[LAF] Personal Responce to the Pendry Paper

[steve ash]

An Anarchist Responce (to Tim Pendry's Paper) Share

Tim's analysis of the failure of democratic and authoritarian Socialism is telling I think. The common denominator in both, as Tim correctly identifies, is a lust for power and a 'self regarding opportunism', in other words selfish egotism. Kerensky is likewise censured for not seizing the moment, but how could he when faced with the potentials of his own power? His own egotism would have prevented a truly egalitarian move, and did. However, all these have a strength in common we are told, a commitment to hierarchical organisation. Yes, of course they do, they want to be at the top of that hierarchy, like any sane individual in such a set up, or if they are a bit more intelligent than their colleagues, a powerful niche within the system, with suitable scapegoats at the top. Only those crushed in spirit will settle for sheep function, and will stay there forever seeking a new leadership to herd and protect them. 

But as Tim himself admits, the hierarchical institutions they create eventually fail and chaos ensues, until some new institution replaces it a repeats the whole miserable cycle, a political Samsara. This may be a good gamble for those near the beginning of a cycle of course, but its early initiators are in a very uncertain situation while those later in the cycle soon face instability and the unpredictability of an inevitable collapse. Not a good situation for most in fact and certainly not good for society.

Interestingly while identifying this trait in these two political poles of Socialism, he misses another important manifestation, Trade Unionism. For here, as long as an elected leadership seeks to represent its members in an authoritarian way the same negative 'socialist trait' will emerge. Only when workers represent themselves in genuine collective organisation will this change.

Two factors identified by Tim as strengths of their mode of organisation are solidarity and fixed ideology. The latter is a doomed position in the face of reality, as Tim acknowledges, though I would suggest that some form of adaptive, minimal ideology and personal solidarity are important for any political movement. The implication that this was the reason for their success over anarchist rivals is very wide of the mark however, as these are also features of the most successful moments in the history of anarchism. Solidarity in particular is traditionally a defining feature of anarchists, as one would expect from non-hierarchical groups. Though admittedly there have always been pseudo-anarchist groups who mirror the 'socialist trait' in more subtle ways, as well as a significant degree of sectarianism within the anarchist movement that sometimes counters any broad solidarity. A critique of anarchism could be very well made on this point, and indeed has,
 often from within the anarchist movement itself. Today's diversity within the 'anarchist stance', including those Green activists and libertarian Marxists who have adopted anarchist organisation to a large extent, though rarely its pure ideology, has emphasised this problem even more, and is one reason I champion a return to a purer anarchism, with a clear ideology of individual freedom, within a social mutualist and economic egalitarian context. The principle of 'from each according to means, and to each according to needs' is a principle written in stone for most authentic anarchists.

A very broad solidarity is a double edged sword however. For the real reason of the success of Anarchy's rivals is not their solidarity but duplicity and false solidarity, which often co-opted trusting anarchists who had naively applied a more authentic solidarity in broader revolutionary movements they had initiated. This is not only demonstrated by the cynical betrayal of anarchists, and the people, by the Communist Party in the Spanish Civil War (repeated in farce in the May 68 Events in Paris) and the hijacking of the Russian Revolution by the Bolshevik Coup, but also by the egotistic conspiratorial machinations of Karl Marx within the First International. But again the lust for power and control freakery lie at the heart of this.

Tim believes this reveals human nature to be far from benign and has a point, but largely distorts the point in the contextualisation he gives it. Evoking mythical entities such as 'human nature', and even 'animal nature', he deploys these biased abstractions in relation to dubious scientific studies and misinterpretations of well formulated experiments. A case in point being the Milgram Experiment, in which while a majority behaved in the sheepish ways expected of the (de)socialised masses in response to conventional authority, a significant minority refused to conform, with at least one person seeing through the experimenters motives quite insightfully. Are we to assume that such rebels are geniuses, saints or freaks, or are we to realise what this tells us about the potential of the human constitution.

Anarchists have a variety of different views on 'human nature', as befits a free, individualistic movement. I was glad Tim avoided the popular portrayal of naïve anarchism, with its faith in the benign nature of human beings, but I think his idea that anarchists follow a Marxian model of the benignity of the liberated, while true of some, is false of many of us. Its seems to be quite obvious from all modern studies that 'human nature' is a social construct, organising a chaos of biological and psychic drives into a variety of habituated forms. Far from benigning us sudden liberation may release a host of destructive impulses suppressed by our current culture (though this may also have its place, both cathartic and practical, under certain conditions). What is required is an awareness of this social constructivism from cradle to grave, and its existance in child rearing, education, family life, the workplace, economic and power relations and lifestyles
 in general. But more importantly I would suggest in the power of every partially liberated individual to recreate themselves.

But what I think Tim is right about is this 'animal nature', as he calls it, and its tendency towards selfishness rather than altruism. However I would not invoke such dualistic, abstract human notions as 'animal' and 'human', but rather appeal to what we know about our biological drives as set by our genetic make-up. This may not be our only influence, or even the most powerful, free will remains an essential human characteristic, but it is a strong force in our being, resistance to which can only cause internal conflict and pathological states. Our constitution needs to be balanced and integrated with self sensitivity not repression.

So what does evolutionary biology tell us about our drives? Well sadly there isn't a single animal species that shows any trace of altruism (outside of eusocial insects, like wasps and ants, who are probably a hive organism, rather than individual entities, in the main). Most animals are capable of demonstrating such degrees of selfishness they would make New Labour appear like Christian saints in comparison. Natural Selection clearly operates on an individual level and favours the self centred survivalist. Moreover I would argue on Nietzschean lines that survival is not the only factor here either, but the expansion and betterment of individual existance, conceptualised by humans as empowerment, or more rawly as power, is also one of the basic self centred drives. Socialisation can ameliorate this but can never overcome it. More often it is pathologically inverted through the direct dominance-submission patterns that trump power urges with survival
 urges in the weakened (with accompanying repressed resentment, the source of all eruptive fascisms). However things are not as dark as they seem, for altruism as understood by biologists simply means 'self-sacrifice' (outside of special exceptions, such as 'maternal instincts'). In fact as anyone who studies nature will discover there is considerably mutualism, and even symbiosis, present. But always to the advantage and not the disadvantage of the cooperating animal, that is it is acting purely from self-interest (in humans even 'love' is a self-centred phenomena!). The reason for this can be scientifically demonstrated through Game Theory which demonstrates how win-win solutions are far more optimal than the more common win-lose situation. For animals this is usually an accidental habituation, but we should not under estimate the weak ability to reason in most humans.

Thus I conclude that the very history of socialism demonstrates this unavoidable egoism within us. But it is for this very reason that non hierarchical, consensual means of organisation are really the only forms that can functionally sublimate this selfishness into mutualist egoism. An egoism perfectly compatible with such self centred emotions as compassion, empathy and the removal of an unpleasant environment of injustice and suffering. 

What does this mean in terms of practical politics? It means that left libertarianism is the only social structure that can actually deliver what healthy self-centred people want, empowerment and the good life, both of which are only realisable in any sustainable form within a mutualist society (by which I mean mutual aid, not passe economic mutualism, to avoid confusion). Yes, there are issues with this, such as the over population which causes competition for resources etc, but that is hardly an insurmountable problem (poverty being the main reason for high birthrates etc). All the necessary means for correcting existing problems are achievable through a shared culture, or ideology, within small, local communities (a culture allowing for individual and ethnic diversity of course). Here agreement could not be achieved by coercion, neither its authoritarian or seductive forms, and certainly not through the tyranny of the majority called 'democracy', but
 only through genuine consensus (for those directly effected and with pragmatic opt-outs for dissidents). By coercion I would also include the so-called 'rule of law', one of the most barbaric customs ever invented, and one that cannot function without coercion. The only functional rule of law can be that which we impose on ourselves, contrary to 'pop anarchism', authentic anarchism is founded on the personal responsibility and strict discipline that makes freedom possible as well as engendering even greater self esteem (the famed anarchic rebellion only applies in the face of authority and imposition, and so will necessarily be eternally present to some extent). Coercion is not only bad in principle of course its bad in practise, as anyone who has placed their finger over a dripping tap and got soaked will tell you, it actually gives you the opposite result to the one you want. As Blake observed “Prisons are built with stones of Law, Brothels with
 bricks of Religion.” Law creates crime. And this hasn't even touched on the problems of generalisation, to quote Blake again “One law for the Lion and the Ox is oppression”. So for this reason I fundamentally disagree with Tim, and like all anarchists hold the 'Rule of Law' unacceptable and non-negotiable. I'm surprised Tim falls for the bourgeois paranoia that the removal of law leads to barbarity (or that 'primitive people' in a natural environment are barbarous), this old chestnut has no grounds whatsoever. Of course repressed people discharge their repressions on liberation (or at will) but that is hardly grounds for continuing the repression through coercion and law (and intensifying the problem in the inevitable moments of social disruption). And such eruptions have their uses when faced with those who would intensify rather than reduce coercion.

The form of society portrayed here may sound Utopic to some, and it certainly is not an over night solution or an easy project, the transition is a particular problem. However it is better qualified as Eutopian, as it is the only form of society that actually satisfies peoples needs and drives, and one that is not undermined by those drives as Tim has shown all other forms are. It even cathartically channels our sadistic urges towards those foolish enough to attempt to maintain authority, let alone increase it. It is simply the politics of popular empowerment, but as autonomous individuals not a herd. 

But what of the immediate 'crisis' and the possibility of broad solidarity to tackle it. The differences of ideology may make this difficult, however the crisis itself is serious enough not to make it impossible. But what crisis? The trivial one of political confidence (and the rise of sociopathic authoritarians who will fail far quicker and be crushed by far more ruthless force than such cowardly weaklings can muster) or the real crisis of the eco-system and the increasingly likely catastrophic systemic collapse of Capitalism (don't believe the hype about 'Recessions'). Anarchists far from being naval gazers have been the historical catalysts of all revolutions in modern history (or rather insurrections, have we have no desire to invert power relations), socialist bureaucrats are hardly able to inspire popular uprisings (despite the revisionist accounts of Marxist academics). But hopefully with a collapsing system (which we can always help push a
 little) such violent revolts will not be necessary and instead we can self-organise along consensual lines, ignoring the official, established powers and creating the kind of autonomous alternatives that will make violence unnecessary (beyond the means of their defence, which in themselves could also be non-violent in principle). The key issue is to empower people not to lead them to empowerment and certainly not to represent them. Though a little inspiration, social catalysis and power structure demolition sometimes requires supportive specialists.

In this respect strategic alliances on the left are indeed possible, we all want a libertarian future and so can work together on projects that achieve elements of that or that move us closer to a full realisation of it. Anarchists may want to go the furtherest and will always push the envelope. We may never achieve our full goal, but we will never surrender our aspirations. The rest of you can stay with Samsara if you will.