Comrade-Z
31st December 2005, 09:46
This thread will be discussing some concepts that will probably weave in and out between anarchism, marxism, and historical materialism. First, we'll center on some anarchist concepts, mainly dealing with libertarian and authoritarian psychologies.
First, some axioms:
*A psychology, for our practical purposes here, will be defined as the general method with which a personality reacts to obstacles and difficulties.
*Libertarian relationships foster libertarian psychologies.
*Authoritarian relationships foster authoritarian psychologies.
Anarchism, especially the CrimethInc.-ish strands of anarchism, places more emphasis on individual psychologies. A commonly held notion is that class society reproduces authoritarian social relations (whether it is between boss-worker, State-subject, patriarch-woman, God-sinner, authoritarian parent-child, etc., and thus re-inforces authoritarianism in the psychologies of individuals. Individuals with authoritarian psychologies are usually going to respond to problems in an authoritarian manner--with coercion, brute force, etc. Thus in society there is a vicious cycle of authoritarian psychologies leading people to act in authoritarian ways towards others, leading to more authoritarian psychologies, etc.
Anarchist theory usually asserts that the earliest exposure to authoritarianism for human beings is as a child. Instead of helping their children to learn and grow in generally non-coercive ways (what anarchists would call "libertarian parenting," parents punish their children and try to instill in the child obedience to the parents' commands. This period of authoritarian conditioning and internalization of fear of authority is often cited as one of the most lasting and impressive periods of authoritarian conditioning a human being will ever experience. If the parents are strict "family values" (read, Nazi) types, and/or religious, expect the child's authoritarianism to be even more deeply ingrained (now the child will also have God's authority to worry about as well).
Even if a parent is well-meaning and tries to be libertarian in his/her parenting, class society makes it well-nigh impossible. Because in a capitalist society property rights must be respected. But a child at first knows nothing of property law (a testament to how truly "natural" property rights are). The child, in his curiosity and urge for exploration and experientation with the world around him, is liable to freely take things from others (why shouldn't he? It probably seems like the perfectly natural thing to do. And in a primitive communist or advanced communist society it would be natural). The parent, though, is legally responsible for the child, and the parent must punish the child for doing these things and discourage this sort of free behavoir. A child is also likely to be rowdy, loud, energetic, etc., which is perfectly natural. The child is likely to experiement with his wondrous new capabilities (his body) by running, jumping, yelling, singing, banging things, and otherwise being creative, investigative, and assertive. This goes against "decent social norms" (which themselves are products of class society), and so the parent is force to coerce the child away from engaging in these activities. What you end up with is a child whose capacity for creativity, independent initiative, and self-management have been stifled. This child is also obedient to authority and learns to be authoritarian in turn to things below himself, as a sort of compensation for having to be stuck under the authority of something or someone else.
Everything that authoritarian parenting does, school reinforces. I recently wrote a piece on schooling (for school! :P ) that explains what I'm talking about:
----------
Education is a cornerstone of society. It shapes the capabilities and thoughts of entire generations. Unfortunately, primary and secondary education in this country and the world in general is saddled with authoritarianism, much to the detriment of democracy in our society. There are numerous ways in which our educational system fosters conformity, dogmatic thinking, and unquestioning acceptance of authority instead of free thinking, critical inquiry, and libertarian behavior. If we are to be serious about preserving and strengthening the democratic facets of our society, which only thrive in a context of free thinking, free speech, and freedom for the individual, then we must create an educational system which truly responds to the needs of students and fosters in them the impulse to think for themselves.
If we want to have a libertarian society, then we must question the entire concept of compulsory education in the first place. If we really want to enable students to obtain the knowledge and analytical skills that they want and need, is it best to monopolize half of a student's waking life for over ten years? Human beings have a natural curiosity and an attraction towards things and ideas which are novel, for new ideas and knowledge bring obvious self-empowerment. Considering this, why would a student ever not want to learn? Perhaps a student wouldn't want to learn if the instruction was done in a disagreeable way or if it did not provide useful knowledge. Some might argue that the decision to send a student to school cannot be left up to the student and his/her parents, for if many students did not go to school, the capabilities of the country would be damaged and the country would fall behind. This assertion begs the question, though: who owns students—themselves and their families, or the State?
Some have argued that a main purpose for the widespread creation of compulsory education in the 1800's was to condition generations of youth into being obedient workers. As industrialization progressed in the U.S. and Europe during this time, factory owners needed workers who would act as obedient automatons—workers who would follow orders without questions, not go on strike, not demand improvements, not try to rise up and overthrow their bosses, and otherwise not defy the authority of the factory owners.(1) Even today there is a significant focus on conditioning children at a very young age to follow directions and obey orders through activities such as assembling pieces of paper together with scissors and glue, just as workers are expected to assemble parts on an assembly line. Children are forced to walk in straight lines. There is much focus on forcing children to color in between the lines and thus conform their actions to the expectations of authorities. In one instance in kindergarten, I myself refused to color within the lines, wanting to spend my time and effort on other things and seeing how utterly pointless the activity was. Yet my teacher, who was otherwise extremely nice and tolerant, held me from recess until I re-completed the activity “satisfactorily.”
The current educational system stifles individuality and conditions conformity in other ways as well. Many schools have dress codes and sometimes even school uniforms. At my high school, for instance, the administration has, on occasion, forced students to conform to so-called “cultural norms” in their dress—boys cannot wear skirts, even on the outside of jeans, for instance. Likewise, there are numerous restrictions placed on students in school with regards to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. Certain areas of vocabulary, especially those which are capable of expressing extreme dissatisfaction and dissent, are censored in school.
High school football and marching band activities condition students to stand at attention, move in formation, and execute other militaristic procedures according to the will of an authority. Indeed, much of the same process of breaking down a person's independence and individuality and molding that person into an obedient subordinate which occurs in the military also occurs, to a lesser extent, in football practice. Truly democratic football teams, in which coaches act as counselors rather than superiors and in which players cooperatively direct themselves and practice genuine teamwork (instead of mere subordination), are rare. Genuine teamwork occurs in a context of equality, comradeship, and trust in which the individuality of others is respected—not in a context of fear and hierarchy. I played a half-season of football in high school myself and know these realities from experience.
Sports and other competitive school activities also often foster an authoritarian phenomenon that I like to call “inter-school nationalism.” At sports games and school pep assemblies students are encouraged and socially pressured to define themselves as superior to students of other schools and root against the success of the students from those other schools. It is a microcosm of the larger phenomenon of political nationalism, which unnecessarily divides the citizens and workers of the world and keeps them from working together across national borders towards common interests. Furthermore, once you can convince students that something as arbitrary as school membership can make them superior to other students, it is not as far of a leap to convince those students of certain races that people of other races are inferior. Nevertheless, regardless of whether school supremacism cultivates national supremacism, it is certain that inter-school nationalism makes it more difficult for students of differing schools to work together towards common aims and stand with each other in solidarity as, for instance, French students did during the student protests of May 1968 in France.(2)
There are other factors in our current educational system which discourage free thinking and critical inquiry. Children are indoctrinated at a very early age to accept the rule of their government. For instance, during my second grade year my class memorized the pledge of allegiance and national anthem and recited these things every morning. The reference to god in the pledge of allegiance also conferred a subtle impression that religion of some sort was preferable to irreligion. Furthermore, the U.S. history taught in primary and secondary education is often sugar-coated and often overlooks the more embarrassing aspects of U.S. history. For instance, I did not learn about the full extent of European imperialism and genocide against the indigenous populations of the Americas until my IB History of the Americas course this year. Nor was I taught anything about the U.S.-sponsored coups and military dictatorships in Latin America until the end of last year and the beginning of this year. If we want to discover where our society and our governments have gone wrong in the past, understand where various individuals are coming from today, and determine, as a free-thinking, democratic populace, how we can avert such catastrophes in the future, then we will need to present our youth with unadulterated accounts of history.
Certainly, the current education system leaves much to be desired. Yet, there are some aspects of the current system which are effective at giving students the knowledge and analytical skills that they want and need. Children still manage to learn how to read. Not all children come away from school tinged with authoritarianism. Oftentimes, despite the authoritarian propensities of the educational system, teachers find ways to make classes fun, non-authoritarian, and enlightening. I have been incredibly fortunate to have many such teachers who make learning an enjoyable and cooperative endeavor. For instance, I know friends who have participated in marching band and have had, according to them, “band director Nazis.” Yet I was fortunate enough to have a marching band director who respected his students and treated them as thinking and feeling individuals, and it has made all the difference in my marching band experience.
Part of the reason that I have had exceptional teachers is that I have spent much of my time in school in gifted programs and honors classes. On the other hand, I have also spent a good deal of time as a teacher's assistant in standard classes. There is a significant difference in the areas of focus between the two types of classes. The former type of class puts more emphasis on critical thinking, whereas the latter type puts slightly more emphasis on following directions and memorization. I fear that there exists in education a divide, on one side of which those slightly more intelligent students are groomed for leadership positions and critical thinking later in life, and on the other side of which the rest of the student population is trained for a lifetime of robotic execution of tasks and unquestioning deference to authority. Is this a healthy educational basis for a democratic society? Soviet Russia has shown the world the dangers of allowing an elite “intelligentsia” to accumulate too much knowledge and power for itself at the expense of the rest of the population. If we are going to truly have “rule by the people,” then we had better offer those essential critical thinking skills to all students.
Certainly, our society would do well to encourage its youth to learn, especially with regards to communication skills. Literacy and communication skills are cornerstones of democracy. How can individuals solve problems and work together otherwise? Literacy allows individuals to become independent in their learning. A major obstacle to democracy during the Medieval period in Europe was that the common individual could not read and thus was wholly dependent on religious authority for knowledge and understanding. We certainly do not need to abolish education. What we need is a reassessment of the role of our educational system. Do we intend to create an educational system which serves to condition loyalty to the State and obedience to authority, or do we intend to create an educational system which gives society's youth critical thinking skills and the tools that they want and need in order to function as free-thinking individuals in a democratic society?
(1): National Youth Rights Association. Young and Oppressed. http://www.youthrights.org/oppressed.shtml;
(2): Metropole Paris. A Chronology of May '68'. http://www.metropoleparis.com/1998/318/chron318.html
---------
In short, our present schooling system means authoritarian conditioning, inculcation of patriotism, propaganda, crypto-fascism, etc. It must be radically transformed.
Certainly, I hope one gathers from my essay that I think education is incredibly important. However, the way that education is convey right now plain sucks. There are a number of alternative libertarian visions, ranging from Ferrer Modern Schools (google it), to abolishing formal schooling altogether as something separate from day-to-day living and learning.
School pretty much sets the stage for the individual entering the workforce--i.e. hell, or the military--i.e. hell x2. Either way you better get used to taking orders and being raped up the ass by wealthy capitalist scum--if you're in the workforce, economically, and if you're in the military, you'll be spilling your blood for those scumbags in fighting their imperialist wars. And here the authoritarianism just piles on, and the vicious cycle continues, as this individual has kids, and so on...
*So, IF this is the case, as in, if this is how authoritarian class society perpetuates itself through authoritarian psychology (a BIG IF), then the question becomes: how do we break the cycle of authoritarian psychologies and relationships?
The CrimethInc. answer to this seems to be pure individual Nietzche-ian will power--a determination to not be authoritarian one's self, but to have fulfilling, libertarian relations with everyone you come into contact with, and gradually incite an outwardly-propagating wave of libertarianism and defiance of authority out from one's self. The ruling class will, of course, try to thwart this propagating wave of rebellion, which will manifest itself in the form of State-repression, subversion, etc. But we just have to find ways to out-manuever them. Then, as more people become incited by the expanding resistance to authority and assertion of self-determination (both in the physical, direct action realm, and in the realm of ideas), there will be increasing collective effort along these lines (of spreading infectious revolutionary will amongst others--although what's the guarantee that it will be infectious?--more on this later). Soon everyone in society will soon be infected, and "The Uprising" for total liberation from capitalism and the State--for communism--will commence!
*It is worth noting that, if one follows this approach, it makes intuitive sense that one could help incite "The Uprising" against authoritarianism at any stage of history (although we'll show later why this is probably incorrect). Because it's not about "overthrowing one class or another." It's about overthrowing authoritarianism as a psychology, behavoir, and mode of social relation, and replacing it with libertarian psychologies, behavoirs, and modes of social relations, in effect creating a harmonious, classless society--communism--in the process. Thus, however authoritarianism manifests itself at the time--religion, the feudal landlord, slavery, the capitalist boss, the State, patriarchy, the authoritarian parent, school, and any other sets of authoritarian social relations--one just has to attack authoritarianism itself and foster libertarianism itself (of course learning how to recognize and attack authoritarianism and foster libertarianism is part of the difficulty), and you can achieve communism. Of course, this "attacking of authoritarianism" is mainly going to manifest itself as an attack on the ruling class, and thus this naturally implies revolution, in addition to a transitional period where the working class of the time (whether slaves, serfs, proletariat, etc.) must defeat the old ruling class and its authoritarianism (this period would be socialism, if you will), etc. So, in reality, this type of approach wouldn't lead to a "jump straight to communism" because the ruling class of the time is never going to just lay over and die. It's still going to look like the step-wise socialism--->communism process, just at different technological levels.
One would be led to ask: So if this is how it all works, then why wasn't there "The Uprising" to establish communism forever during the times of Ancient Greece, for instance? The CrimethInc.-er would probably argue that, "The Ancient Greeks lacked THE IDEA. Not the idea of overthrowing the current ruling class, but the idea of overthrowing and eliminating authoritarianism itself--which would mean overthrowing the old ruling class and making sure no new ruling class arose in its place. For whatever reason, the Ancient Greeks were unable to conceptualize the idea of fighting and eliminating authoritarianism itself."
I think this approach holds some truth, but in other ways I think it falls short. Why? Because, first of all, it doesn't explain why the Ancient Greeks were unable to come up with THE IDEA. It doesn't explain why some people aren't able to grasp THE IDEA even now, even though others are able (or at least appear to be able to grasp it).
This is where the marxist concept of superabundance comes into play. One could conclude that superabundance must exist before people are able to grasp THE IDEA of attacking authoritarianism itself and thus creating communism. This means that, even if an anarchist from the 21st century tried to go back to Ancient Greece and explain THE IDEA to the Greeks, the Greeks still wouldn't be able to grasp THE IDEA, and even if they could grasp THE IDEA in a very hazy sense, it wouldn't be in the "gut feeling" sort of sense that is necessary for a person to have to put an idea confidently into action.
So when you get right down it to, where does all this lead us? Right back to historical materialism! (I think an angel-choir-sound-effect should accompany this historic fusion of anarchist and marxist theory. :lol: ) Yes, what we have is a conclusion that says, having THE IDEA and propagating that wave of revolutionary spirit outward throughout society is an integral part of "the revolution." However, the only reason that people will be able to grasp THE IDEA, be infected by that revolutionary spirit, and be compelled to act on THE IDEA is that the material conditions that they experience are right for it. In short, actions are partly the products of ideas, but ideas in turn are the products of the material conditions in which they arose. Thus, we get back to the thesis of historical materialism--that people's actions are the products of their material conditions!
The fact that an organization like CrimethInc. that is propagating THE IDEA even exists is evidence that we are rapidly approaching "superabundance." In the near future the material conditions will progress so that the working class will become increasingly receptive to THE IDEA. (Edit: redstar--I believe the spread of this IDEA is similar to what you have been talking about as far as the modern working class increasingly having no need of "great leaders." THE IDEA that we've been talking about here naturally implies this, and as it spreads, so too will the sentiment that "great leaders" are not needed.) Soon THE IDEA will start to tear away even more at the vicious cycle of psychological and social authoritarianism and foster libertarian psychologies and social relations, feeding a positive vicious cycle. The moment that most of the working class is able to grasp THE IDEA and is prepared and dead-set on acting on it, the moment "the revolution" will commence. That will partly depend on material conditions--material conditions will have to evolve to the point where these people will be able to grasp THE IDEA. But it will also depend on our propagation of THE IDEA among the populace, in the form of words and direct action.
So, the sooner that we communists can start to realize that authoritarianism must be opposed, whether it's flying the flag of the dollar-sign or the hammer-&-sickle, the sooner the revolution will occur. In practice, THE IDEA--the assault against all forms of authoritarianism and advance of liberty--manifests itself as workers' councils, democratic workers' militias, opposition to fascists, opposition to religion, opposition to the existing ruling class--in short, what anarchists and (non-leninist) marxists have been proposing all along!
Also, we need to talk about exactly what "superabundance" means, so that we can know when we've achieved it. Does superabundance mean easily available abundance of the material necessities for survival (Food, water, shelter, air, medicine)? Or does superabundance mean abundance of the material necessities in addition to the abundance of Spectacles ready for passive consumption? Because if it's the former type, then I imagine we are very near superabundance indeed. In fact, if we had had some sort of relatively equitable economic redistribution even 100 years ago, everyone could have had superabundance of the basic necessities.
First, some axioms:
*A psychology, for our practical purposes here, will be defined as the general method with which a personality reacts to obstacles and difficulties.
*Libertarian relationships foster libertarian psychologies.
*Authoritarian relationships foster authoritarian psychologies.
Anarchism, especially the CrimethInc.-ish strands of anarchism, places more emphasis on individual psychologies. A commonly held notion is that class society reproduces authoritarian social relations (whether it is between boss-worker, State-subject, patriarch-woman, God-sinner, authoritarian parent-child, etc., and thus re-inforces authoritarianism in the psychologies of individuals. Individuals with authoritarian psychologies are usually going to respond to problems in an authoritarian manner--with coercion, brute force, etc. Thus in society there is a vicious cycle of authoritarian psychologies leading people to act in authoritarian ways towards others, leading to more authoritarian psychologies, etc.
Anarchist theory usually asserts that the earliest exposure to authoritarianism for human beings is as a child. Instead of helping their children to learn and grow in generally non-coercive ways (what anarchists would call "libertarian parenting," parents punish their children and try to instill in the child obedience to the parents' commands. This period of authoritarian conditioning and internalization of fear of authority is often cited as one of the most lasting and impressive periods of authoritarian conditioning a human being will ever experience. If the parents are strict "family values" (read, Nazi) types, and/or religious, expect the child's authoritarianism to be even more deeply ingrained (now the child will also have God's authority to worry about as well).
Even if a parent is well-meaning and tries to be libertarian in his/her parenting, class society makes it well-nigh impossible. Because in a capitalist society property rights must be respected. But a child at first knows nothing of property law (a testament to how truly "natural" property rights are). The child, in his curiosity and urge for exploration and experientation with the world around him, is liable to freely take things from others (why shouldn't he? It probably seems like the perfectly natural thing to do. And in a primitive communist or advanced communist society it would be natural). The parent, though, is legally responsible for the child, and the parent must punish the child for doing these things and discourage this sort of free behavoir. A child is also likely to be rowdy, loud, energetic, etc., which is perfectly natural. The child is likely to experiement with his wondrous new capabilities (his body) by running, jumping, yelling, singing, banging things, and otherwise being creative, investigative, and assertive. This goes against "decent social norms" (which themselves are products of class society), and so the parent is force to coerce the child away from engaging in these activities. What you end up with is a child whose capacity for creativity, independent initiative, and self-management have been stifled. This child is also obedient to authority and learns to be authoritarian in turn to things below himself, as a sort of compensation for having to be stuck under the authority of something or someone else.
Everything that authoritarian parenting does, school reinforces. I recently wrote a piece on schooling (for school! :P ) that explains what I'm talking about:
----------
Education is a cornerstone of society. It shapes the capabilities and thoughts of entire generations. Unfortunately, primary and secondary education in this country and the world in general is saddled with authoritarianism, much to the detriment of democracy in our society. There are numerous ways in which our educational system fosters conformity, dogmatic thinking, and unquestioning acceptance of authority instead of free thinking, critical inquiry, and libertarian behavior. If we are to be serious about preserving and strengthening the democratic facets of our society, which only thrive in a context of free thinking, free speech, and freedom for the individual, then we must create an educational system which truly responds to the needs of students and fosters in them the impulse to think for themselves.
If we want to have a libertarian society, then we must question the entire concept of compulsory education in the first place. If we really want to enable students to obtain the knowledge and analytical skills that they want and need, is it best to monopolize half of a student's waking life for over ten years? Human beings have a natural curiosity and an attraction towards things and ideas which are novel, for new ideas and knowledge bring obvious self-empowerment. Considering this, why would a student ever not want to learn? Perhaps a student wouldn't want to learn if the instruction was done in a disagreeable way or if it did not provide useful knowledge. Some might argue that the decision to send a student to school cannot be left up to the student and his/her parents, for if many students did not go to school, the capabilities of the country would be damaged and the country would fall behind. This assertion begs the question, though: who owns students—themselves and their families, or the State?
Some have argued that a main purpose for the widespread creation of compulsory education in the 1800's was to condition generations of youth into being obedient workers. As industrialization progressed in the U.S. and Europe during this time, factory owners needed workers who would act as obedient automatons—workers who would follow orders without questions, not go on strike, not demand improvements, not try to rise up and overthrow their bosses, and otherwise not defy the authority of the factory owners.(1) Even today there is a significant focus on conditioning children at a very young age to follow directions and obey orders through activities such as assembling pieces of paper together with scissors and glue, just as workers are expected to assemble parts on an assembly line. Children are forced to walk in straight lines. There is much focus on forcing children to color in between the lines and thus conform their actions to the expectations of authorities. In one instance in kindergarten, I myself refused to color within the lines, wanting to spend my time and effort on other things and seeing how utterly pointless the activity was. Yet my teacher, who was otherwise extremely nice and tolerant, held me from recess until I re-completed the activity “satisfactorily.”
The current educational system stifles individuality and conditions conformity in other ways as well. Many schools have dress codes and sometimes even school uniforms. At my high school, for instance, the administration has, on occasion, forced students to conform to so-called “cultural norms” in their dress—boys cannot wear skirts, even on the outside of jeans, for instance. Likewise, there are numerous restrictions placed on students in school with regards to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. Certain areas of vocabulary, especially those which are capable of expressing extreme dissatisfaction and dissent, are censored in school.
High school football and marching band activities condition students to stand at attention, move in formation, and execute other militaristic procedures according to the will of an authority. Indeed, much of the same process of breaking down a person's independence and individuality and molding that person into an obedient subordinate which occurs in the military also occurs, to a lesser extent, in football practice. Truly democratic football teams, in which coaches act as counselors rather than superiors and in which players cooperatively direct themselves and practice genuine teamwork (instead of mere subordination), are rare. Genuine teamwork occurs in a context of equality, comradeship, and trust in which the individuality of others is respected—not in a context of fear and hierarchy. I played a half-season of football in high school myself and know these realities from experience.
Sports and other competitive school activities also often foster an authoritarian phenomenon that I like to call “inter-school nationalism.” At sports games and school pep assemblies students are encouraged and socially pressured to define themselves as superior to students of other schools and root against the success of the students from those other schools. It is a microcosm of the larger phenomenon of political nationalism, which unnecessarily divides the citizens and workers of the world and keeps them from working together across national borders towards common interests. Furthermore, once you can convince students that something as arbitrary as school membership can make them superior to other students, it is not as far of a leap to convince those students of certain races that people of other races are inferior. Nevertheless, regardless of whether school supremacism cultivates national supremacism, it is certain that inter-school nationalism makes it more difficult for students of differing schools to work together towards common aims and stand with each other in solidarity as, for instance, French students did during the student protests of May 1968 in France.(2)
There are other factors in our current educational system which discourage free thinking and critical inquiry. Children are indoctrinated at a very early age to accept the rule of their government. For instance, during my second grade year my class memorized the pledge of allegiance and national anthem and recited these things every morning. The reference to god in the pledge of allegiance also conferred a subtle impression that religion of some sort was preferable to irreligion. Furthermore, the U.S. history taught in primary and secondary education is often sugar-coated and often overlooks the more embarrassing aspects of U.S. history. For instance, I did not learn about the full extent of European imperialism and genocide against the indigenous populations of the Americas until my IB History of the Americas course this year. Nor was I taught anything about the U.S.-sponsored coups and military dictatorships in Latin America until the end of last year and the beginning of this year. If we want to discover where our society and our governments have gone wrong in the past, understand where various individuals are coming from today, and determine, as a free-thinking, democratic populace, how we can avert such catastrophes in the future, then we will need to present our youth with unadulterated accounts of history.
Certainly, the current education system leaves much to be desired. Yet, there are some aspects of the current system which are effective at giving students the knowledge and analytical skills that they want and need. Children still manage to learn how to read. Not all children come away from school tinged with authoritarianism. Oftentimes, despite the authoritarian propensities of the educational system, teachers find ways to make classes fun, non-authoritarian, and enlightening. I have been incredibly fortunate to have many such teachers who make learning an enjoyable and cooperative endeavor. For instance, I know friends who have participated in marching band and have had, according to them, “band director Nazis.” Yet I was fortunate enough to have a marching band director who respected his students and treated them as thinking and feeling individuals, and it has made all the difference in my marching band experience.
Part of the reason that I have had exceptional teachers is that I have spent much of my time in school in gifted programs and honors classes. On the other hand, I have also spent a good deal of time as a teacher's assistant in standard classes. There is a significant difference in the areas of focus between the two types of classes. The former type of class puts more emphasis on critical thinking, whereas the latter type puts slightly more emphasis on following directions and memorization. I fear that there exists in education a divide, on one side of which those slightly more intelligent students are groomed for leadership positions and critical thinking later in life, and on the other side of which the rest of the student population is trained for a lifetime of robotic execution of tasks and unquestioning deference to authority. Is this a healthy educational basis for a democratic society? Soviet Russia has shown the world the dangers of allowing an elite “intelligentsia” to accumulate too much knowledge and power for itself at the expense of the rest of the population. If we are going to truly have “rule by the people,” then we had better offer those essential critical thinking skills to all students.
Certainly, our society would do well to encourage its youth to learn, especially with regards to communication skills. Literacy and communication skills are cornerstones of democracy. How can individuals solve problems and work together otherwise? Literacy allows individuals to become independent in their learning. A major obstacle to democracy during the Medieval period in Europe was that the common individual could not read and thus was wholly dependent on religious authority for knowledge and understanding. We certainly do not need to abolish education. What we need is a reassessment of the role of our educational system. Do we intend to create an educational system which serves to condition loyalty to the State and obedience to authority, or do we intend to create an educational system which gives society's youth critical thinking skills and the tools that they want and need in order to function as free-thinking individuals in a democratic society?
(1): National Youth Rights Association. Young and Oppressed. http://www.youthrights.org/oppressed.shtml;
(2): Metropole Paris. A Chronology of May '68'. http://www.metropoleparis.com/1998/318/chron318.html
---------
In short, our present schooling system means authoritarian conditioning, inculcation of patriotism, propaganda, crypto-fascism, etc. It must be radically transformed.
Certainly, I hope one gathers from my essay that I think education is incredibly important. However, the way that education is convey right now plain sucks. There are a number of alternative libertarian visions, ranging from Ferrer Modern Schools (google it), to abolishing formal schooling altogether as something separate from day-to-day living and learning.
School pretty much sets the stage for the individual entering the workforce--i.e. hell, or the military--i.e. hell x2. Either way you better get used to taking orders and being raped up the ass by wealthy capitalist scum--if you're in the workforce, economically, and if you're in the military, you'll be spilling your blood for those scumbags in fighting their imperialist wars. And here the authoritarianism just piles on, and the vicious cycle continues, as this individual has kids, and so on...
*So, IF this is the case, as in, if this is how authoritarian class society perpetuates itself through authoritarian psychology (a BIG IF), then the question becomes: how do we break the cycle of authoritarian psychologies and relationships?
The CrimethInc. answer to this seems to be pure individual Nietzche-ian will power--a determination to not be authoritarian one's self, but to have fulfilling, libertarian relations with everyone you come into contact with, and gradually incite an outwardly-propagating wave of libertarianism and defiance of authority out from one's self. The ruling class will, of course, try to thwart this propagating wave of rebellion, which will manifest itself in the form of State-repression, subversion, etc. But we just have to find ways to out-manuever them. Then, as more people become incited by the expanding resistance to authority and assertion of self-determination (both in the physical, direct action realm, and in the realm of ideas), there will be increasing collective effort along these lines (of spreading infectious revolutionary will amongst others--although what's the guarantee that it will be infectious?--more on this later). Soon everyone in society will soon be infected, and "The Uprising" for total liberation from capitalism and the State--for communism--will commence!
*It is worth noting that, if one follows this approach, it makes intuitive sense that one could help incite "The Uprising" against authoritarianism at any stage of history (although we'll show later why this is probably incorrect). Because it's not about "overthrowing one class or another." It's about overthrowing authoritarianism as a psychology, behavoir, and mode of social relation, and replacing it with libertarian psychologies, behavoirs, and modes of social relations, in effect creating a harmonious, classless society--communism--in the process. Thus, however authoritarianism manifests itself at the time--religion, the feudal landlord, slavery, the capitalist boss, the State, patriarchy, the authoritarian parent, school, and any other sets of authoritarian social relations--one just has to attack authoritarianism itself and foster libertarianism itself (of course learning how to recognize and attack authoritarianism and foster libertarianism is part of the difficulty), and you can achieve communism. Of course, this "attacking of authoritarianism" is mainly going to manifest itself as an attack on the ruling class, and thus this naturally implies revolution, in addition to a transitional period where the working class of the time (whether slaves, serfs, proletariat, etc.) must defeat the old ruling class and its authoritarianism (this period would be socialism, if you will), etc. So, in reality, this type of approach wouldn't lead to a "jump straight to communism" because the ruling class of the time is never going to just lay over and die. It's still going to look like the step-wise socialism--->communism process, just at different technological levels.
One would be led to ask: So if this is how it all works, then why wasn't there "The Uprising" to establish communism forever during the times of Ancient Greece, for instance? The CrimethInc.-er would probably argue that, "The Ancient Greeks lacked THE IDEA. Not the idea of overthrowing the current ruling class, but the idea of overthrowing and eliminating authoritarianism itself--which would mean overthrowing the old ruling class and making sure no new ruling class arose in its place. For whatever reason, the Ancient Greeks were unable to conceptualize the idea of fighting and eliminating authoritarianism itself."
I think this approach holds some truth, but in other ways I think it falls short. Why? Because, first of all, it doesn't explain why the Ancient Greeks were unable to come up with THE IDEA. It doesn't explain why some people aren't able to grasp THE IDEA even now, even though others are able (or at least appear to be able to grasp it).
This is where the marxist concept of superabundance comes into play. One could conclude that superabundance must exist before people are able to grasp THE IDEA of attacking authoritarianism itself and thus creating communism. This means that, even if an anarchist from the 21st century tried to go back to Ancient Greece and explain THE IDEA to the Greeks, the Greeks still wouldn't be able to grasp THE IDEA, and even if they could grasp THE IDEA in a very hazy sense, it wouldn't be in the "gut feeling" sort of sense that is necessary for a person to have to put an idea confidently into action.
So when you get right down it to, where does all this lead us? Right back to historical materialism! (I think an angel-choir-sound-effect should accompany this historic fusion of anarchist and marxist theory. :lol: ) Yes, what we have is a conclusion that says, having THE IDEA and propagating that wave of revolutionary spirit outward throughout society is an integral part of "the revolution." However, the only reason that people will be able to grasp THE IDEA, be infected by that revolutionary spirit, and be compelled to act on THE IDEA is that the material conditions that they experience are right for it. In short, actions are partly the products of ideas, but ideas in turn are the products of the material conditions in which they arose. Thus, we get back to the thesis of historical materialism--that people's actions are the products of their material conditions!
The fact that an organization like CrimethInc. that is propagating THE IDEA even exists is evidence that we are rapidly approaching "superabundance." In the near future the material conditions will progress so that the working class will become increasingly receptive to THE IDEA. (Edit: redstar--I believe the spread of this IDEA is similar to what you have been talking about as far as the modern working class increasingly having no need of "great leaders." THE IDEA that we've been talking about here naturally implies this, and as it spreads, so too will the sentiment that "great leaders" are not needed.) Soon THE IDEA will start to tear away even more at the vicious cycle of psychological and social authoritarianism and foster libertarian psychologies and social relations, feeding a positive vicious cycle. The moment that most of the working class is able to grasp THE IDEA and is prepared and dead-set on acting on it, the moment "the revolution" will commence. That will partly depend on material conditions--material conditions will have to evolve to the point where these people will be able to grasp THE IDEA. But it will also depend on our propagation of THE IDEA among the populace, in the form of words and direct action.
So, the sooner that we communists can start to realize that authoritarianism must be opposed, whether it's flying the flag of the dollar-sign or the hammer-&-sickle, the sooner the revolution will occur. In practice, THE IDEA--the assault against all forms of authoritarianism and advance of liberty--manifests itself as workers' councils, democratic workers' militias, opposition to fascists, opposition to religion, opposition to the existing ruling class--in short, what anarchists and (non-leninist) marxists have been proposing all along!
Also, we need to talk about exactly what "superabundance" means, so that we can know when we've achieved it. Does superabundance mean easily available abundance of the material necessities for survival (Food, water, shelter, air, medicine)? Or does superabundance mean abundance of the material necessities in addition to the abundance of Spectacles ready for passive consumption? Because if it's the former type, then I imagine we are very near superabundance indeed. In fact, if we had had some sort of relatively equitable economic redistribution even 100 years ago, everyone could have had superabundance of the basic necessities.