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.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I'm interested in your feedback, whether you agree or disagree! (as long as it is polite!).