Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
(UNEDITED COPY )
Please note: that this edition of Beautiful Anger has been split into two parts, #5 (this post) and #5.1, which will be published within three to four days. This is very difficult subject matter. I’m reworking the second section, the cause for the delay due to difficulty accessing some information. Thanks R.
In the last four articles (Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, and Issue 4) I have stated my belief that capitalism, while inherently flawed as it now stands, may be molded into a just and equitable system for all.
In this article I intended to discuss mercantilism, and offer what other intellectuals have put forward as potential evolutionary steps for capitalism to take, if it is to be a just system for all. (We will get back to these things in issue #6.)
There is however one particular man and subject that have had such a profound influence on the 20th and 21st century that it just seemed unbalanced to continue any further without an entire essay dedicated to him and his ideas. This individual is, of course, Karl Marx, the father of contemporary communism/socialism, otherwise known as Marxism.
After much reading, thinking and writing I believe there is a very good chance that the system that we end up with, if we actually begin to strive, globally, for a system of commerce and government that is just and fair to all, will not be capitalism at all – nor socialism/communism.
As I have stated, in my opinion, each of these systems on their own are fatally flawed.
Obviously there has been a great amount of study of communism/socialism in a plethora of academic institutions. Being a thinker who tries to avoid conspiratorial-type imaginings, when I hear of real evidence to suggest the existence of a conspiracy, in my mind it isn’t a “conspiracy theory” any more but a topic of truth that is open to fair, honest and unbiased interpretation by thinkers from all walks of life.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Herein lies the problem, and it is in this author’s opinion the type of thinking that is parturient to the vein of “conspiratorial” thinking that exists today. For every “expert”, “specialist”, “historian”, etc. who have added to our collective repository of knowledge, there is an institution, corporation and/or simple human bias that can lead them to, without outright lying, select and present distorted ideas from the monumental amount of human history that support either their own personal theories and/or, at least in part, the institution where they teach or are otherwise “gainfully employed.”
Of course I would be a lummox to suggest that I’m above all of this. But, I can admit, as honestly as I can, what my personal bias is, and how it may indeed affect, without purposeful misrepresentation, the ideas that I present.
I have stated numerous times what it is, but I will attempt to further define and refine that “bias” for you the reader before we go on. I don’t believe that I am a charlatan attempting to sell anyone a “cure-all potion”; I do believe is that my thought represents, as much as my abilities allow, a balanced and thoughtful approach to the world in which we live.
I emphasize that I’m not trying to offer a roadmap or a hybrid ideology, nor to I profess to offer any definitive answers at all.
What I am attempting to do is to understand some of the great ideas and theories from all spectrums of philosophical, sociological, and political thought that exist in some form or another today, and then, in the best way I know how, illustrate why I believe that some “hybrid ideology” is the most likely course leading to a just society for all.
I’m aiming to impress these directions of thought on those aspiring to be leaders, and you, the reader, who, whether you give yourself credit or discredit, are ultimately, as part of the collective of your nation, responsible for the direction of the society in which you live.
We can choose to live in ignorance, and lead apathetic lives, going through the motions of everyday routine, and complaining around the water cooler or dinner table about the world we live in, or we can choose to, at the very least, educate ourselves enough that we won’t be led like sheep. We must look at as many sides of all contemporary issues and ideologies as we can. We must strive to make educated decisions about the future of our world and the world that we pass on to the next generation(s).
Each of our current systems, judged on their own merits, represent particular human biases, and cannot reflect a consensus or compromise for all people’s who live on earth. Any one of these systems, allowed to exist unfettered, will be dictatorial and unjust to some and favourable to others.
R.W.
What we eventually end up with, however far into the future, will be a hybrid of all of these systems, and quite a few contemporary ideas as well.
We have been talking a lot about the idea of critical thinking. One of the ideas we keep coming back to, an essential part of critical thinking, is examining all sides of an issue fairly and justly and, to the best of our abilities as humans, without bias.
We are always critical thinkers first. Otherwise, we become enslaved to dogmatic ideologies, wherever they may come from.
With this in mind, I have no compunction or worry about stating the following:
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Anyone who says that Karl Marx, author of The Communist Manifesto (1848) and Das Capital (1867-1894), was a fool and that his writings are complete claptrap, is either born with a silver spoon in their mouth, a long-standing member of the 1% and/or owners of a predatory corporate entity, or, as is most often the case, never read a word he wrote because they’re a programmed automaton and afraid (or too torpid) to logically discuss/dissect/imagine all sides of an issue.
Karl Marx was no fool. The first sentence in the first chapter of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifest poignantly states, without wasting a syllable,
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
I think we can probably agree that the above statement contains more than a grain of truth.
Karl Marx believed that society moved through a series of stages, from primitive communism to slavery, feudalism, and then capitalism, which would be, as it were, the “end of history,” as it would be replaced permanently by communism.
We live in a world where many intellectuals, unless they have specifically stated that their political leanings are communist/socialist, live in terror of being painted as firebrands who wish to burn our world down with a flaming socialist torch. What did this Karl Marx fellow say that caused so many powerful institutions to rally against him? What poison might he have spoken and where did his words go wrong? Why, if he had so many enlightened ideas, are so many radically, if not violently, against them?
Critically question this. Who is closer in ideology: Steve Jobs and Gandhi, or Karl Marx and Gandhi? Why are we so willing to accept one thinker and not the other?
Why are we so frightened? For the most part it is due to the inescapable paranoia of the far Right that has perpetuated a witch hunt since the 1800s. This witch hunt has essentially continued to escalate in modern times – obviously for good reason during the Second World War, with the idea that communism can be co-opted by dictators, sociopaths, etc., just as easily as by, say, capitalism.
Today, when you say the word socialism/communism and get the familiar responses of indignant revulsion, it is for the most part thanks to the Right’s artificial association of these philosophical ideas with such mad tyrants as Stalin, Mao, Nicolae Ceausescu, etc..
Many historians have obviously thought, discussed, theorized, and written in great length about communism/socialism – and many have expressed varying degrees of negativity towards this ideology through their writing and lectures.
Some notable historians who must be mentioned when discussing this subject matter are:
Archie Brown - A British political scientist and noted historian. In 2005 he became Emeritus Professor of Politics at Oxford University.
Robert Service - a British Academic and historian. He is professor of Russian history at Oxford University.
I unequivocally agree that historically this ideology does exhibit a certain proclivity towards fear, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism, eventually leading to significant human rights abuses. We can only let history and the actors who played their parts speak for themselves.
Let’s start to delve into this topic and see what we come up with as balanced moderates of the 21st century, shall we?
1. Primitive Communism
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
This theory applies to early hunter-gatherer societies as well as some subsistence agricultural communities.
The basic idea is that there were no clearly defined hierarchical social structures or capital accumulation. Marx posited that these communities embodied the basic fundamentals of communism.
Engels offered the first detailed theory of primitive communism in 1884 with the publication of The Origin of the Family.
There is much debate among historians, including Marxists themselves, as to the breadth and validity of Engels and Marx’s application of the phrase “primitive communism” to early human development. Nonetheless, as with all theory and thought, it is good to take a basic perusal of these ideas to at least see how it is that Engels and Marx arrived at these conclusions.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.![]( "ob - Slavezanzibar2")
2. Slavery
- the condition of a slave; bondage.
- the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution.
- a state of subjection like that of a slave: He was kept in slavery by drugs.
- severe toil; drudgery.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slavery
- Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property and are forced to work. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation. Conditions that can be considered slavery include debt bondage, indentured servitude, serfdom, domestic servants kept in captivity, adoption in which children are effectively forced to work as slaves, child soldiers, and forced marriage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
Slavery in some form or another has been traced as far back as 8000 BC in many different cultures. Interestingly, many historians, archaeologists, and social anthropologists believe that slavery was extremely rare if not nonexistent in most hunter-gatherer populations as slavery was a method of social stratification. It’s striking, when you take these dialogues out of the context of political ideologies, how few disagree with the social stratification premise. Change the wording just a little and suddenly there is great debate on how slavery was used as a tool of social stratification.
The earliest documentation of slavery can be found in the Code of Hammurabi. The code consisted of 282 laws with a set of graded punishments depending on social status. The laws were extremely unbalanced in that their were considerable differences in the scale of punishment. Whether you were a slave or a free man was often the only factor that decided between life and death. Only one provision in the entire code was slated specifically for an official. It stated that if a judge reached an incorrect decision he was to be fined and removed permanently from the bench. This gave rulers a great deal of latitude.
It is important to note that the Code of Hammurabi did not introduce slavery as new idea, but as an old, well-established institution, as does the Christian Bible.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.![]( "ob - feudalism")
3. Feudalism
- A political and economic system of Europe from the 9th to about the 15th century, based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture.
- A political, economic, or social order resembling this medieval system.
http://www.answers.com/topic/feudalism
- Feudalism was based on the exchange of land for military service. King William the Conqueror used the concept of feudalism to reward his Norman supporters for their help in the conquest of England. Life lived under the Medieval Feudal System, or Feudalism, demanded that everyone owed allegiance to the King and their immediate superior.
http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/feudalism.htm
- describes a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals, and fiefs.
- There is also a broader definition, as described by Marc Bloch (1939), that includes not only warrior nobility but the peasantry bonds of manorialism, sometimes referred to as a “feudal society”
Counterarguments
It is also important to consider some historians who challenge the traditional meaning of feudalism and/or its effect on specific historical time periods.
First there is Susan Reynolds, who believes that the technical terms used in documents prior to 1100 (approx.) do not necessarily have the meaning often ascribed to them by those of us in modern times. Specifically, in her opinion, the direct ownership of land was more prevalent in the early Middle Ages than many historians profess. She suggests that the decline of central authority was greatly exaggerated.
Susan Reynolds, “Fiefs and Vassals: the Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted”
Here is a link to a interview with Mrs. Reynolds: Making History: an Interview with Susan Reynolds.
Also for your reading pleasure:
Elizabeth A. R. Brown (from Wikipedia): “(b. February 16, 1932) born in Louisville, Ky., is a Professor Emerita of History at Brooklyn College, of the City University of New York, a scholar and published author, known for her writings on Feudalism. In 2009 Elizabeth A. R. Brown was elected the Second Vice-President of the Medieval Academy of America and in 2010-2011 is serving as its president.
The broadest definition of feudalism, the one in which we will use here, is that a lord or noble grants use of land to someone this was accomplished by first making this person a vassal through a process called a commendation ceremony which was composed of two parts: the act of declaring homage to the land owner and the oath of fealty. A vassal could only declare an obligation of homage to one lord, but could swear fealty to many different overlords with respect to different land holdings and/or other agreements which would require such fealty.
One of the prominent aspects of one type of feudal relationship was required military service. Not only was the vassal required to be first and foremost ready to defend the lord – the primary obligation – but the vassal was required to supply, by whatever means available, the materials from the working of his lands to provide this protection, be they monetary (through additional taxation in war-time), material, or agricultural such as food for human consumption or livestock feed, etc.
4. Capitalism
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Capitalism is the final stage, according to Karl Marx, before we reach the end stage of history and the existing structures are torn asunder: capital and government power is redistributed to the people. This is of course a simplification and will be the central topic of the next installment of Beautiful Anger.
We will conclude with one more quote from Karl Marx;
“Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes, directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.”
It is a tantalizing idea to draw comparisons between this statement, the Paris Commune (a subject we will speak of in the next issue), and the current Occupy Wall Street movement that is capturing the world’s attention.
In the next issue we will look at the many positive aspects of communism/socialism that exist in different guises in the world today.
We will also look at why Communism/Socialism cannot be considered the end point of history, where Marx and Engels went wrong, and Soviet socialism and how it had begun a transformation into a kind of social democracy under Gorbachev.
If anything you will find the next installment fascinating whether you agree or not with any of the conclusions I draw.
Until next time,
R.