A Brass-Tacks Comparison of Political Theories
17 01 10 - 15:20Political philosophy has been generally lumped into two camps, which are "Communitarian" and "Atomistic" models of human social structure. The definition of these two terms is best understood by the relationship of the individual to the broader society. Imagine, if you will, that you have two bowls, and into those bowls you place a quantity of ball bearings. In the first bowl, which we shall term "Model A", the bearings are left loose. In the second bowl, which we shall term "Model B", the bearings are kept in stasis by gelatin. Now, you turn those two bowls over on a table top. Lets examine the results.
"Model A" conceives of the individual as being a complete unit, independent of other individuals and forces, existing in a state of absolute liberty in the context of a civil/political society. In such a society, individuals associate on the grounds of mutual benefit for shared goals, but are bound to each other only by contractual or other practical obligations. Individuals are totally self-directed and mobile, there being minimal restrictions imposed on their associative activity. This society is conceived as being of two parts: the civil or social group, in which all associative and economic activity occurs, and the political group, which is ideally supposed to be a non-interventionary executive body primarily composed for the purpose of securing trade routes and military defense, though perhaps also to enforce other regulations. The political body acts as sort of a skin, protecting the civil body within and securing its activity. If we pour out our "Model A" bowl onto the table the bearings will scatter and atomise, all individuals being isolated units, thus making activity between them unsecured and otherwise impossible.
Most Liberal and capitalist thought can be characterised as being "Model A". This genre of thinking arose primarily after the Protestant Reformation, with such prominent thinkers as Kant and Mill to its credit. Though all individuals are considered to be "equally free", they are certainly not considered to be "equal". It is assumed that individuals will differentiate in their social position based on natural talents and proclivities, and therefore those who are possessed of power are likewise those best suited to its possession. It is assumed that the "best people" rise to the top; and if a person occupies a high social position, they are presumed to be a better person, regardless of how it was that they came by their lofty station, be it through violence, heredity, or trickery. This view was, and is, perfectly congruous with the rise of capitalist economic thought and the advent of such religious philosophies as those of John Calvin. The "invisible hand" of the market (which, as any good capitalist will tell you, is presumed not to be subject to manipulation) will deliver our superiors to stations of unquestionable rule, and for a small donation to the infallible church, the place of those predestined to paradise will be assured by God and therefore justified to the people who suffer on the other side of iniquity. The mongrel rabble of the inferior people, who though possessed of equal liberty could not achieve, are considered, therefore, expendable in war and certainly exploitable for profit. It's the will of God, or of the Market. The lines between often become blurred.
In such societies, the political body becomes the primary agency of the civil society, which as described above, is dominated principally by the most rotten variety of thugs, thieves, and liars. The liberal government, be it republican, fascist, or by whatever guise, becomes an instrument of force; a lever by which those powerful elite of a society may ply the people to the will of their masters. The government of such a society is nothing besides this, despite whatever propaganda it may disseminate to the contrary. The liberal contention is that, without political domination (our "Model A" bowl), the civil society will collapse.
"Model B", however, contends that the individual is a wholly dependent component and beneficiary of the wider society. Since individuals cannot exist (prosperously) without one another, they are rigidly bound together by not only practical obligations such as food production, but also a number of other cultural and social obligations, which are shared, presumably, equally by all. The benefits engendered within such a society are supposed to be distributed or re-distributed equitably, though in reality this is very rarely the case. The individual owes society a debt for the services provided to that individual by the society; things like education, acculturation, and language. The individual exists in a sort of social/economic niche, to which he is presumed well suited for various reasons, such as heredity or class; but these are foreign, ascribed statuses applied to the individual by others, and very rarely can the individual effectively jettison them in order to alter his social position, or even to enact self-directed action. The ruling organizations of such societies rarely find it to be in their interests to allow this degree of freedom among their component parts, and therefore endeavor to retain individuals in their positions and prevent their advancement and also to prevent their retrocession. The individual assents to be governed on the terms of the society simply by participating and remaining within the society and thereby giving "tacit agreement". Economic activity is only one of many associative activities in which an individual is involved, and few are (generally speaking) self-directed. Economic activity, as well as a range of other activities, are regulated by the collective, and must proceed according to rigid guidelines determined by one form of legislative process or another. The individual must comply in the manner required by the collective, or else face sanction or expulsion as a defective component. The economies of such societies are generally planned and allocative, with decisions being made by a centralized, monolithic political organization.
This highly authoritarian model is certainly the older of the two. Proffered by Aristotle (via Socrates) and Plato, perpetuated by Aquinas and Augustine, and eventually revisited by a variety of groups, socialist, fascist, and capitalist alike, "Model B" has been advocated by both tyrants and revolutionaries, by popes and by heretics. When coupled with monotheistic religiosity, this model is given to theocracy, a potent combination employed by kings the world over and throughout history, up to this very day. It rationalizes the implementation of caste systems, racial apartheid, and even slavery. The Bolsheviks also made thorough use of this line of thinking; "social termites" could be sent to the gulags or Siberia for not operating within the parameters set down by the party or Dear Leader, if they were not summarily shot. The military agency of such a political organization is a unitary component of the overall organization. Just as with all other units functioning within the collective, its decision making process is entirely subsumed by the executive process of the wider body; just as with "Model A", the military/political components of this society become the instrumentation by which the ruling class or apparatus leverages its authority upon the people to make them act in conformity with the decisions of a small, ruling elite. Let it not be said, however, that this is an impractical system. History has proven that such authoritarian systems are certainly as functional, and at least as sustainable, as other forms of tyranny practiced by governments the world over.
When we overturn our "Model B" bowl, we find that the economic operations of the wider society continue to operate essentially unchanged, the ball bearings being held together in the same relative configuration by their shared practical circumstance; the same circumstance which requires them to continue operations much as before. Such a society remains cohesive with or without a political 'skin', which is merely one unitary function of the greater whole of the society, and as such will construct a new 'skin' should its predecessor fail through mismanagement or revolution. The collapse of the USSR is demonstrative of this process.
These two perceptions of human social organization have been considered diametrically opposed to one another and assumed to be irreconcilable. For nearly fifty years, the whole of humanity stood on the precipice of complete nuclear annihilation because the 'leaders' of the world could not conceive of there ever being compromise between the two. Chauvinistic jingoism and nationalist mendacity prevented even the contemplation of such a compromise, and their opposition to one another became a sacrosanct fact of life for both sides, further preventing the consideration of alternatives. And so the state of the debate remains, in respectable circles of academics, funded by or dependent as they are on one side or the other, at a virtual stand-still. No one seems willing to consider a practical, logical synthesis between the two; their interests are so vested on one side or the other that they are perfectly willing to all together ignore an alternative economic and political system that has not only survived alongside them but has demonstrated time and time again its practicability, sustainability, and viability despite the best efforts of the ruling classes to eradicate it: That conception, in short, is Anarchism.
Anarchism, that is "Model C", takes the best of both and burns the dross. Individuals are entirely self-directed, and enjoy absolute liberty of association and activity. They also enjoy all of the benefits of existing in a solidary society composed of mutually-interdependent and mutually-self-interested individuals. Individuals participate in collaborative and associative activities for shared goals, but this participation is neither bound nor mandatory. Associating individuals contribute what pertinent resources are available to them at the time of the establishment of the association, and at such time as the association resolves or is disbanded, the individual retains the same resources or their equivalent. The individual retains at all times the right of secession from any association or organization, and is not obliged to participate in any activity against their will. All individuals are provided for according to their needs, and each produces and acts according to their abilities, both factors to be determined by the individual themself according to their own, independent judgement. Such goods and services as desired by the individual beyond ample subsistence of emotional and physical needs must be manufactured by the individual or otherwise be gained through personal initiative, industry, and self-authored action. Brokering, profiteering, and all forms of exploitation are shameful, publicised, and altogether unnecessary, as desirous individuals need but ask to receive literally anything that can be produced by anybody anywhere. Individuals are "socially equal" and "equally free", meaning that no individual is valued as being higher in priority than another; both receive the same benefits, neither advantaged over the other beyond that which talent affords them. Even such advantages and talents which indeed are inherent differences between individuals must not be expounded into hierarchies of superiority or inferiority. The diverse nature of unique individuals contributes immeasurably to the knowledge, technical proficiencies, and pedagogies this diversity creates; all aspects of material and cultural advancement are vital to the continuing creative growth of a sustainable society; it is illogical to stymie the progress of one element of social development in order to emphasize another. Doing so results in a disservice to both and an uneven distribution of specialization and ultimately an imbalance of power in the society. The individual is the uncontested ruler of himself, and personal sovereignty is unimpeachable. Personal possessions, such as family domiciles, clothing, work implements, and other personal effects (books, toiletries, heirlooms, etc.) receive the same protection under this sovereignty as though they were contiguous parts of their possessors body; meaning that he cannot rightly be divested of them and neither can they be destroyed or expropriated against his will. Property, specifically productive property, such as Factories, Farms, Scholastic Facilities, Workshops, and all associated implements, materials, and facilities, are held in common by the commune, union, trades body, federation, or syndicate with which they are associated, and cannot be held privately by individuals for the sake of generating profit, power, or any other reason.
Our "Model C" society differs also in its basic operational organization from the others. Both communitarian and atomistic conceptions of human social organization represent a stark discontinuity with the natural arrangement of societies. As any anthropologist worth their salt will tell you, the last 10,000 years of state-based, hierarchical organization of societies represents a remarkably small fraction of human history. Indeed, this mode is a direct inversion of the traditional organization of human societies which persisted for the 290,000 years of human history which preceded the advent of such hierarchically-imbalanced societies as dominate the world today. [To avoid digression: human societies used to be arranged as foraging, kin-based family groups which would regularly fissure and fuse; as time went on, these developed into large clans which were administered (in a way) by economically prosperous individuals known as 'headmen', who were possessed of no legislative power beyond what influence their generosity and wisdom could garner them through gratitude and deference--- the group will overrode the advice of the headmen if they were unsatisfactory, who were shamed into obedience through mockery of their arrogance or other deficiencies--- the exact opposite of our current mutant condition, in which the arrogant and deficient few dominate the group through violence and deprivation...]
Both "Model A" and "Model B" perspectives implement centralized systems of legislation. In these societies, orders are given from the "top down" and from the "center to periphery". The centralized minority ruling groups issue commands which emanate to the dominated and exploited people within their influence, who must obey or suffer hideous inhumanities at the hands of their masters. "Model C", however, inverts this system. Rather than an entrenched hierarchy of unaccountable power imposing executive decisions at the point of a sword, it is the individuals themselves who are responsible for that decision-making process. This is done through a process which, for all the abuses it has suffered, has lost nearly all meaning: democracy. It is not the democracy of the party or the parliament, of the king's pity for the frustrated worker. It is the democracy of the worker by the worker and for the worker; of the individuals themselves, associated freely with each other on a horizontal, non-hierarchical basis, deciding upon and administering all the functions pertinent to their associations. It is the factory run by factory workers, the barber shop run by the barbers. It is the neighborhood run by the people who live there, the city run by the neighborhoods, the region run by the cities. In our "Model C" society, the decision making process runs from the bottom up, from the periphery to the center.
In modern democracies, the individual is so removed from the decision making process, that by the time the purely ceremonial functions of elections come round, the decision has been denuded to a degree so profound as to make whatever input the individual may have absolutely meaningless: will you vote republican, or democrat? Yes, or no? Up, or down, one or two. The direct inversion of this is not only desirable, but also highly efficient. Those bodies possessed of the most logistical capacity also need make the fewest decisions, the particulars and specifics of which have already been decided upon by a series of progressively smaller and more intimately associated trade and communal organizations. The larger the reach of an organization becomes, the less influence it has, until it reaches the point where it is merely a distributive vector totally devoid of any legislative power whatsoever. Anarchy is not the democracy of kings, or of prophets or generals or of robber barons; it is the democracy of the people, of the workers, unbound and unfettered. And unlike Model A organizations, which cannot exist within Model B organizations and vice-versa, Anarchism thrives in any social context, simultaneously with and within the powers which seek to destroy it. Anarchism is not only political heresy which disproves all the old fallacies by which governments of all types have oppressed their people and justified their existence, it is also one which totally undermines the basis of their rule. It is precisely because of Anarchism's successful synthesis of these two disparate political affiliations that it is persecuted by both; it invalidates the other systems of society by precisely the same means which make Anarchism the only logical, sustainable, and ethical system of truly free and fair social organization for the future of all mankind.
While the fount of the tyrants' power is in the barrel of their guns, the power of Anarchism is in the heart of the worker; it is a fire which cannot be extinguished by blood or tears, nor buried by lead. It has persevered, and it shall persevere yet longer; as the saying goes, "the world shall not be free until the last king is strangled with the guts of the last priest". To which I add, "Until the last oppressed worker can lift his head up and stand tall, unbowed and proud, and proclaim to the whole world the glory of his freedom and equal esteem among his comrades, knowing no gods, and serving no masters!"
-Hale
