Apologists for capitalism like to lay claim for all the good things developed during the last 200 years. Wouldn't have happened without capitalist entrepreneurs, they say. And this is the reason that these entrepreneurs must be rewarded with colossal salaries and patent monopolies.
Trouble is, with this happy scenario, is inventors don't invent to become fabulously wealthy. There are legions of garage and basement-based inventors, and none of them are rich. Some like Edison and Ford do become rich, but in the beginning they weren't and yet they still invented. Inventing is their art, and like artists they will do so whether they are financially rewarded or not.
While financially successful inventors become capitalists as a matter of course, few inventors are themselves capitalists to begin with. The most common source of invention in the 19th and early 20th Century was the skilled worker. Edison and the Wright Brothers are the prime examples. Morse, Fulton, and Ericsson were artists. Watt an instrument maker. Edison a railway telegrapher. Kelvin, DeForest, (radio) Farnsworth, (TV) Bell, Faraday, Davie were scientists. Eastman (camera) an office clerk. Ford, and Howe (sewing machine) were machinists. Cyrus McCormack was a farmer.
Note that all great inventions are connected with a person's name. Inventions are made by individuals (Or two brothers as with the Wright Brothers and les freres Lumiere) and not by corporations. Corporate capitalism invents nothing. It might buy out someone's idea, or adapt an existing concept, but produces nothing new. Corporations develop ideas, but in a bureaucratic fashion. This explains the poor quality and impracticality of so much contemporary design. (1)The old inventors were practical people trying to find the simplest and most workable solution to a problem. The bureaucrats are merely looking for a marketing angle or a way of cheapening the cost, to which they will cheerfully sacrifice design.
Capitalism, and this is well known, suppresses inventions if they harm profits. Way back in the 1830's steam powered buses were running across England. The coaching industry and railways crushed the steam coaches by getting Parliament to enact the infamous "red flag law".(2.) Nicola Tesla found a way to transmit electricity without wires, his backer, J.P. Morgan, pulled the plug on him and a campaign of slander against Tesla was launched in the newspapers. A tacit agreement among the Big Three auto manufacturers in the US put the revolutionary Tucker car out of business.
Apologists for the corporate system claim that capital's promotion through advertising and large scale production brings new improved goods to the masses and as a result brings the price down. But people know a good thing when they see it and don't need to be propagandized into buying something. No mass advertising was necessary to switch from flint and steel to matches, or candles to coal oil lamps and then to electricity. Advertising is mostly a way of getting people to buy what they don't need or to get a larger share of the market for a product that is in no way different from that of the so-called competition. (Think of Coke vs. Pepsi)
While it is true that an economy of scale is needed to produce complex goods like aircraft, automobiles and large ships, it really doesn't apply to most items and services. (3) Does the world really need and benefit from multinational corporations frying hamburgers, brewing beer, baking bread, manufacturing cheese, bottling soft drinks, or providing janitorial services? I think not. The quality of these goods and services is usually much better when delivered by small or local firms. If you want good beer you buy from a microbrewery not Molsons or Coors. Good bread is only found at local bakeries, mass production bread is only fit for pigs. MacDo burgers are crap and Kraft cheese has no taste.
1. Things have gotten insanely and unnecessarily complex. Why should you need a manual to operate your car radio-CD player? Why did they abolish the on-off switch for cell phones and pagers? Why are "help menus" so unhelpful?
2. The law by which any "horseless carriage" had to be preceded by a man bearing a red flag. This law, which wasn't killed until 1896, effectively gave France and Germany a big head start in the auto industry.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Friday, July 8, 2005
GRAMSCI WAS RIGHT
Early in 1968 I became aware of Antonio Gramsci and his concept of hegemony. That culture - in the sociological sense of the word - ought to be an area of contestation fitted right into my anarchist counter-culturalism. Simply put, Gramsci saw that the dominant culture tended to inoculate the population against liberatory practices and ideas. Revolutionaries had to struggle against this culture and create a new cultural hegemony. Essentially, the revolution required a change in consciousness before the political and economic changes could occur.
Little did I realize at the time how right Gramsci was and how important cultural change was to be in the coming years. "How so?" you ask. Look at the different outcome of the radicalism of the 1930's and the 1960's. The 1930's and 40's labor movement was followed by a period of reaction - the 1950's - and there was a break in continuity between the radicalisms of the two periods. When we 1960's radicals came on the scene, it was like having to invent the wheel all over again. (Which explains some of our - in retrospect - foolish errors)
The majority of the population in the 1930's - including those supporting the labor movement, accepted the dominant culture - one that was authoritarian, sexist, racist and sexually repressive. It was relatively easy for the rulers to force them back into conservative politics, since their daily lives were highly conservative. Many radicals were attracted to the authoritarian left and it took little effort to switch over to the authoritarian right when these parties failed to establish anything resembling socialism.
When we look at post-1960s radical movements there is no such break, only continuity. The radicalism may have changed form, but it was always there. From the student movement and hippies of the '60's to feminism and ecology of the 70's, to a re-born anti-war and environmental movement of the '80's, to the antiglobalist movements of the '90's and today, there is a continuity.
By challenging the core elements of the dominant culture, elements which reproduce and support authoritarian politics, like racism, sexism, homophobia, sexual repression, authoritarian child rearing and the cult of conformism - a large portion of the population became inoculated against the authoritarian right. (1)
This explains the violent "cultural war" waged by the right. They are essentially right-wing Gramscists without knowing it. They realize that a culture with liberatory aspects provides a matrix for a liberatory politics. The best way to break us is to destroy our cultural hegemony and replace it with an authoritarian hegemony. Then it will be easier to herd us back into slavery.
But this trick is not an easy one to pull off. The problem for the right is while political positions are often superficial and can be dropped without much adieu, deep cultural attitudes are not. The superiority of a life without many of the neurotic oppressions of the past (like sexual repression, child abuse, misogyny etc.) is so evident once you start living without them, you would rather die than return to the past. Daily life has been changed, the liberatory genie is out of the bottle, and other than exterminating us, it cannot be put back in again.
1. Child abuse and sexual oppression were the anvil and hammer that beat the authoritarian personality into existence. The authoritarian personality was the ultimate key to the preservation of the system.
Little did I realize at the time how right Gramsci was and how important cultural change was to be in the coming years. "How so?" you ask. Look at the different outcome of the radicalism of the 1930's and the 1960's. The 1930's and 40's labor movement was followed by a period of reaction - the 1950's - and there was a break in continuity between the radicalisms of the two periods. When we 1960's radicals came on the scene, it was like having to invent the wheel all over again. (Which explains some of our - in retrospect - foolish errors)
The majority of the population in the 1930's - including those supporting the labor movement, accepted the dominant culture - one that was authoritarian, sexist, racist and sexually repressive. It was relatively easy for the rulers to force them back into conservative politics, since their daily lives were highly conservative. Many radicals were attracted to the authoritarian left and it took little effort to switch over to the authoritarian right when these parties failed to establish anything resembling socialism.
When we look at post-1960s radical movements there is no such break, only continuity. The radicalism may have changed form, but it was always there. From the student movement and hippies of the '60's to feminism and ecology of the 70's, to a re-born anti-war and environmental movement of the '80's, to the antiglobalist movements of the '90's and today, there is a continuity.
By challenging the core elements of the dominant culture, elements which reproduce and support authoritarian politics, like racism, sexism, homophobia, sexual repression, authoritarian child rearing and the cult of conformism - a large portion of the population became inoculated against the authoritarian right. (1)
This explains the violent "cultural war" waged by the right. They are essentially right-wing Gramscists without knowing it. They realize that a culture with liberatory aspects provides a matrix for a liberatory politics. The best way to break us is to destroy our cultural hegemony and replace it with an authoritarian hegemony. Then it will be easier to herd us back into slavery.
But this trick is not an easy one to pull off. The problem for the right is while political positions are often superficial and can be dropped without much adieu, deep cultural attitudes are not. The superiority of a life without many of the neurotic oppressions of the past (like sexual repression, child abuse, misogyny etc.) is so evident once you start living without them, you would rather die than return to the past. Daily life has been changed, the liberatory genie is out of the bottle, and other than exterminating us, it cannot be put back in again.
1. Child abuse and sexual oppression were the anvil and hammer that beat the authoritarian personality into existence. The authoritarian personality was the ultimate key to the preservation of the system.
Sunday, July 3, 2005
Finally!
At last people are attempting to reverse the insanity of North American suburban existence. Rather than sprawl, a new community like a village. Includes minimizing auto traffic, setting up a land trust, affordable housing and no house more than 5 minutes walk from a school. This is to take place in Bamberton on Vancouver Island, Thanks to Marie Helene for sending this to me.
Friday, July 1, 2005
Polynesians In California.
The old dogmas are dying. Social scientists are now seriously debating whether Polynesians managed to get to California more than 1000 years ago.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
THE JOY OF BEING WRONG
I was wrong about the Zapatista Movement in Chiapas. When the EZNL first made it into the headlines back in 1994, I though, "Oh no! another Marxist-Leninist guerrilla group." The worst thing that could happen to the liberation movement I felt, would be the re-birth of Leninist ideology in Latin America. Such a rebirth would spur imitators in the First World and any hope for a re-implantation of libertarian socialism would be if not over, at least made very difficult.
I am so pleased that I was wrong about the Zapatistas and they turned out not to be Leninists after all. No matter what the original intentions of the small group of Maoists who entered Chiapas in the early 1980's, the movement they helped create went in another direction. And they went with it - truly "learning from the people." Rather than Leninism, they turned to the peasant anarcho-populism of Emiliano Zapata, which never really died out.
Rather than allying with Leninists, the Zapatistas have close relations with the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists. Rather giving rise to centralized authoritarian groups they have , by their existence, spurred the creation of mass social movements, one of which , The Consejo Indígena Popular de Oaxaca - Ricardo Flores Magón is a member of the international anarchist network, International Libertarian Solidarity
Discussing this development with an old friend at the recent Montreal Anarchist Book Fair, he said that it would be unlikely for indigenous people, given their culture and social organization, to be attracted to an authoritarian political movement. I think this has a lot to do with it.
I was also wrong about the end of "traditional" anarcho-syndicalist unions. After an initial burst of enthusiasm in the late-1970's - early '80's, unions like the CNT of Spain, French CNT and IWW lost members or split into hostile factions. I felt that these unions were finished as important instruments of working class struggle and that the essential ideas - self-management, local control, direct democracy and delegation - would arise elsewhere in new forms. This was already happening with the COBAs or base-committee organizations which developed in Italy and spread to France and Spain.
But out of the broken pieces of the old movement a new and revitalized syndicalism arose. The Spanish CGT now represents a million workers, the French CNT went from 100 members to 5000, the Italian syndicalists are gaining new members, the IWW has doubled its membership and is organizing once more. Anarcho-syndicalist groups are now found in virtually every European and Latin American country. And in Europe they work happily side by side with the COBAs.
May I continue to be wrong when I am pessimistic.
For more information see: Alternative Union Movement
I am so pleased that I was wrong about the Zapatistas and they turned out not to be Leninists after all. No matter what the original intentions of the small group of Maoists who entered Chiapas in the early 1980's, the movement they helped create went in another direction. And they went with it - truly "learning from the people." Rather than Leninism, they turned to the peasant anarcho-populism of Emiliano Zapata, which never really died out.
Rather than allying with Leninists, the Zapatistas have close relations with the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists. Rather giving rise to centralized authoritarian groups they have , by their existence, spurred the creation of mass social movements, one of which , The Consejo Indígena Popular de Oaxaca - Ricardo Flores Magón is a member of the international anarchist network, International Libertarian Solidarity
Discussing this development with an old friend at the recent Montreal Anarchist Book Fair, he said that it would be unlikely for indigenous people, given their culture and social organization, to be attracted to an authoritarian political movement. I think this has a lot to do with it.
I was also wrong about the end of "traditional" anarcho-syndicalist unions. After an initial burst of enthusiasm in the late-1970's - early '80's, unions like the CNT of Spain, French CNT and IWW lost members or split into hostile factions. I felt that these unions were finished as important instruments of working class struggle and that the essential ideas - self-management, local control, direct democracy and delegation - would arise elsewhere in new forms. This was already happening with the COBAs or base-committee organizations which developed in Italy and spread to France and Spain.
But out of the broken pieces of the old movement a new and revitalized syndicalism arose. The Spanish CGT now represents a million workers, the French CNT went from 100 members to 5000, the Italian syndicalists are gaining new members, the IWW has doubled its membership and is organizing once more. Anarcho-syndicalist groups are now found in virtually every European and Latin American country. And in Europe they work happily side by side with the COBAs.
May I continue to be wrong when I am pessimistic.
For more information see: Alternative Union Movement
Friday, June 24, 2005
CHILE AND VENEZUELA - NOT THE SAME
I wonder how many Venezuelans the US state is willing to murder in order to overthrow the populist Chavez government? Four thousand like in Chile, thirty thousand like in Argentina? Probably a lot more since the situation is far more difficult for the Gringos in Venezuela than either of these countries in the 1970's. But if they want a blood bath, they are going to wait a long time. Thankfully, this isn't 1973.
For one thing the level of popular support. Latest polls put support for Chavez at 70%, while the Chilean Unidad Popular of Allende, never got more than 45% of the votes. The US government was able to build Pinochet's coup on the basis of this opposition majority. Most important of all the army is on the side of the government, unlike in Chile. No doubt there are officers who would support a fascist rising, as some did in the last Gringo-sponsored coup, but not the military as a whole.
Furthermore, Chavez is both a miltary man and a populist. Latin American populism has never shied away from armed struggle - witness the populist revolutions in Costa Rica in 1948, Bolivia in 1952 and Chiapas in 1994 - and Chavez will not hesitate to arm the people should the Empire seek to impose its dictatorship. Salvador Allende, a social democrat in practice, if not in theory, instead sought to disarm the people and appease a right-wing controlled military.
Latin America as a whole is different today. Back in 1973, most governments south of the Rio Grande were right wing. Now they are left-wing populist and will be very angry at any attempt to overthrow a democratically elected progressive government. Last but not least, the Empire is suffering from imperial overstretch as its ill-fated attempt to subdue the Iraqi people has gotten nowhere. They can ill-afford a Latin American adventure.
This brings the question as to how libertarian socialists should deal with populist or revolutionary governments like that of Chavez. This question has been a sticky point for us, all the way back to the Russian Revolution. There are two traps which we seem to have habitually fallen into and hopefully avoid today. One position is to give full support to the revolutionary government and lose one's identity completely, like the anarchists and syndicalists who ended up in the Communist Party. The other position is to declare war on all governments, revolutionary or reactionary, and end up despised by the masses as counter-revolutionary. In this situation one ends up a tiny bitter sect without any influence. (1)
The correct position is to support the the mass of the population on an issue by issue basis, without becoming an actual supporter of the government itself. First loyalty is to the revolutionary movement and not to an ideology or government. Where the government aids the movement - for what ever reason - fine. Where the revolutionary government undermines that movement we are against it. Thus, one should support the popular movements initiated by the struggle against counter-revolution, and try to push these organizations as far as possible to an autonomist position. Where the revolutionary government radicalizes, we should radicalize further. Where the revolutionary government acts in an authoritarian manner against the popular forces we must actively oppose it. Thus, a position that is neither sycophantic nor seen as sectarian which aids the reactionaries. In a nutshell - we are for everything that improves the lives of the people and empowers them and against everything that harms them and enslaves them.
(1) Many years ago I told an activist friend that I was editing a collection of articles written by the Socialist Party of Canada. "Why on earth would you do that?" he asked. "I hate those people!" "All they ever do (all five of them) is come to our demonstrations and denounce everyone, if it was up to them people would never do anything." (I must point out that the tiny ultra-sectarian group in question was not the same as the SPC that I wrote about in The Impossibilists
For one thing the level of popular support. Latest polls put support for Chavez at 70%, while the Chilean Unidad Popular of Allende, never got more than 45% of the votes. The US government was able to build Pinochet's coup on the basis of this opposition majority. Most important of all the army is on the side of the government, unlike in Chile. No doubt there are officers who would support a fascist rising, as some did in the last Gringo-sponsored coup, but not the military as a whole.
Furthermore, Chavez is both a miltary man and a populist. Latin American populism has never shied away from armed struggle - witness the populist revolutions in Costa Rica in 1948, Bolivia in 1952 and Chiapas in 1994 - and Chavez will not hesitate to arm the people should the Empire seek to impose its dictatorship. Salvador Allende, a social democrat in practice, if not in theory, instead sought to disarm the people and appease a right-wing controlled military.
Latin America as a whole is different today. Back in 1973, most governments south of the Rio Grande were right wing. Now they are left-wing populist and will be very angry at any attempt to overthrow a democratically elected progressive government. Last but not least, the Empire is suffering from imperial overstretch as its ill-fated attempt to subdue the Iraqi people has gotten nowhere. They can ill-afford a Latin American adventure.
This brings the question as to how libertarian socialists should deal with populist or revolutionary governments like that of Chavez. This question has been a sticky point for us, all the way back to the Russian Revolution. There are two traps which we seem to have habitually fallen into and hopefully avoid today. One position is to give full support to the revolutionary government and lose one's identity completely, like the anarchists and syndicalists who ended up in the Communist Party. The other position is to declare war on all governments, revolutionary or reactionary, and end up despised by the masses as counter-revolutionary. In this situation one ends up a tiny bitter sect without any influence. (1)
The correct position is to support the the mass of the population on an issue by issue basis, without becoming an actual supporter of the government itself. First loyalty is to the revolutionary movement and not to an ideology or government. Where the government aids the movement - for what ever reason - fine. Where the revolutionary government undermines that movement we are against it. Thus, one should support the popular movements initiated by the struggle against counter-revolution, and try to push these organizations as far as possible to an autonomist position. Where the revolutionary government radicalizes, we should radicalize further. Where the revolutionary government acts in an authoritarian manner against the popular forces we must actively oppose it. Thus, a position that is neither sycophantic nor seen as sectarian which aids the reactionaries. In a nutshell - we are for everything that improves the lives of the people and empowers them and against everything that harms them and enslaves them.
(1) Many years ago I told an activist friend that I was editing a collection of articles written by the Socialist Party of Canada. "Why on earth would you do that?" he asked. "I hate those people!" "All they ever do (all five of them) is come to our demonstrations and denounce everyone, if it was up to them people would never do anything." (I must point out that the tiny ultra-sectarian group in question was not the same as the SPC that I wrote about in The Impossibilists
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)