definitely need more training on de-escalation and mental health, that isn't enough. We need to massively overhaul our mental healthcare system to ensure more resources are devoted to helping people early on, before any "disorderly" conduct even occurs. We treat it as a health problem, not a criminal problem.
- Homelessness -- Many homeless people are actually mentally ill (so see above), but many others are the result of economic problems and the unaffordability of housing costs. Unfortunately, policing only puts homeless people into a court system and gives them criminal records that make it hard to ever find a job again, creating a cycle of poverty and homelessness. While some reforms tried to create "Homeless Courts" to help, these courts still criminalize poverty and do not have the appropriate resources to help people out of homelessness. Vitale suggests providing long-term housing (not just emergency shelters) and jobs (not just job training) to homeless in order to end the problem, not policing.
- Drugs -- The criminalization of drugs can largely be traced to institutionalized racism. Most drugs were legal until the early/mid 1900s. Opium (and derivative opiods) were first criminalized as a reaction to increased immigrants from China that set up opium shops in the US. Blacks were given cocaine regularly as slaves and servants to keep them working even when hungry, and so after slavery ended, cocaine was used as an excuse to harass and raid Black families. Similarly, cannabis (marijuana) was criminalized after an influx of immigrants from Mexico, as well as it becoming popular among Blacks in the jazz era, and many White leaders looked for a reason to keep the races from mixing. Cannabis was also used as an excuse to investigate anti-war activists during Vietnam. There is large evidence that criminalization has encouraged police to become drug dealers themselves. Instead, Vitale argues for the need for decriminalization and establishment of needle exchanges and clinics to help those that are addicted. In other words, we treat drugs largely as a health problem and not a criminal problem.
- Sex Work -- Sex work has been criminalized since a moral panic swept through the country in the early 1900s. The US has used its position to push for criminalization of prostitution worldwide ever since. The result has been a confusion between prostitution and human trafficking, which are not the same thing. Religious moral arguments always frame criminalization, and even more liberal attitudes like the "Nordic model", as a way to save women from "degrading" work, but that is a poor characterization when many sex workers are actual consensual and enjoy the work. For example, many women in Asian countries prefer sex work to the alternative "dignified" work under the capitalist model, which is long hours for low pay doing hard, tedious work at factories. Police arrest sex workers then push them into a court system that forces them to get "job training" and push them into capitalist work that they don't want to do. Vitale suggests that sex work should be decriminalized so that sex workers can form their own unions and companies that would provide healthcare, retirement, etc., without fear of police raids.
- Gangs -- Gang suppression became more common as a moral panic spread that the youth were involved in drugs and violence. Police developed violent suppression tactics and use of SWAT forces to combat gangs described as "hoodlums". However statistics show that most gang members join the gang for economic reasons; gangs provide a sense of security between jobs, and most members peacefully quit after a couple of years when a job opens up. Vitale suggests that the best way to eliminate gangs is not with police, but with greater economic opportunity in poor neighborhoods.
- Immigration -- Historically, the US was a near open border, only enforcing basic customs rules on international commerce and trading. A concern about policing immigration effectively started in the mid 1800s during a large wave of Chinese immigrants. Many of the border policing language referred to the "Mongolian hoarde" and was aimed at using immigration laws to prevent Chinese immigrants from being able to own property or become involved in government. The idea also spread to the Mexican border and targeted Mexican and Central/South American immigrants. So the beginnings of border security started with racist goals, then became about continuing the drug war (see above about drugs). New policing organizations like ICE were created and given authority over "constitution-free" zones near borders where all sorts of human rights violations occur. Vitale suggests that the proper way to handle immigration is by working with other nations to form not "free trade" but "fair trade" agreements that reduce economic inequality and violence, the main reasons for the influx of immigrants. Immigrants that wish to come should be put into a proper pathway to citizenship.
- Politics (protests) -- Many police forces, including the FBI, essentially started as forces to monitor political dissent. In particular, in the early days it started with surveillance of "anarchists", "socialists", and "communists" but evolved into environmentalists and social justice protesters in the modern era. Police still use surveillance to track protesters and even infiltrate political groups under the guise of "anti-terrorism". Police have evolved a focus on "controlling" protests by setting rules on when, where, and how people can protest, and the intimidating protesters into obeying the rules with riot gear and aggressive tactics. Vitale suggests that the rules for protests and permitting be taken away from police departments and put into local governments, where there will be transparency and opportunity for people to speak in favor or against proposed policy; while not perfect, it would protect 1st amendment rights much better than letting the police bureaucracy privately decide and police those rules. Vitale also suggests that any concern over protests would be minimized by creating a truly democratic system responsive to citizen concerns; most protests are driven into the streets by a government that does not listen and a distinct lack of choice on the ballot.
I've outlined the major arguments but the book is full of really great discussion as well as a lot of statistics and facts that back up all of these assertions.
I've always known we needed to change our criminal justice system, but I am now sold on the idea that in most cases, we don't even need policing in the first place. What we need is a fair and just economic system and real democracy, and most crime won't even exist.
Saturday, September 15, 2018
Democracy at Work, and what we get wrong about socialism
What if I told you many of those that call themselves "socialist" are in fact arguing for capitalism -- state capitalism, as opposed to privately-owned capitalism, but capitalism nonetheless?
Richard Wolff's book Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism is a short but very interesting and informative read that essentially argues just that. Wolff starts with a history of modern capitalism in the US and tracks the development of capitalist and Marxist thought through the 20th century. As Wolff looks at economic crises from the Great Depression up to the Great Recession of 2008, and even to other countries such as the collapse of the "socialist" government of Russia in the 1980s, Wolff points out how the common thread of them has been a failure of capitalism.
Classic Marxist thought puts an emphasis on who owns the property (or the modes of production) directly, which sets up a clash between capitalism as the private property system versus socialism/communism as the public property system. Typically in history, socialism's call for the end of private property has translated into a call for state ownership of the property. Wolff's central idea is that state ownership of property actually doesn't fix the problem, and simply replicates the capitalist hierarchical structure within government instead of a corporation. Instead of a CEO and board of directors, we now have a governor and committees, but the hierarchical, oppressive structure is the same. Countries like Russia or Venezuela that the media often describes as "socialist" or even "communist" are far from it, and actually mirror a capitalist structure more than anything else. And that is the same capitalist structure that is now eating the US economy right now.
Wolff instead revisits Marx to find a new definition of the capitalism versus socialism battle. Instead of ownership of property, Wolff defines the struggle as deciding who has ownership of the surplus; roughly speaking, who owns the profits of labor? Under private capitalism, it is clear that the capitalist class owns the profits of the workers, and can manage those profits in any way they see fit including giving themselves high salaries and bonuses; however, even with state-owned property, the profits are simply now owned and managed by the state, and still not the workers themselves. In both scenarios, some small group of elite -- whether business managers or government bureaucrats -- own and therefore direct the usage of the surplus. Therefore in this sense, most modern "socialist" countries are better described as "state capitalism".
The cure is therefore to democratize the surplus, and allow the workers themselves to directly and democratically decide what to do with any profits. True socialism is democracy in the workplace as well as politics, not a "socialist" government that controls and directs the economy.
Wolff goes on to describe how such a democratic worker self-directed enterprise (WSDE for short) would function. He makes several strong arguments that WSDEs would be able to provide workers with better jobs, better benefits, and be more resilient to economic and technological change. WSDEs would treat workers as equals, and rotate leadership positions in order to simultaneously promote leadership training for all members while also ensuring no single person or small group becomes "the leader" that "leads" them back into capitalism (it's that old adage that power corrupts, so we have to spread out the power as much as possible). He points out that WSDEs would be in a far stronger place to put environmental rights and human rights above profits, as the whole worker community would have a say in decisions. He also points out that WSDEs would generally do best rotating workers to different jobs, not only gaining everyone a little experience in many things, but also letting younger workers gain experience and decide what job path to take on their own within the WSDE. I think that's actually a fantastic idea, to let new workers try a few different things and pick their own path, it results in much happier and more productive workers. Of course, as technology changes and automation increases profits without labor, unlike corporations that might lay off employees to save on wages, WSDEs would be able to simply cut the amount of working hours -- say from 40 hours per week down to 35, or even lower! -- of everyone. In short, WSDEs due to their democratic nature will do a much better job at putting people first over profits than our current capitalist system.
I really like Wolff's characterization of socialism as ownership over the surplus (profits), and democratic decision making on what to do with said surplus. I think this emphasis on democratic decision making by the workers meshes well with the decentralized economy envisioned by the Green Party, and in fact, Wolff at the very end of the book makes a short plea for an independent political party focused on labor and making democracy in the workplace a thing. While this could be an entirely new Labor Party, I also think the Green Party is well established and already contains decentralized, grassroots democracy in both government and economics as part of its platform.
I believe Greens should read Wolff's book and really internalize it. Let's work to ensure the Green platform lives up to these concepts, and that we start a strong education campaign to let voters and workers know that Greens support their efforts at democratizing the workplace.
Richard Wolff's book Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism is a short but very interesting and informative read that essentially argues just that. Wolff starts with a history of modern capitalism in the US and tracks the development of capitalist and Marxist thought through the 20th century. As Wolff looks at economic crises from the Great Depression up to the Great Recession of 2008, and even to other countries such as the collapse of the "socialist" government of Russia in the 1980s, Wolff points out how the common thread of them has been a failure of capitalism.
Classic Marxist thought puts an emphasis on who owns the property (or the modes of production) directly, which sets up a clash between capitalism as the private property system versus socialism/communism as the public property system. Typically in history, socialism's call for the end of private property has translated into a call for state ownership of the property. Wolff's central idea is that state ownership of property actually doesn't fix the problem, and simply replicates the capitalist hierarchical structure within government instead of a corporation. Instead of a CEO and board of directors, we now have a governor and committees, but the hierarchical, oppressive structure is the same. Countries like Russia or Venezuela that the media often describes as "socialist" or even "communist" are far from it, and actually mirror a capitalist structure more than anything else. And that is the same capitalist structure that is now eating the US economy right now.
Wolff instead revisits Marx to find a new definition of the capitalism versus socialism battle. Instead of ownership of property, Wolff defines the struggle as deciding who has ownership of the surplus; roughly speaking, who owns the profits of labor? Under private capitalism, it is clear that the capitalist class owns the profits of the workers, and can manage those profits in any way they see fit including giving themselves high salaries and bonuses; however, even with state-owned property, the profits are simply now owned and managed by the state, and still not the workers themselves. In both scenarios, some small group of elite -- whether business managers or government bureaucrats -- own and therefore direct the usage of the surplus. Therefore in this sense, most modern "socialist" countries are better described as "state capitalism".
The cure is therefore to democratize the surplus, and allow the workers themselves to directly and democratically decide what to do with any profits. True socialism is democracy in the workplace as well as politics, not a "socialist" government that controls and directs the economy.
Wolff goes on to describe how such a democratic worker self-directed enterprise (WSDE for short) would function. He makes several strong arguments that WSDEs would be able to provide workers with better jobs, better benefits, and be more resilient to economic and technological change. WSDEs would treat workers as equals, and rotate leadership positions in order to simultaneously promote leadership training for all members while also ensuring no single person or small group becomes "the leader" that "leads" them back into capitalism (it's that old adage that power corrupts, so we have to spread out the power as much as possible). He points out that WSDEs would be in a far stronger place to put environmental rights and human rights above profits, as the whole worker community would have a say in decisions. He also points out that WSDEs would generally do best rotating workers to different jobs, not only gaining everyone a little experience in many things, but also letting younger workers gain experience and decide what job path to take on their own within the WSDE. I think that's actually a fantastic idea, to let new workers try a few different things and pick their own path, it results in much happier and more productive workers. Of course, as technology changes and automation increases profits without labor, unlike corporations that might lay off employees to save on wages, WSDEs would be able to simply cut the amount of working hours -- say from 40 hours per week down to 35, or even lower! -- of everyone. In short, WSDEs due to their democratic nature will do a much better job at putting people first over profits than our current capitalist system.
I really like Wolff's characterization of socialism as ownership over the surplus (profits), and democratic decision making on what to do with said surplus. I think this emphasis on democratic decision making by the workers meshes well with the decentralized economy envisioned by the Green Party, and in fact, Wolff at the very end of the book makes a short plea for an independent political party focused on labor and making democracy in the workplace a thing. While this could be an entirely new Labor Party, I also think the Green Party is well established and already contains decentralized, grassroots democracy in both government and economics as part of its platform.
I believe Greens should read Wolff's book and really internalize it. Let's work to ensure the Green platform lives up to these concepts, and that we start a strong education campaign to let voters and workers know that Greens support their efforts at democratizing the workplace.
Monday, May 14, 2018
Communalism, Libertarian Municipalism, and Confederalism
Once you read books like Murray Bookchin's "The Next Revolution: Popular Assemblies and the Promise of Direct Democracy", you realize just how authoritarian and right wing nearly all of our political parties and movements are today. Bookchin is a well-known anarchist, an anarcho-socialist flavor similar to Kropotokin's work but with a much stronger emphasis on ecology and the need to create a sustainable economy, not just one that always grows.
Of course, as I discussed in my essay on Kropotkin's "The Conquest of Bread", the term "anarchy" can create a misunderstanding in modern audiences. It isn't the complete absence of rules, but rather the breakdown of hierarchical power in both government and business. In that context, terms like "libertarian socialist" might be a better fit for modern audiences, but even that can create confusion as the Libertarian Party is very different from the libertarianism Kropotkin or Bookchin advocate for. It is effectively an argument of right-wing libertarianism versus left-wing libertarianism.
In any case, Bookchin calls his philosophy of ecologically-focused anarchism "Communalism" to emphasize that it is distinct from typical calls for socialism or communism. Bookchin discusses the inadequacy of Marx's analysis to handle modern problems caused by capitaliss. Indeed, Marx was mostly focused on economic factors and envisioned economic strikes by workers at factories as generating the coming "socialist revolution". However, Bookchin points out this isn't realistic today as by far the large majority of today's workers are not technical workers in factories but rather workers in service jobs that are more easily replaceable. Bookchin also emphasizes that capitalism has hurt more than just our economic needs, but also contributes to racism, sexism, urban decay, and the destruction of the environment, all issues that Marx did not really address.
Bookchin's goal of communalism is to break down all authoritarian power in all spheres of life, not just economic. Hierarchical power structures are by their nature authoritarian since a small group (and sometimes a single individual) sits in a "position of power" over others, and this structure exists in both the private sector (executive board of directors and CEOs) as well as government (governors/president and legislature). Communalism instead calls for the elimination of these positions as positions of power and policy-making, and instead calls for citizen assemblies to make economic and government decisions as a direct democracy. The citizen assembly would debate and deliberate and directly vote on all issues affecting the community, and attempt to achieve consensus whenever possible.
Bookchin makes a distinction between local governments, which are direct democracy citizen assemblies that derive just power directly from the people, and nation-state governments (such as the state or federal government in the US) that can easily become authoritarian when allowed to make decisions on behalf of the people. Bookchin's solution is a combination of what he calls "libertarian municipalism" and "confederalism".
Libertarian municipalism is the concept that the local city government (or municipality, could be a neighborhood or small district within a mega city like New York City) is where all public decisions are deliberated and made. A municipal assembly makes decisions by consensus and direct democracy, the key factor being the municipality is small enough that the assembly can be held with face-to-face discussions. The municipal assembly would also debate economic policy, not just politics, and "own" public resources and industry. In the ideal, private ownership of business would be replaced by public ownership of the industry, democratically-run by the assembly made up of everyone in the community, not just the workers. After all, the effects of industry can impact the entire community, not just the workers themselves, as is the case of pollution and environmental damage.
These municipalities would band together into a confederal state, which is very different from today's state. Pennsylvania today elects representatives that make decisions -- that is, set public policy -- on behalf of citizens, and this often leads to authoritarian abuses of power and corruption. Instead, confederalism proposes that the municipalities vote on policy directly, and once the policy is approved, muncipalities elect representatives to carry out that policy. In effect, state representatives shift from policy-makers to becoming administrators that simply oversee implementation of the policy chosen by the people. These elected officials would be expected to follow the guidelines set by the municipal assembly, and if not followed, could immediately be removed from the role by the municipality. Should a municipality "go rogue" and harm human rights or the environment, the rest of the municipalities would be able to unite in a confederal assembly to take action against the rogue. The confederal assembly would effectively have a previously-agreed-on set of human and ecological rights, defined by popular assemblies and backed by the people. In some sense, it's a return to the original ideas of small government and democracy enshrined in the US's articles of confederation which would establish the basic human and ecological rights to be protected by the confederation.
Bookchin proposes that this set up remains the most democracy and decentralized while also respecting the need for interdependence. The idea that every community can be 100% self sufficient and never need anything from the outside is ridiculous. We definitely take strides to ensure our communities are very self-sufficient, particularly for basic necessities like food, but we also work within a confederal state of peers of set overall policy and share resources. Bookchin cautions against going to far with decentralized self-sufficiency, that it can be just as dangerous as being too centralized. Bookchin sees communalism as effectively the best balance of decentralization with the need to cooperate in larger structures.
Bookchin does however admit that the plan does have some risk. Decentralization to this disagree can easily turn bad if we do not have a majority of people on the same page with a goal of taking power back from hierarchy and using it toward humanitarian and ecological goals. Bookchin therefore emphasizes the need for education. Democracy on its own won't immediately bring out a moral, ecological society. He also criticizes political parties for being too centralized, saying most national parties including the Greens, Labour, and Socialist parties too often become hierarchical when focusing on nation-state politics. He points to the fact that the German Greens, for example, despite having won many parliamentary seats have not advocated for communities and cities with Green elected officials to have more democratic influence and autonomy. He instead advocates Greens to run for local office on a platform of making the local government more democratic, changing the institution and the minds of people to expect direct conversation with the mayor and community leaders and a direct vote in municipal affairs. He asks, rightly so I think -- how can one take down the capitalist system if one cannot reform one's own neighborhood to be more democratic? Rather than taking actions that prop up a capitalist and hierarchical government (in fact, efforts for affordable housing and parks without corresponding pushes for democracy might actually empower the hierarchy more by giving it a "friendly face" that can be used to justify that the system "works"), we need to keep the emphasis on democratic governments to preserve our planet and can build a movement around today's government and slowly overtake it. In fact, Bookchin speculates that this might be the only way for Leftist politics to win again in the face of a long-established hierarchical system that most people have grown used to.
Largely I find myself very strongly agreeing with Bookchin's call for communalism and a much more democratic system. While always wanting to support stronger action for a living wage, affordable housing, healthcare, and fights against imperialism and other issues, I find myself always drawn back to the idea that "if we had more democracy, this probably wouldn't be an issue..." Poll after poll shows the majority of Americans don't want more war. A majority want to raise the wages and ensure healthcare for all. If we had democracy, we would have voted for it, and it'd already be done. The reason we don't have it is precisely our lack of democracy. Our representative government is much more authoritarian and hierarchical than it sounds like, and that concentration of power into legislatures makes it prone to corruption and the interests of the elite rather than the interests of the population as a whole.
It seems clear to me that a major effort of the Green Party and other organizations seeking change must be towards establishing greater democratic control of government and the economy. We must assert the will and power of the people as a whole to get the change we seek from bottom-up movement, not top-down decision making. I think Bookchin's proposals for libertarian municipalism and confederalism are the goals the Green Party needs to set for future elections. We need to run more local candidates set on making this a reality for Pittsburgh and other cities and communities.
We'll have to think a little more on exactly what this looks like -- for example, I suspect the confederal assemblies would be chosen by proportional representation within the municipalities, or ranked choice for specific tasks. But the key idea is to invert what we have today -- we are not subjects being "ruled" by our elected political elite, we hold the power and elect representatives to serve us. Just educating others on that message I think would make a huge difference on our national political conversation.
Of course, as I discussed in my essay on Kropotkin's "The Conquest of Bread", the term "anarchy" can create a misunderstanding in modern audiences. It isn't the complete absence of rules, but rather the breakdown of hierarchical power in both government and business. In that context, terms like "libertarian socialist" might be a better fit for modern audiences, but even that can create confusion as the Libertarian Party is very different from the libertarianism Kropotkin or Bookchin advocate for. It is effectively an argument of right-wing libertarianism versus left-wing libertarianism.
In any case, Bookchin calls his philosophy of ecologically-focused anarchism "Communalism" to emphasize that it is distinct from typical calls for socialism or communism. Bookchin discusses the inadequacy of Marx's analysis to handle modern problems caused by capitaliss. Indeed, Marx was mostly focused on economic factors and envisioned economic strikes by workers at factories as generating the coming "socialist revolution". However, Bookchin points out this isn't realistic today as by far the large majority of today's workers are not technical workers in factories but rather workers in service jobs that are more easily replaceable. Bookchin also emphasizes that capitalism has hurt more than just our economic needs, but also contributes to racism, sexism, urban decay, and the destruction of the environment, all issues that Marx did not really address.
Bookchin's goal of communalism is to break down all authoritarian power in all spheres of life, not just economic. Hierarchical power structures are by their nature authoritarian since a small group (and sometimes a single individual) sits in a "position of power" over others, and this structure exists in both the private sector (executive board of directors and CEOs) as well as government (governors/president and legislature). Communalism instead calls for the elimination of these positions as positions of power and policy-making, and instead calls for citizen assemblies to make economic and government decisions as a direct democracy. The citizen assembly would debate and deliberate and directly vote on all issues affecting the community, and attempt to achieve consensus whenever possible.
Bookchin makes a distinction between local governments, which are direct democracy citizen assemblies that derive just power directly from the people, and nation-state governments (such as the state or federal government in the US) that can easily become authoritarian when allowed to make decisions on behalf of the people. Bookchin's solution is a combination of what he calls "libertarian municipalism" and "confederalism".
Libertarian municipalism is the concept that the local city government (or municipality, could be a neighborhood or small district within a mega city like New York City) is where all public decisions are deliberated and made. A municipal assembly makes decisions by consensus and direct democracy, the key factor being the municipality is small enough that the assembly can be held with face-to-face discussions. The municipal assembly would also debate economic policy, not just politics, and "own" public resources and industry. In the ideal, private ownership of business would be replaced by public ownership of the industry, democratically-run by the assembly made up of everyone in the community, not just the workers. After all, the effects of industry can impact the entire community, not just the workers themselves, as is the case of pollution and environmental damage.
These municipalities would band together into a confederal state, which is very different from today's state. Pennsylvania today elects representatives that make decisions -- that is, set public policy -- on behalf of citizens, and this often leads to authoritarian abuses of power and corruption. Instead, confederalism proposes that the municipalities vote on policy directly, and once the policy is approved, muncipalities elect representatives to carry out that policy. In effect, state representatives shift from policy-makers to becoming administrators that simply oversee implementation of the policy chosen by the people. These elected officials would be expected to follow the guidelines set by the municipal assembly, and if not followed, could immediately be removed from the role by the municipality. Should a municipality "go rogue" and harm human rights or the environment, the rest of the municipalities would be able to unite in a confederal assembly to take action against the rogue. The confederal assembly would effectively have a previously-agreed-on set of human and ecological rights, defined by popular assemblies and backed by the people. In some sense, it's a return to the original ideas of small government and democracy enshrined in the US's articles of confederation which would establish the basic human and ecological rights to be protected by the confederation.
Bookchin proposes that this set up remains the most democracy and decentralized while also respecting the need for interdependence. The idea that every community can be 100% self sufficient and never need anything from the outside is ridiculous. We definitely take strides to ensure our communities are very self-sufficient, particularly for basic necessities like food, but we also work within a confederal state of peers of set overall policy and share resources. Bookchin cautions against going to far with decentralized self-sufficiency, that it can be just as dangerous as being too centralized. Bookchin sees communalism as effectively the best balance of decentralization with the need to cooperate in larger structures.
Bookchin does however admit that the plan does have some risk. Decentralization to this disagree can easily turn bad if we do not have a majority of people on the same page with a goal of taking power back from hierarchy and using it toward humanitarian and ecological goals. Bookchin therefore emphasizes the need for education. Democracy on its own won't immediately bring out a moral, ecological society. He also criticizes political parties for being too centralized, saying most national parties including the Greens, Labour, and Socialist parties too often become hierarchical when focusing on nation-state politics. He points to the fact that the German Greens, for example, despite having won many parliamentary seats have not advocated for communities and cities with Green elected officials to have more democratic influence and autonomy. He instead advocates Greens to run for local office on a platform of making the local government more democratic, changing the institution and the minds of people to expect direct conversation with the mayor and community leaders and a direct vote in municipal affairs. He asks, rightly so I think -- how can one take down the capitalist system if one cannot reform one's own neighborhood to be more democratic? Rather than taking actions that prop up a capitalist and hierarchical government (in fact, efforts for affordable housing and parks without corresponding pushes for democracy might actually empower the hierarchy more by giving it a "friendly face" that can be used to justify that the system "works"), we need to keep the emphasis on democratic governments to preserve our planet and can build a movement around today's government and slowly overtake it. In fact, Bookchin speculates that this might be the only way for Leftist politics to win again in the face of a long-established hierarchical system that most people have grown used to.
Largely I find myself very strongly agreeing with Bookchin's call for communalism and a much more democratic system. While always wanting to support stronger action for a living wage, affordable housing, healthcare, and fights against imperialism and other issues, I find myself always drawn back to the idea that "if we had more democracy, this probably wouldn't be an issue..." Poll after poll shows the majority of Americans don't want more war. A majority want to raise the wages and ensure healthcare for all. If we had democracy, we would have voted for it, and it'd already be done. The reason we don't have it is precisely our lack of democracy. Our representative government is much more authoritarian and hierarchical than it sounds like, and that concentration of power into legislatures makes it prone to corruption and the interests of the elite rather than the interests of the population as a whole.
It seems clear to me that a major effort of the Green Party and other organizations seeking change must be towards establishing greater democratic control of government and the economy. We must assert the will and power of the people as a whole to get the change we seek from bottom-up movement, not top-down decision making. I think Bookchin's proposals for libertarian municipalism and confederalism are the goals the Green Party needs to set for future elections. We need to run more local candidates set on making this a reality for Pittsburgh and other cities and communities.
We'll have to think a little more on exactly what this looks like -- for example, I suspect the confederal assemblies would be chosen by proportional representation within the municipalities, or ranked choice for specific tasks. But the key idea is to invert what we have today -- we are not subjects being "ruled" by our elected political elite, we hold the power and elect representatives to serve us. Just educating others on that message I think would make a huge difference on our national political conversation.
Sunday, April 1, 2018
We Still Haven't Conquered Bread
Here we are more than 100 year's since Kropotkin's "The Conquest of Bread", and we still haven't conquered it.
Kropotkin therefore describes what he believes to be the successful formula to creating a sustained political and economic revolution. First, the revolution must ensure every citizen has food, shelter, and clothing. Kropotkin argued the revolution must be anarchist (or perhaps libertarian socialist is a better term in the modern era, as many misunderstand what anarchism means) in which the centralized state government is also abolished simultaneously with the capitalist ownership of private property. Citizen-led community organizations, democratically run by the citizens themselves, would essentially declare that the food belongs to the people and encourage communities to farm and grow food for themselves. They would next lead tallies to count the unused homes that lie vacant as banks and landlords sit on them, and simply declare that the homes are owned by the public now and move homeless people into them. Should the landlords attempt eviction, the community organizations would defend the new tenants and stop the eviction and refuse to acknowledge any "authority" outside of the democratic community organization. These community organizations would then declare that clothing factories belong to the people and ensure any person can have access to any clothing needed. In the end, food, shelter, and clothing are to be declared rights of all, available free of charge to all citizens in exchange for sharing in the manual labor of the community to maintain the farms and clothing factories.
Once the immediate needs are taken care of, Kropotkin spends a few chapters describing how important it is that the community sets up a self-sufficient economy consisting of decentralized, community-owned (not privately-owned) farms and industry. In his view, as long as the community relies on some other community or nation for its food and products, it will always be reliant on others and will be taken advantage of by capitalists, or even the centralized state. The community must become self-sufficient in order to remain free.
Kropotkin then makes a very human argument for why the decentralized, self-sufficient economy is necessary. He blasts not only capitalism but even Marxist forms of socialism for focusing too much on the "means of production" and worker wages when the economy is really based on consumption. He argues that workers are always exploited anytime they are paid wages -- even under a socialist system -- because wages by definition are sold labor that must be sold for less than it is worth, and so concludes wages in any form need to be completely abolished. He argues people's demands for a comfortable life are what really drive the economy, and when our basic needs are met, we can all spend more time enjoying our lives or working toward ways to create more comfortable and interesting lives. He particularly criticizes the idea of industrialized "specialization" that was brought about by capitalism (and in his view is still defended too readily by Marxist socialists), saying that our goal in life shouldn't be to maximize production of profit but instead to maximize our ability to enjoy leisure time. He foresees a socialist world of automation that would only require of workers perhaps 4 hours of work per day, allowing more free time to people to spend reading and learning, writing books, creating art, doing science, or whatever else makes sense, based on personal decision. He argues that the human psyche wasn't designed to do the same manual labor day in and day out for our whole lives. People aren't healthy unless doing a bit of both manual and intellectual labor and varying up daily tasks, and so he argues that a short necessary work schedule (assisted by automation) to take care of basic needs combined with free time to pursue intellectual hobbies produced the most healthy and normal life, and should be the ultimate goal of any revolution. Essentially, we must seek a balanced life of happiness.
I found Kropotkin's different vision of socialism and the revolution to be a very interesting read, since the narrative seems to always equate socialism with Marxism. Kropotkin's more decentralized vision is particularly appealing to me because of its strong emphasis on personal liberty but within a community, and I think it fits more neatly into the Green Party's platform and narrative that rejects both capitalism and centralized state socialism.
Wait, what? What does "conquest of bread" mean? Glad you asked.
Kropotkin's main argument in his book "The Conquest of Bread" is that, paraphrased and in the words of Bill and Ted, we should "be excellent to each other" and make sure every person has bread (or whatever food type you prefer) so as not to starve. Kropotkin cites several failed revolutions, notably the French revolutions of the 1800s, and suggests that the major reason each failed was not because the initial uprising failed -- the uprisings actually worked rather well at getting rid of royalty -- but ultimately failed because the revolutionary leaders didn't know what to do after they had removed the royalty. Revolutionary leaders quickly installed themselves into government in the same positions vacated by the old royalty and government leaders, set up the same power structures and form of government, and quickly became a type of royalty or political elite themselves. More time was spent first fighting over more abstract concepts like political rights and how government would be structured instead of setting a priority of feeding the poor and getting them the bread they need. As such, the poor only tolerated the revolution for a short period of time before growing disillusioned. According to Kropotkin, the wealthy were each time able to take advantage of the situation: "What has your revolution brought? You are still hungry! If you go back to work for me, you can end this and start receiving wages and food again." The poor grumbled and went back to their jobs, and revolutionaries were executed as traitors as the wealthy came back into power. Any revolution quickly fails and returns back to the status quo by not putting the needs of the poorest citizens first.
Kropotkin therefore describes what he believes to be the successful formula to creating a sustained political and economic revolution. First, the revolution must ensure every citizen has food, shelter, and clothing. Kropotkin argued the revolution must be anarchist (or perhaps libertarian socialist is a better term in the modern era, as many misunderstand what anarchism means) in which the centralized state government is also abolished simultaneously with the capitalist ownership of private property. Citizen-led community organizations, democratically run by the citizens themselves, would essentially declare that the food belongs to the people and encourage communities to farm and grow food for themselves. They would next lead tallies to count the unused homes that lie vacant as banks and landlords sit on them, and simply declare that the homes are owned by the public now and move homeless people into them. Should the landlords attempt eviction, the community organizations would defend the new tenants and stop the eviction and refuse to acknowledge any "authority" outside of the democratic community organization. These community organizations would then declare that clothing factories belong to the people and ensure any person can have access to any clothing needed. In the end, food, shelter, and clothing are to be declared rights of all, available free of charge to all citizens in exchange for sharing in the manual labor of the community to maintain the farms and clothing factories.
Once the immediate needs are taken care of, Kropotkin spends a few chapters describing how important it is that the community sets up a self-sufficient economy consisting of decentralized, community-owned (not privately-owned) farms and industry. In his view, as long as the community relies on some other community or nation for its food and products, it will always be reliant on others and will be taken advantage of by capitalists, or even the centralized state. The community must become self-sufficient in order to remain free.
Kropotkin then makes a very human argument for why the decentralized, self-sufficient economy is necessary. He blasts not only capitalism but even Marxist forms of socialism for focusing too much on the "means of production" and worker wages when the economy is really based on consumption. He argues that workers are always exploited anytime they are paid wages -- even under a socialist system -- because wages by definition are sold labor that must be sold for less than it is worth, and so concludes wages in any form need to be completely abolished. He argues people's demands for a comfortable life are what really drive the economy, and when our basic needs are met, we can all spend more time enjoying our lives or working toward ways to create more comfortable and interesting lives. He particularly criticizes the idea of industrialized "specialization" that was brought about by capitalism (and in his view is still defended too readily by Marxist socialists), saying that our goal in life shouldn't be to maximize production of profit but instead to maximize our ability to enjoy leisure time. He foresees a socialist world of automation that would only require of workers perhaps 4 hours of work per day, allowing more free time to people to spend reading and learning, writing books, creating art, doing science, or whatever else makes sense, based on personal decision. He argues that the human psyche wasn't designed to do the same manual labor day in and day out for our whole lives. People aren't healthy unless doing a bit of both manual and intellectual labor and varying up daily tasks, and so he argues that a short necessary work schedule (assisted by automation) to take care of basic needs combined with free time to pursue intellectual hobbies produced the most healthy and normal life, and should be the ultimate goal of any revolution. Essentially, we must seek a balanced life of happiness.
I found Kropotkin's different vision of socialism and the revolution to be a very interesting read, since the narrative seems to always equate socialism with Marxism. Kropotkin's more decentralized vision is particularly appealing to me because of its strong emphasis on personal liberty but within a community, and I think it fits more neatly into the Green Party's platform and narrative that rejects both capitalism and centralized state socialism.
What can we as Greens learn from Kropotkin's analysis? Are there lessons for Greens as we develop strategy for the next few years? I take three key points from Kropotkin.
First, we must not forget the struggles and needs of the poorest among us. Sometimes we have a tendency to open philosophical dialog and debate some of the finer points of ideas. This is very commendable and even necessary as we navigate the growing philosophical and ethical quandries facing us with a growing technological world in the 21st century -- but I think it is important to remember that isn't the first priority for many people in the country. Too many still worry how they will put food on the table tonight, and that needs to always be our first priority in public. We need Green activists and candidates to put a heavy emphasis on establishing and protecting human economic rights: a right to life, to food, to water, to shelter, to basic clothing, to healthcare. Healthy food and water and modern medicine quickly lead into questions of sustainability, pollution, and climate change, so we aren't taking away from environmental arguments by focusing on human rights, but in fact, enhancing them. These issues are inseparable. Greens need to be the modern evolution of these concepts that take into account such sustainability questions that older philosophers and economists like Marx and Kropotkin didn't fully consider or understand.
Second, once we get past these basic human rights and environmental action, we need activists and political candidates talking about a positive future for humanity. "Let's fix this... so we can work harder!" is not exactly a rallying cry. Humans are not robots: we have emotions, feelings, hopes, dreams, interests, hobbies, and it's time our political policy acknowledged that. At a minimum, this means establishing a right to education and public resources like libraries, so that we all can satisfy our intellectual curiosity. But I think it is more than this. Similar to Kropotkin, I think we must not be afraid of technology and automation, but embrace it. We need to talk a vision where we all labor for our basic needs significantly less, and instead can follow our dreams. Develop hobbies, interests. Do science experiments, or explore the world. In a nutshell: tell people it's ok to be human, it's ok to have time off of work, it's ok to enjoy your life. We don't need to all be working 24/7, we don't need to "keep ourselves busy", our goal need not be to maximize production or profits. Humanity's goal should be to maximize time, something we all have precious little of in life, to spend that time with friends, family, and on interesting hobbies and projects. It's not like technology will stop progressing -- some people will do it as a hobby, and in fact, before the modern era, a lot of science and technology was done as a hobby by the wealthy that had free time from work (for a modern example, one only need look at the "open source" movement of thousands of programmers that in most cases donate their time freely to write software for other people to use, just for the fun and challenge of it). I don't think we often enough talk about that side of being human -- probably in part because so many lack the basic needs of food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, but I think we need to articulate that positive vision of the future sooner rather than later in order to give hope to why we even bother fighting for basic needs. I sympathize with those that feel powerless: if you're going to be required to work a job you hate 8+ hours per day for the rest of your life no matter whether it is owned by a capitalist or socialists, what difference does it make to your life whether the capitalists or the socialists are "in charge"? Any political vision must include a better life for us all, one where we can look forward to reaping the benefits of community and technology. We can do it when we create a socialist society rather than allowing only the wealthy to benefit from automation, and that must be the message.
Third, we need to better articulate how decentralized government works. As it turns out, decentralization seems to be a very foreign concept to many Americans, even those that associate themselves with "small government" or socialism. The knee-jerk reaction is to assume changes come top-down, that a leader of some kind sets the vision and makes it happen. What we're fighting for is the opposite: opening up the process to everyone, letting everyone take their turn at being leader instead of waiting for change to happen from others. As I've said before in past essays, this is a point of contention between Greens and Democrats that we must highlight more often as I think many progressive-minded voters don't entirely understand the difference (myself being one of those people in the past!). Our goal isn't for Greens to simply "replace" Democrats within this same structure. Our goal is to be the "anti-party party" that breaks down the barriers to participating in democracy: makes it easier to vote, easier to participate, by taking the power out of political parties and corporations and returning it directly to the people. Democratic government shouldn't be funneled through a few "representatives" or "superdelegates" that have more powers than the people, we should do everything we can to get decision-making out of the halls of Harrisburg or Washington DC and into the hands of communities themselves. In a nutshell: it's time we very strongly challenged the misconception that "we're a republic, not a democracy!" that many repeat as if it is a good thing. The decentralized approach favors more democratic assemblies made up of people in the community whom the action will impact, giving everyone a voice. We strive to put decision making at the smallest level that makes sense. Some wide-reaching decisions, such as what to do about global warming, are probably best handled at the large nation-state or international levels where we can all agree on a single method that doesn't step on others' toes or even inhibit the plan, but most decisions can and should be handled directly at the community level as a discussion and vote by the local stakeholders. The idea of capitalist-owned private property is problematic precisely because it violates this rule -- a rich capitalist who has never set foot in the community can suddenly own large tracts of land and resources in that community. Why should someone who has never lived in or even visited the area be able to have so much sway over those that currently live there, some for generations? The decision must be made democratically by all those impacted, with all voters as equals, not by a small group of councilmembers, representatives, or CEOs and shareholders. Anything else is a power imbalance that favors wealth over the poor.
If we can integrate these three ideas into activism and campaigns, I think the Greens will make significant ground over the next few years. People are itching for a change, they recognize the problems, but don't have a full clear idea of where to go next. Greens must lead the way with the vision and empower others to build on that vision.
First, we must not forget the struggles and needs of the poorest among us. Sometimes we have a tendency to open philosophical dialog and debate some of the finer points of ideas. This is very commendable and even necessary as we navigate the growing philosophical and ethical quandries facing us with a growing technological world in the 21st century -- but I think it is important to remember that isn't the first priority for many people in the country. Too many still worry how they will put food on the table tonight, and that needs to always be our first priority in public. We need Green activists and candidates to put a heavy emphasis on establishing and protecting human economic rights: a right to life, to food, to water, to shelter, to basic clothing, to healthcare. Healthy food and water and modern medicine quickly lead into questions of sustainability, pollution, and climate change, so we aren't taking away from environmental arguments by focusing on human rights, but in fact, enhancing them. These issues are inseparable. Greens need to be the modern evolution of these concepts that take into account such sustainability questions that older philosophers and economists like Marx and Kropotkin didn't fully consider or understand.
Second, once we get past these basic human rights and environmental action, we need activists and political candidates talking about a positive future for humanity. "Let's fix this... so we can work harder!" is not exactly a rallying cry. Humans are not robots: we have emotions, feelings, hopes, dreams, interests, hobbies, and it's time our political policy acknowledged that. At a minimum, this means establishing a right to education and public resources like libraries, so that we all can satisfy our intellectual curiosity. But I think it is more than this. Similar to Kropotkin, I think we must not be afraid of technology and automation, but embrace it. We need to talk a vision where we all labor for our basic needs significantly less, and instead can follow our dreams. Develop hobbies, interests. Do science experiments, or explore the world. In a nutshell: tell people it's ok to be human, it's ok to have time off of work, it's ok to enjoy your life. We don't need to all be working 24/7, we don't need to "keep ourselves busy", our goal need not be to maximize production or profits. Humanity's goal should be to maximize time, something we all have precious little of in life, to spend that time with friends, family, and on interesting hobbies and projects. It's not like technology will stop progressing -- some people will do it as a hobby, and in fact, before the modern era, a lot of science and technology was done as a hobby by the wealthy that had free time from work (for a modern example, one only need look at the "open source" movement of thousands of programmers that in most cases donate their time freely to write software for other people to use, just for the fun and challenge of it). I don't think we often enough talk about that side of being human -- probably in part because so many lack the basic needs of food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, but I think we need to articulate that positive vision of the future sooner rather than later in order to give hope to why we even bother fighting for basic needs. I sympathize with those that feel powerless: if you're going to be required to work a job you hate 8+ hours per day for the rest of your life no matter whether it is owned by a capitalist or socialists, what difference does it make to your life whether the capitalists or the socialists are "in charge"? Any political vision must include a better life for us all, one where we can look forward to reaping the benefits of community and technology. We can do it when we create a socialist society rather than allowing only the wealthy to benefit from automation, and that must be the message.
Third, we need to better articulate how decentralized government works. As it turns out, decentralization seems to be a very foreign concept to many Americans, even those that associate themselves with "small government" or socialism. The knee-jerk reaction is to assume changes come top-down, that a leader of some kind sets the vision and makes it happen. What we're fighting for is the opposite: opening up the process to everyone, letting everyone take their turn at being leader instead of waiting for change to happen from others. As I've said before in past essays, this is a point of contention between Greens and Democrats that we must highlight more often as I think many progressive-minded voters don't entirely understand the difference (myself being one of those people in the past!). Our goal isn't for Greens to simply "replace" Democrats within this same structure. Our goal is to be the "anti-party party" that breaks down the barriers to participating in democracy: makes it easier to vote, easier to participate, by taking the power out of political parties and corporations and returning it directly to the people. Democratic government shouldn't be funneled through a few "representatives" or "superdelegates" that have more powers than the people, we should do everything we can to get decision-making out of the halls of Harrisburg or Washington DC and into the hands of communities themselves. In a nutshell: it's time we very strongly challenged the misconception that "we're a republic, not a democracy!" that many repeat as if it is a good thing. The decentralized approach favors more democratic assemblies made up of people in the community whom the action will impact, giving everyone a voice. We strive to put decision making at the smallest level that makes sense. Some wide-reaching decisions, such as what to do about global warming, are probably best handled at the large nation-state or international levels where we can all agree on a single method that doesn't step on others' toes or even inhibit the plan, but most decisions can and should be handled directly at the community level as a discussion and vote by the local stakeholders. The idea of capitalist-owned private property is problematic precisely because it violates this rule -- a rich capitalist who has never set foot in the community can suddenly own large tracts of land and resources in that community. Why should someone who has never lived in or even visited the area be able to have so much sway over those that currently live there, some for generations? The decision must be made democratically by all those impacted, with all voters as equals, not by a small group of councilmembers, representatives, or CEOs and shareholders. Anything else is a power imbalance that favors wealth over the poor.
If we can integrate these three ideas into activism and campaigns, I think the Greens will make significant ground over the next few years. People are itching for a change, they recognize the problems, but don't have a full clear idea of where to go next. Greens must lead the way with the vision and empower others to build on that vision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)