As Free as a Caged Canary
A smart fellow comic book guy (aren’t ALL comic book folk smart? - yes they are! And sexy too) recently said this:
"There's no doubt that there are serious problems with the way the world works - but what we've seen in the last generation is
a) the abandonment of state socialism by billions of people.
b) a huge increase in world trade.
c) the greatest increase in human prosperity and freedom ever seen in human history.
Any analysis that doesn't start with these facts is worthless."
Here is my tuppence worth (or ten Euros to you):
It’s incorrect to say ANY analysis of society that does not start from those facts is worthless, for several reasons:
1. Those 3 are not facts, they are ideological points, they are points of view. That alone makes the assertion very weak.
2. There is no absolute need to have those so points as the basis of our analysis because there ARE other ideological approaches that can be the basis of analysis. Those other views may have their faults too, but they exist.
As to the so called facts, 5 minutes thought shows great weakness in all of them.
a) 'the abandonment of state socialism by billions of people.'
The USSR and China were never ‘real socialism’, certainly not the kind of socialism that i wish for. And right from the start, in 1917 and 1918 some people in Russia were saying basically: ‘Hold on, this is not socialism, this is going to be a balls up.’ (there are documents to prove a considerable amount of disagreement then). For the most part those people who campaigned for ‘real socialism’ or anarchism were imprisoned or killed. So, it was quite right that eventually people in Russia dumped that horrible elite dictatorship. But is was not ‘socialism’ they were abandoning, to say so is a very weak basis to build an argument. Although there are lessons to be learnt from what happened in Russia and China, and we should learn them, we can not say ‘THAT was socialism’ or communism or anarchism. It simply was not.
If we specifically call it ‘STATE socialism’ then the point becomes a bit more firm. We could agree ‘Ok, lets call that horrible dictatorship state socialism’- and then 90% would agree with point a, ‘Yes, that did not work well enough and was abandoned’. But I am not advocating state socialism,and neither is anyone who’s ideas I admire. So, the end of such state socialism does not mean a genuinely democratic socialist or anarchist system has now been proven to be unworkable… that’s like saying ‘Because i can not fly when i flap my arms it proves than humans can never fly in any situation whatsoever’. Not a conclusion that any intelligent person, comic book person or otherwise, could support.
And even if dictatorship like state socialism has been seen as not a good way, it does not mean that therefore capitalism is best.
b) 'a huge increase in world trade.'
And how about the recent huge decrease in world trade? The very considerable decrease in trade, wage levels, job security, and prosperity in general is also a product of capitalism, no? By next autumn it will be TEN YEARS since the start of the latest financial crisis in capitalism - that’s a long time. With no end in sight and quite possibly a further worsening. Years that have damaged the lives of millions of people. Or do we ignore these bad aspects and only focus on the good points of capitalism? And if so why do we take the opposite approach with the USSR and Mao’s China?
Still, if we look at the wider picture, lets say since 1945, then we can probably say that its a factual point that there has been a large increase in world trade. Ok, so where did it come from? And what good did it do? For example here in Japan, where I live, a very large part of the economic recovery after the war was because of government organised funding from the USA. Not from capitalist companies - from the government. The state. It was state organised economic stimulus. The other key element that led to much increased trade was the Korean war - in which local Japanese factories produced the armaments and other sundry objects needed in the war. Again, all state organised, not driven by capitalist companies. And the same was true in Europe - the Marshall plan of economic recovery was not organised by ‘Marshall Corporation, USA’, but by the Secretary of State George Marshall and the State Department - state, state, state! Without all that state help how well would the capitalist companies have done on their own? So, we can not clearly say that the increase in world trade was solely the result of the efficiency and energy of capitalism. It appears that the role of the state, of, if you like 'state socialist capitalism' was of great importance, somewhat furthering countering point a. And was it not again, that state intervention, that 'socialism for the elite' that saved the capitalist banking industry several years ago?
c) 'the greatest increase in human prosperity and freedom ever seen in human history.'
Probably a case could be made that the last 70 years are not the greatest increase in human history, but that is another point. We certainly have seen a big increase in both prosperity and freedom for us lovely humans. But I notice that the NON-humans in the world are not doing so well. Our prosperity seems to have come at huge cost to the other occupants of this planet, with probably the biggest rise in animal extinctions in recorded history, reduction of plant and trees and general damage to the environment. Because of capitalism. Or the causes are still being debated, but it seems pretty clear that capitalism has contributed a lot to that damage. A CENTRAL aspect of capitalism is exploitation of resources to gain the maximum profit, regardless of costs in a wider sense. There are many specific, easily identifiable policies that have been put into place by capitalist corporations that directly damaged the environment, in the face of resistance by local people and environmental campaigners. Why? Because of this key point: ‘exploitation of resources to gain the maximum profit, regardless of costs in a wider sense’. The socialism or anarchism that I favour would simply NOT operate that way. In that system the wider costs to the people and the planet of any business or industrial action would be taken into account and efforts made to reduce the damage. It’s a fundamentally better way of organising ourselves. For the planet too.
Next point - what was it that spread that prosperity, that well being, that more happy, secure, life style? Was it capitalism? …Again, that is not at all clear. Certainly its not a fact. A very large aspect in our better way of living has been things that have been put into operation DESPITE the violent protests against it by capitalist elites: free education, a national health service, basic money if you become unemployed or sick, better conditions at work, secure contracts of employment, etc. All of these things were very strongly fought against by capitalists,often violently... it was the strident efforts of liberals, socialists, anarchists, unionists, backed up by a great demand for them from the majority of the population, that brought these aspects into being. And notice that since the end of the 70s the right wing conservatives have being doing their best to decrease all these good things that help us have a decent life - including right now, this year, with Cameron’s Tories. Their capitalist ideology means that many of the basic aspects that help millions of people have a decent standard of life, to prosper and be free, are being wiped out.
Freedom - oh there is a loaded word. Capitalists TALK about freedom, but they are not keen on the actual practice of it. Freedom to choose from a limited range of crap candidates every four or five years - yes. Freedom to buy A rubbish product or B rubbish product - yes. But freedom to decide how our societies and lives are organised at work - ah, no, hold on there, boy! A key point here is this: ‘Are we really free if we remain pretty much slaves at work’? How free are we if we HAVE to work at times set by the boss… in a PLACE controlled by them… in uniforms they decide… to aims they decide, regardless of our wishes… with no health benefits…no paid leave….when we can be sacked at any time they wish…and all for an amount of money which is less than what we have actually created through our hard work.
Baby - that’s about as free as a caged canary. And THAT is the work situation which capitalism favours. Any union you have, or rights of fair dismissal, or overtime pay, or air conditioning in your office etc are there DESPITE capitalism, not because of it.
One of the key aims of the socialism or anarchism that I favour is freedom AT work. Meaning that we are free to decide how we work, in what conditions, for what aims, etc. We organise work OURSELVES… with no capitalist bosses deciding it, and no state KGB types deciding it either. That is real socialism, real anarchism: freedom to decide things for ourselves - mistakes and all!
A smart fellow comic book guy (aren’t ALL comic book folk smart? - yes they are! And sexy too) recently said this:
"There's no doubt that there are serious problems with the way the world works - but what we've seen in the last generation is
a) the abandonment of state socialism by billions of people.
b) a huge increase in world trade.
c) the greatest increase in human prosperity and freedom ever seen in human history.
Any analysis that doesn't start with these facts is worthless."
Here is my tuppence worth (or ten Euros to you):
It’s incorrect to say ANY analysis of society that does not start from those facts is worthless, for several reasons:
1. Those 3 are not facts, they are ideological points, they are points of view. That alone makes the assertion very weak.
2. There is no absolute need to have those so points as the basis of our analysis because there ARE other ideological approaches that can be the basis of analysis. Those other views may have their faults too, but they exist.
As to the so called facts, 5 minutes thought shows great weakness in all of them.
a) 'the abandonment of state socialism by billions of people.'
The USSR and China were never ‘real socialism’, certainly not the kind of socialism that i wish for. And right from the start, in 1917 and 1918 some people in Russia were saying basically: ‘Hold on, this is not socialism, this is going to be a balls up.’ (there are documents to prove a considerable amount of disagreement then). For the most part those people who campaigned for ‘real socialism’ or anarchism were imprisoned or killed. So, it was quite right that eventually people in Russia dumped that horrible elite dictatorship. But is was not ‘socialism’ they were abandoning, to say so is a very weak basis to build an argument. Although there are lessons to be learnt from what happened in Russia and China, and we should learn them, we can not say ‘THAT was socialism’ or communism or anarchism. It simply was not.
If we specifically call it ‘STATE socialism’ then the point becomes a bit more firm. We could agree ‘Ok, lets call that horrible dictatorship state socialism’- and then 90% would agree with point a, ‘Yes, that did not work well enough and was abandoned’. But I am not advocating state socialism,and neither is anyone who’s ideas I admire. So, the end of such state socialism does not mean a genuinely democratic socialist or anarchist system has now been proven to be unworkable… that’s like saying ‘Because i can not fly when i flap my arms it proves than humans can never fly in any situation whatsoever’. Not a conclusion that any intelligent person, comic book person or otherwise, could support.
And even if dictatorship like state socialism has been seen as not a good way, it does not mean that therefore capitalism is best.
b) 'a huge increase in world trade.'
And how about the recent huge decrease in world trade? The very considerable decrease in trade, wage levels, job security, and prosperity in general is also a product of capitalism, no? By next autumn it will be TEN YEARS since the start of the latest financial crisis in capitalism - that’s a long time. With no end in sight and quite possibly a further worsening. Years that have damaged the lives of millions of people. Or do we ignore these bad aspects and only focus on the good points of capitalism? And if so why do we take the opposite approach with the USSR and Mao’s China?
Still, if we look at the wider picture, lets say since 1945, then we can probably say that its a factual point that there has been a large increase in world trade. Ok, so where did it come from? And what good did it do? For example here in Japan, where I live, a very large part of the economic recovery after the war was because of government organised funding from the USA. Not from capitalist companies - from the government. The state. It was state organised economic stimulus. The other key element that led to much increased trade was the Korean war - in which local Japanese factories produced the armaments and other sundry objects needed in the war. Again, all state organised, not driven by capitalist companies. And the same was true in Europe - the Marshall plan of economic recovery was not organised by ‘Marshall Corporation, USA’, but by the Secretary of State George Marshall and the State Department - state, state, state! Without all that state help how well would the capitalist companies have done on their own? So, we can not clearly say that the increase in world trade was solely the result of the efficiency and energy of capitalism. It appears that the role of the state, of, if you like 'state socialist capitalism' was of great importance, somewhat furthering countering point a. And was it not again, that state intervention, that 'socialism for the elite' that saved the capitalist banking industry several years ago?
c) 'the greatest increase in human prosperity and freedom ever seen in human history.'
Probably a case could be made that the last 70 years are not the greatest increase in human history, but that is another point. We certainly have seen a big increase in both prosperity and freedom for us lovely humans. But I notice that the NON-humans in the world are not doing so well. Our prosperity seems to have come at huge cost to the other occupants of this planet, with probably the biggest rise in animal extinctions in recorded history, reduction of plant and trees and general damage to the environment. Because of capitalism. Or the causes are still being debated, but it seems pretty clear that capitalism has contributed a lot to that damage. A CENTRAL aspect of capitalism is exploitation of resources to gain the maximum profit, regardless of costs in a wider sense. There are many specific, easily identifiable policies that have been put into place by capitalist corporations that directly damaged the environment, in the face of resistance by local people and environmental campaigners. Why? Because of this key point: ‘exploitation of resources to gain the maximum profit, regardless of costs in a wider sense’. The socialism or anarchism that I favour would simply NOT operate that way. In that system the wider costs to the people and the planet of any business or industrial action would be taken into account and efforts made to reduce the damage. It’s a fundamentally better way of organising ourselves. For the planet too.
Next point - what was it that spread that prosperity, that well being, that more happy, secure, life style? Was it capitalism? …Again, that is not at all clear. Certainly its not a fact. A very large aspect in our better way of living has been things that have been put into operation DESPITE the violent protests against it by capitalist elites: free education, a national health service, basic money if you become unemployed or sick, better conditions at work, secure contracts of employment, etc. All of these things were very strongly fought against by capitalists,often violently... it was the strident efforts of liberals, socialists, anarchists, unionists, backed up by a great demand for them from the majority of the population, that brought these aspects into being. And notice that since the end of the 70s the right wing conservatives have being doing their best to decrease all these good things that help us have a decent life - including right now, this year, with Cameron’s Tories. Their capitalist ideology means that many of the basic aspects that help millions of people have a decent standard of life, to prosper and be free, are being wiped out.
Freedom - oh there is a loaded word. Capitalists TALK about freedom, but they are not keen on the actual practice of it. Freedom to choose from a limited range of crap candidates every four or five years - yes. Freedom to buy A rubbish product or B rubbish product - yes. But freedom to decide how our societies and lives are organised at work - ah, no, hold on there, boy! A key point here is this: ‘Are we really free if we remain pretty much slaves at work’? How free are we if we HAVE to work at times set by the boss… in a PLACE controlled by them… in uniforms they decide… to aims they decide, regardless of our wishes… with no health benefits…no paid leave….when we can be sacked at any time they wish…and all for an amount of money which is less than what we have actually created through our hard work.
Baby - that’s about as free as a caged canary. And THAT is the work situation which capitalism favours. Any union you have, or rights of fair dismissal, or overtime pay, or air conditioning in your office etc are there DESPITE capitalism, not because of it.
One of the key aims of the socialism or anarchism that I favour is freedom AT work. Meaning that we are free to decide how we work, in what conditions, for what aims, etc. We organise work OURSELVES… with no capitalist bosses deciding it, and no state KGB types deciding it either. That is real socialism, real anarchism: freedom to decide things for ourselves - mistakes and all!