Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:24:36 -0800 (PST) From: "J.M. Adams" <ringfingers-AT-yahoo.com> Subject: [postanarchism] Gambone: "Toward Post-Modern Anarchism" Toward Post-Modern Anarchism by L. Gambone MODERNITY AND POST-MODERNITY (1) In order to understand the importance of Post Modernity, (hereafter abbreviated as PM) we must first understand what is meant by Modernity. In terms of thought or underlying philosophy, Modernity means the abstract universalism of Enlightenment Rationalism.(2) Economically, it means Industrialism. Socially, mass society, the decline of organized religion and the rise of nihilism and secular religions (ideologies) like Nationalism, Communism and Fascism. Local, particular beliefs, customs, economies, forms of government and mutual aid are pushed aside by universalized belief systems and national organizations. Abstract universals manifest themselves in such collective forms as the Nation State and the multi- national business corporation. The bureaucrat is the personification of Modernity, the Corporate State or State Capitalism its ultimate political- economic form. State socialism, fascism, social democracy and corporate liberalism, though differing in the level of repression, have similar results - the destruction of individual freedom and the growth of bureaucracy. With Post-Modernity comes a breakdown of Rationalist certainty. "Progress" is increasingly questioned. "Left" vs. "right" becomes obsolete. Secular religions find ever fewer believers.(3) The nation state begins to lose importance. Industrialism tends to be replaced by a service and information-based economy. De-bureaucratization commences, (though so far, more in word than in deed.) Terrorism and civil war lose what little "charm" they might have possessed, for with Modernism, political violence reached its apogee, with some 170,000,000 victims of wars, government- created famines, gulags and gas-ovens. The highly integrated technology of Post-Modernity makes humanity extremely vulnerable to political violence, and thus, violent revolution becomes unthinkable.(4) The down-side of PM is that it pushes to the utmost extreme the nihilism lying at the core of the Modernist project. Post-Modernism perverts individualism into narcissism. "Anarchism" in the hands of PM nihilists becomes an ideological rationalization for this narcissism. At the same time, an intense spiritual and moral hunger exists, exemplified in such perverse ways as New Ageism and the New Absolutism found in technophobic environmentalism and cult of Political Correctness. THE QUADRUPLE REVOLUTION Modernity has seen four interconnected revolutions; the technological revolution, the knowledge revolution, the economic revolution and the demographic revolution. The first of these is well known, the others, less so. The knowledge revolution is exemplified by the fact it took 1500 years for knowledge to double. (From 1AD to 1500AD) By 1900 the figure was down to 50 years. At present knowledge doubles in five years. The economic revolution, most especially its later phase, Fordism or mass consumerism, raised the majority out of poverty in the developed world. One result of this was the demographic revolution. Life expectancy doubled and infant mortality tumbled from 300 to 6 per thousand births. The four revolutions are the most sweeping in history. PM accelerates these revolutions and spreads them to other parts of the world. THE ECONOMY IN THE P.M. ERA Late Modernity saw the rise of state capitalism and the giant corporation. Small business seemed to be disappearing and wealth concentrating into ever fewer hands. Many corporations practiced "vertical integration". An auto manufacturer mined the iron ore, rolled the steel etc. Corporations diversified becoming "conglomerates". A soap company might own a TV station, a flour mill and a supermarket chain. Late Modernity saw an expansion of the corporate bureaucracy, with as much as one third of employees classified as supervisors. Post Modernity found Late Mod business practices inefficient. "Far better to do one thing well, than many things poorly". Workers and lower management face mass unemployment - a kind of cannibalism of the workforce. While only a minority of workers suffer this upheaval, it has generated much general insecurity and is a potential for future unrest. The number of smaller companies has increased, even though consolidation of the large corporations has not stopped. (The new stripped-down firms are now buying each other out.) However, the real growth in both business and employment is in smaller industry. It is far too early to say whether big companies are becoming dinosaurs, but the economy is far more complex than ever before. PM brings with it a renewed importance of finance capital, but a finance capital different from Lenin's bug-bear. Modernity saw large-scale industry owned by wealthy shareholders, many of whom were bankers. Late Mod. saw the decline of the "family corporation" and the self-financing of companies. Post Modernity sees much investment capital in the hands of institutional investors, such as insurance companies, credit unions, trade union investment funds, mutual funds and pension funds investments held by the "middle class" worker. Many of the problems facing the workforce (layoffs) and the economy (instability) are a result of this vast pool of money racing around the world chasing a higher profit. In many respects, the "wicked capitalists" are us. THE NATURE OF CLASS In its destruction of traditional society, Modernity seemed to be evolving in the direction of Marx's two class model. With the sole exception of England however, peasants and artisans made up a majority or large minority of the population until the second half of the 20th Century. At the point where the two class concept was on the verge of realization, Fordism intervened. Home ownership, automobiles, vacations, higher education, appliances, all previously the preserve of the traditional middle class, in one generation, became the norm for working people in the developed world.. Fordism made workers believe they were "middle class". Thus Late Modernity saw a decline in the notion of class, both among workers and the population in general. (An auto worker, an electrician, a shop owner and a notary all see themselves as "middle class", sandwiched between the poor and wealthy minorities.) As a result of their economic determinist ideology, marxists(4) underestimated the importance of status. For workers, the proof of a pudding is always in the eating. They don't live by theories. If the middle class owns houses and cars and Joe Plumber does too, then Joe feels that he too, is middle class. Post- Modernity leads even further away from the simple marxist model. The population is split into: a. middle class workers b. low wage workers c. government employees d. traditional self-employed e. new self- employed. f. underclass or lumpenproletariat. g. the New Class. h. the Corporate- Managerial Elite. Along with these changes comes a general decline in the importance of work, both as a means of survival and of self- fulfillment. People cease to measure themselves by what they do for a living. Nor is it necessary to work all the time in order to survive, as was the case only two generations ago. In spite of these limitations, the notion of class should not be jettisoned, it should just not be overstated. THE STATE AND POST-MODERNITY While the state has lost some of its ability to control the economy on a global scale, it has moved into new areas of dominance. Education, child rearing, interpersonal-relations, at one time the purview of the family or the community, are now taken over by the "Therapeutic State". A New Class rooted in the State bureaucracy, the media and the university, uses the Therapeutic State as a job creation device. The state deliberately fosters dependency and creates client populations who become statist pressure groups. State Capitalism has taken a slight battering. Pressure to rein-in the state has caused a minor reduction of statism in some countries. Not as a result of some "right wing plot", but a response to fundamental flaws in the state capitalist system. It became all too evident that most of what the state did was better done by non-statist means. Centralization of decision-making left people victims of distant bureaucrats. Working class tax payers got tired of footing the bill. PM has thus seen a rise in anti-government, decentralist, localist and regionalist tendencies. GLOBALIZATION With its siblings, fascism and leninism defeated, liberal corporatism now rules the world unchallenged. The possibility arises for a World Government promoting its "ideals." Globalization is the ultimate Modernist fantasy, and is the project of both the corporate elite and the New Class, the latter standing to gain important posts in the World State, as well as retaining power in the satraps. Should this occur, all particular and local customs will be swept away by a universal consumer culture or turned into harmless folk dances for tourists. Freedom is to be reduced to a choice in consumer items. Everyone, as in contemporary suburbia, is to be swathed in regulations - for "their own good", of course. Democracy is to remain a choice between elites, with any serious challenges to power marginalized. But globalization is not as many people think, global peonage, but global consumerism, Fordism universalized, Brave New World, not 1984.(5) (Corporate leaders are not stupid and have long understood the poor are lost customers.) Hence, it is much harder to confront, for if the poor thought they were to stay mired in poverty, they might revolt, but if it's Disney World for everyone? If the decline of the nation state does not lead to the revitalization of community and genuine federalism, instead empowering a supra-national body, we are in trouble. A global government is a frightening development. In the past, if leninists, fascists or other tyrants seized power, you could flee. Not so with a World State. Decent people concerned about such things as land mines, the environment and global warming are being used to promote global legislation. Since legislation without enforcement is meaningless, global bureaucracy and policing will result, and thus the World State. However, globalization remains more of a threat than a reality. Remaking the world is not going smoothly. The inability to deal with even "minor" crises like Bosnia show its hollowness. Technology that makes for instant capital transfer also makes for instant communications among dissidents. An ever growing number of people express doubts about the plans laid for them. There are obstacles to economic development. Corporate liberalism does not come easy in countries where nepotism, corruption, and totalitarianism have been the norm. One cannot adopt corporate liberalism like putting on a new shirt, as the Russians and SE Asians found out. THE DEATH OF MARXISM Even as late as the 1960's, Marxism seemed to have something to offer us. Small business was being swallowed by large corporations and the independent worker was disappearing - as Marx said they would. Today, the situation has reversed gear due to technological changes unforeseen by Marx. There is a steady growth in the numbers of self-employed and small- medium businesses are on the "cutting edge". (As well as being the largest employment-generators) Advances in paleontology, anthropology and historical research have shown Marx's concept of the origins of class and the state to be a Hobbsian fable. It is also impossible to discover the alleged transition point between feudalism and capitalism in the 17th Century. Thus, the foundations of Historical Materialism are no longer certain. Hegel scholars question Marx's understanding of the philosopher and studies of Hegel's notes (unknown in Marx's day) reveal that he had made the synthesis of German philosophy and British political economy 40 years before the student from Trier told the world of his discoveries. Nor did Marx "stand Hegel on his feet" - he always was on the ground. Marx's dishonest and insulting attacks upon his former friends - like Stirner, Proudhon and Bakunin - today, win few converts to his cause. The labor theory of value and the supposed decline in the rate of profit have come under serious attack. The "immizerization of the proletariat" and the "tendency of wages to remain at the level of subsistence" are simply embarrassing. For a while it looked as though all labor might be reduced to factory-like simplicity, yet Late Modernity brought with it a mushrooming of skilled employment and a host of new professions. The factory worker - allegedly the most revolutionary of workers - has declined in numbers and may soon join agricultural laborers as a tiny fragment of the work force. Marx's communism revealed itself as the purist of utopias - while many of the "Utopian Socialists" with their co-operatives and Mutual Aid societies he attacked have proven to be rather practical reformers. Nowhere have workers ever attempted to institute Marxian communism Bakuninist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism and Mutualism, yes, but to abolish exchange and centrally plan the economy? Never. Nor was Marx aware of the incredible difficulties involved in setting up a planned economy. (And he could not since he was neither a statistician or an accountant.) Marx has now finally and truly been surpassed by history and to remain a marxist is to engage in a narrow and futile scholasticism like that of the Late Middle Ages. Thus, he has almost nothing to offer us for the development of a Post-Modern Anarchism. ANARCHISM, MODERNITY AND POST-MODERNITY Modernity undermined the small community, the independent producers, artisans and farmers. The dominant tendency was economic and political centralization, thus destroying any possibility for a libertarian society. Anarchism can be seen in part as a protest against this. Post-Modernity, however, allows an opening for regionalism and the independent worker. Modernity worked against us, PM, is at least in some ways, working for us. Anarchism was a product of Modernity, both as an off-shoot of Enlightenment thinking and as a reaction to the Enlightenment and its socio-economic manifestations. But anarchism synthesized Enlightenment thought with pre-modern communalism and mutualism. As such, anarchism had a healthy rooted relationship with the past, not trapped in Modernity's abstract universals, nor falling completely into atavism like fascism or leninism. A problem does remain nonetheless. While anarchism is not completely of Modernity, many contemporary anarchists still relate to the world in Modernist terms. Hence the need for a specifically Post-Modern anarchism. A Post Mod. anarchism has to take into account the developments in science and general knowledge since the "classical period". Indeed, much anarchist thinking has not caught up with Late Modernity, let alone the Post Modern. This should not be a matter of adopting in a pick and choose manner some aspect of science or knowledge which appeals to our prejudices, but a general and honest re-examination. We cannot repeat the ideas of 19th Century thinkers without taking into account contemporary developments in anthropology, philosophy, psychology, physics, economics and history. How many anarchists look at the world with absolutist concepts, when contemporary philosophy and physics sees the world in terms of probability? Just having the ability to construct a rational argument and cease engaging in the logical fallacies favored in political discussion would be a big step forward. How many anarchists borrow chunks of 1930's marxist economics? Why the unending chatter about "monopoly capital", and "capitalist underdevelopment" as though these were iron-clad facts? How many anarchists treat human beings as rational actors, oblivious to the last 100 years of psychology? How many anarchists are blithely unaware of contemporary social science with its concept of the New Class and its critique of ideology and Enlightenment Rationalism? And how many anarchists have any knowledge of demography? Post Modern pluralism should be adopted. The exclusiveness of the past, when it was thought that only syndicalism, only communalism, only individualism, could bring about liberty, has to go. All of these concepts are part of what creates a liberatory movement. A person is not just a worker, or someone living in a community, or even an individual, but is all of these. Increased leisure time has also made for greater social complexity. Violent revolution is finished as an option, (If it ever was one) a result of urbanization and an ever-growing interdependence. And what about the authoritarian left? Most anarchists saw leftists as misguided brethren and united with them - and then became their first victims. Anarchists must follow through with their libertarian argument the authoritarian left is not "progressive" or "misguided" but is pure, unadulterated, reaction or "red fascism". They are the vanguard of state capitalism and have nothing to offer us but prison and death. Antiquated notions of class and "class struggle" must not cause us to involve ourselves with those who are among our worst enemies. Post-Modernity also forces us to arrive at a clear, precise statement about what constitutes anarchism. This seems to contradict PM pluralism. Not so. With the loss of the old certainties, people grasp at anything maintaining a vestige of their past beliefs. Some leftists have gravitated to what they call anarchism, a most peculiar version which supports marxist leninist "national liberationist" groups or wants a stronger central government.(7) Post-Modern nihilism has also become equated with anarchism. This results in a great deal of confusion and thus the concept of anarchism needs clarification as never before. One example of a supposed PM anarchism is found with Michel Onfray's work, POLITIQUE DU REBELLE, in which he discusses the need for a "revolutionary hedonism" - at the very time corporate capitalism promotes hedonism, whether "revolutionary" or or otherwise. Onfray considers it "a reductionist error" of the old anarchists to criticize statism, and following his idols, Gilles Deleuze and Michel Foucault, calls for an attack upon "the thousands of rhizomes or molecules of authority" within society. Rhizomes such as hostility toward immigrants, sexism, homophobism etc. The problem with dropping anti-statism is that it plays into the hands of the Politically Correct Left who use opposition to these alleged "rhizomes of authority" as a means of increasing state power and the authority of the New Class. Thus, Onfray is no more an effective critic of authority than of contemporary capitalism. Anarchism in his hands becomes incorporated into the state capitalist system as a kind of counter-cultural Loyal Opposition. PM should not be used as an excuse for fuzzy thinking or as a means of saying "anything goes". If "anarchism" means any old thing, the term is meaningless. We lose something. If anarchism is only a sub-species of leninism or social democracy, it no longer exists as a separate concept . Endorsing clear anarchist principles does not imply sectarianism. People who do not fully endorse such principles are not enemies. They just aren't anarchists. To not be an anarchist does not mean one is less of a person or that one should be condemned. Anarchists must work with and have always worked with, thousands of people who accept only part of the message. This is the way it is, and most likely will always be. What about those people who go part way, who accept some but not all of our message? What are they? Certainly not anarchists. Perhaps those who accept most of our ideas, who want less coercion, but cannot find themselves going to the extent of supporting our final goals, should be called libertarians. Those who support only a portion of our ideas, say mutualism, decentralism or federalism, should be called mutualists, decentralists and federalists. No shame or sectarianism should be implied in not being considered an anarchist. There is nothing wrong with "merely" being a libertarian or a decentralist. If people only accept half of what we believe, we should be overjoyed. Only fanatics demand everyone think exactly as they do. There have never been large numbers of anarchists. As an example, at the turn of the century there were hardly more than a few thousand anarchists in France. Given this history, it is unlikely a "mass" anarchist movement will arise and therefore we will have to function alone, or within movements that accept only part of our ideas. Such movements, however, are not to be led by an anarchist vanguard. We lead by example only, striving for ever greater liberty. The primary goal must be that of liberty, beginning with a reduction in the "thousand and one" petty governmental tyrannies with which we are faced daily. In order to do this, we need some kind of a libertarian movement involving a large number of people. Such a movement cannot be based on wishful thinking. Rather upon conditions and people as they are, not how things "should be". Nor what some dogma or theory tells us. Nor what might be, but for which little or no evidence exists. If we need a "New Man" forget it! Liberty must grow from existing humanity, otherwise our goal is just another hopeless Pie-In- The Sky utopia. Classical anarchists saw society divided into a pole of authority and a pole of liberty. If this judgment is true, libertarianism exists in the real world. The task is to discover the libertarian aspects and build upon them, at the same time breaking down the authoritarian structures that impede this liberty. It is not a matter of bringing the truth to the ignorant - the vanguardist mentality - but attempting to generalize from existing libertarian practices.(8) These would include most forms of voluntarism and self-reliance, as well as social practices such as mutual aid, co-operation, localism, federalism and free exchange. The social (9) exists in a myriad of ways, often hidden from the casual observer or the academic in his ivory tower. Our task should be to reveal and support these developments. Modernism glorified in the destruction of the social, in the same way it praised the obliteration of the traditional. This was especially true of Marxism. The alienation of the workers was supposed to lead them to revolt. Unfortunately for this theory, the alienated tend only to produce more alienation. The workers who went farthest in their rebellion were precisely those who had strong community roots and a long history of mutual aid. There is today, to a degree not existing in the past, a deep hostility toward government, politicians and bureaucrats. Nor is there any love for corporations, the media, or any other "authority figures". People want a say in the community and the workplace and are deeply concerned about the breakdown of community and ethics. A libertarian movement could be constructed on this basis. Yet, many anarchists have been chasing the fleeting ghosts of 1890, or dreams of primitivism and youth counter- cultures. The overwhelming majority of the population has been ignored. Most of this libertarian sentiment has been co-opted by Neo-conservative politicians. Leftists, on the other hand, ignore or attack this libertarian orientation, since it runs counter to their neurotic statist fantasies. The contemporary working population is deeply suspicious of ideology, emphasizing the here and now and the practical. This has always been the case. Lenin was right. Workers, on their own, will never opt for "socialism", or any other fantasy. However, instead of being a weakness, this practicality is a strength. It made them wary of both Modernism's universalist obsessions and Post-Modern nihilism. There are also the remains of "traditional communities". Modernism wrote these off as "people without history", "a reactionary Vendee", "standing in the way of Progress", or "sexist, racist and homophobic rednecks". In the PM era existing traditional societies, (rural and village society, indigenous minorities) are an important force in maintaining sociability. True, not all traditions are beneficial, but neither can communal values be reduced to cruelty.(10) However, with the advance of PM nihilism, one is almost tempted to say that any values are better than no values. Eighty percent of the population working for someone other than themselves is not a good basis for community. The Early Modern workers' movements sought to abolish the wage system. During Late Modernity these movements were co-opted (or destroyed) by Leninists and social democrats who abandoned this goal for a more equitable consumption of consumer goods. In the PM era it is time to reconsider the "abolition of the wage system." Not through a communistic utopia, but a movement based on contemporary developments. There has been a major expansion of self employment (10-15% growth p.a. in this sector) and vast growth of capital ownership by workers through pension, trade union and mutual funds. A possibility arises for a PM version of the old mutualist ideal. The complexity of the PM world makes a populist approach almost inevitable. How else can one pull together in opposition to the Corporate Elite and the New Class such diverse groups as white collar workers, independent workers, retirees, students, minorities, skilled workers, regionalists, traditional communities, decentralists, small government "conservatives", libertarians, co-operators, and syndicalists? We have seen populism arise quite naturally in the 1990's. Its drawback has been the strong social conservatism which some people find offensive. By no means all "social liberals" are unabashed state cultists. Hence, so-called "right wing" populism has tended to split the potential anti-statist forces over social issues. The way to overcome this problem is libertarian populism - a populism oriented to decentralization, the limiting of the state, the promotion of mutual aid and leaving the divisive social issues alone. Does this mean a "political" movement? Gustav Landauer said rather than confronting the state directly, we must choose to live in a different manner. He was mostly correct. We have opted for alternatives in housing, medicine, schooling, consumer goods, media and forms of exchange. Indeed, much more can be done in these areas. And to be effective, libertarian populism must be rooted among people who are already living this life to some extent.(11) Without such a base, a movement has no foundation, will defect at the first resistance and be vulnerable to demagoguery. But the contemporary state is vastly more intrusive than 90 years ago. As only one example, there was no income tax in Landauer's day. Since the state forces the employer to deduct this tax from our pay, there is no way we can resist this theft. While the increase in the number of independent workers and barter systems make governmental theft more difficult than it was 20 years ago, most people remain employees and thus the state still has control. Like it or not, some aspects of the state must be dismantled, which means a movement working toward that end. However, libertarian populism cannot be an electoral movement. Populist movements are wrecked by electoralism. The movement should exist outside the parliamentary arena, as a continual and relentless push for decentralization, authentic federalism, mutualism and the dismantling of the state. Would people support an extra-parliamentary opposition? All polls and surveys show cynicism toward politicians and the political process. Non-violent change, through mass protests and civil disobedience, might well get a hearing. We have the example of the 1989 East German protests that overthrew the Stalinists. If it worked under Red Fascism, why not under Elite Democracy? ENDNOTES 1. Like the contemporary English anarchist Brian Bamford, I too use the concept of Post- Modernism more "out of convenience rather than conviction" and refuse to make a fetish out of the idea. (FREEDOM Letters, Nov. 15 1997) It should also be noted that the title of this pamphlet is "Toward a Post-Modern Anarchism" - only the beginning of a discussion. 2. By Enlightenment I mean the French, not the Scottish or American Enlightenments. The latter were based upon Empiricism and therefore suspicious of Rationalist Universalism, politically opposed to Rousseau and in favor of limiting the power of government. 3. Totalism and utopianism do not necessarily imply "totalitarianism", yet the pursuit of these phantoms often led in that direction. The early workers movement emphasized the practical with its trade unions, mutual aid societies and co-ops. When the intellectuals took over, abstract ideas began to predominate. 4. See "Death By Government" by E. J. Rummel and "Le Livre Noir du Communism" by Bartosek, Courtois, et al 5. "marxists" or "marxism" does not necessarily refer to Marx's theories, but the ideology of marxism, often a different kettle of fish. 6. Nor is globalism a conspiracy. It is merely an extension to the world level of what exists in North America. The goals of global government and global consumerism have never been hidden. 7. See Noam Chomsky's statement in "The Progressive", March 1996, Right now I'd like to strengthen the Federal government. If this is an example of "anarchism", what hope is there? 8. This is a highly orthodox view. Proudhon, Tucker, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tolstoy, and Landauer (among others) saw libertarianism rooted in existence, not something cooked up and served by revolutionary chefs to a mindless mass. 9. The "social" and "sociability" do not refer to "socialism" or any other ideology, but to the voluntary, co-operative efforts of people living in a community or united in a mutual aid association. Obviously, the social can only fully exist where liberty predominates. Only fools (or intellectuals) believe liberty and community to be ultimately in conflict. 10. Examples of such cruel traditions include female genital mutilation and the "sport" of fox hunting. 11. The libertarian workers movement had a host of mutual aid societies, associations, newspapers, schools, etc. Late 19th Century American populism was rooted in the co-operative movement. ===="Marx says, revolutions are the locomotives of world history. But perhaps it is really totally different. Perhaps revolutions are the grasp by the human race traveling in this train for the emergency brake. - Walter Benjamin __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005