Pages

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Insanity or Reason?

 Socialism is not a romantic utopia but a viable, feasible aspiration that can be realised, based on thousands of years of experience. Humans were egalitarian for hundreds of generations before hierarchical societies began to appear. Many of the behaviours we now celebrate –  the hoarding of wealth, for example – were traditionally considered socially deviant. How we live is so far removed from how we ought to live. The Utku in the Canadian Arctic have an extreme intolerance for displays of anger, aggression, or dominance. The Pintupi Aborigines insist that one should assert one’s autonomy only in ways that do not threaten the equality and autonomy of others”. Among the Wape tribe in New Guinea, a man will not tolerate a situation where a neighbour has more than he has. A man should not possess either goods or power to the disadvantage of others. In both egalitarian and hierarchical societies, power is jealously guarded. For egalitarians, the goal is to maximize freedom through group solidarity; for despots, the goal is to maximize the “freedom” of rulers to oppress the majority. Hunter-gatherers are able to prevent social dominance hierarchies because they act in a group wide coalition.  Under the state this ability is severely curtailed.  James Madison, the “father of the American constitution,” argued that a primary purpose of government was to “protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” His great fear was “levelling tendencies,” in other words, real democracy.

The Power Principle demands that the class that holds power attempts to retain and expand that power. Therefore, ruling classes within one nation find themselves in conflict not only with domestic populations but other nation states. The greatest fear of those who hold power is Anarchy – the loss of control by those who exercise it. When the late historian Howard Zinn was asked what he thought of the word “anarchy” being used as a synonym for chaos, he suggested that anarchic systems are actually much more stable than hierarchical systems. Anarchism is based on horizontal principles of free association and mutual aid, whereas hierarchical systems demand coercion and violence. “Our political systems are in chaos,” Zinn stated. “International relations are in chaos.” In the desire to dominate others in order to prevent chaos, chaos is the result. By their very nature, states must exist in an environment of perpetual conflict; when a “critical quantity of power” is reached by one state in relation to others, war is a likely result.

However, it should be noted that it is by no means certain that chaos is considered undesirable by military strategists, provided it serves to weaken the opposition. In his “Strategy for Israel in the 1980′s,” Israeli strategic planner Oded Yinon advocated the fomenting of civil war throughout the entire middle east. Arabs would be turned against one another on the basis of nation, religion and ethnicity in order to increase Israel’s relative power. In countries like Iraq, Syria and Libya (or indeed Guatemala, El Salvador, Indonesia and Vietnam) we see the fruits of such strategies. Genocidal violence is not merely an unfortunate byproduct of well-intentioned plans for regime change but a goal in and of itself. It weakens competitors, and is therefore deemed justified. Human life has neither a positive nor a negative value, it is simply irrelevant – another number in the calculus of power. For Cold War General Curtis Lemay and nuclear strategist Herman Khan, it seemed perfectly logical to risk the annihilation of the human race in order to “win” the game against the Soviet Union. Missing in their analysis was that the game itself was insane.

For the majority, the state and its armies are viewed as a necessary evil. They are imagined to be required, at minimum, to defend populations from aggression by other states. This seemingly rational belief has produced the irrational consequence of possible near term extinction. Once we begin – as a global community – to conceive of states, as well as capitalism, as unnecessary and indeed harmful constructs, we can start to build alternatives from the bottom up. A pessimist view would regard such radical change as unlikely absent a massive global awakening. Yet such an awakening is not far-fetched, if for no other reason than current socio-economic models are unsustainable.

Adapted and abridged from an essay by Scott Noble that can be read in full here 

No comments:

Post a Comment