I read this entry on Interbreeding today, and it reminded me of some of my feelings about politics and communism. I don't consider myself a political person. Because, in the same way people pester you to say what football team you support, they will often pester you to say what your politics are, I suppose I have tended to think of myself or represent myself as left-leaning, but I basically think that politics itself – left or right – is the problem not the solution. Interbreeding tells us that, "There is nothing noble about politicians. One of the core features of the dictatorship of the proletariat is their abolition." I agree with the first sentence. The second sentence is interesting because it reminds me that I feel myself becoming very sympathetic towards the idea of communism. However, as a political, historical phenomenon, I more or less hate communism. I have said in the past that any ideal society has to be communist in a way. The word 'communist' obviously belongs to the same etymological family as 'commune' (noun and verb) and 'community'. I feel strongly that what is missing from modern society is a sense of community. But any communism that takes place must, to succeed, be apolitical. It must represent the end of politics, not just another form of politics. To reiterate – politics is the problem, not the solution.
I suppose I'm not particularly optimistic about the possibility of a successful (that is, a spontaneous and apolitical) communism. There are too many people in the world, and their interests and values seem too much at variance. I only have to look at any public forum on the Internet, with ordinary people (idiots, as they were called in Greece) giving the world the benefit of their views, and I become depressed at the chaotic conflict of it all and wish to withdraw. And, since the population has reached its current state, where there is no room for people to leave and set up their own country (everywhere has already been taken), this withdrawal is what the triumph of capitalism is built upon. Money and politics are the symptoms of distrust and disharmony. Politicians feed on conflict for their power. Who would need these parasites if there were harmony? It is at this point that I begin to despair, knowing that my misanthropy feeds capitalism, but being unable to relate to (commune with) the vast majority of people around me.
I'm not quite sure what to do about that, except try to remain open and not to 'play politics'.
Playing politics is an interesting term. I find it being used by Housing Minister Yvette Cooper, here. There have been quite shocking floods in Britain recently, but Yvette Cooper says that we must not "play politics", by arguing that the floods are a good reason to stop the proposed housing developments on the flood plains. Well, this is interesting. So, tell me again, who is playing politics here, Yvette? Could it be someone with a vested interest like… er… I don't know, the Minister for Housing? Or could it be someone uninterested in politics who happens to notice that if you build houses on a flood plain, they get flooded. Not only that, but development on the flood plain increases flooding, for the same reason that all you folks who pave over the soil of your yard so you can park your massive polluting cars increase flooding – because the water has nowhere to seep away. And it's at this point that I begin to see violence as an attractive option. Anyone who indulges in such Orwellian double-speak has clearly already lost their soul.
The flooding raises another issue – that of climate change. Apparently these recent floods are sparked by the worst rainfall in Britain in living memory. I haven't noticed any speculation or enquiry in the media into how this relates to climate change. The issues focused upon are things like housing – political issues. A recent poll, in fact, found that most of the (British? In keeping with recent sloppy journalism the article I read did not specify the boundaries of the poll) public believe terrorism and graffiti to be greater problems than climate change. I hardly know what to say about such views. I feel as if I am living on a different planet to these people (I certainly wish I was). Of course, terrorism and graffiti are, in a sense, political inventions – they are 'issues' invented by politicians to divide people, to distract them, and to ensure the power of the political class. Climate change should not be such a political issue.
I read an article on the Internet recently, in the wake of Live Earth, giving the point of view of a climate change sceptic. Unfortunately I can't find the link now, so my remarks will have to remain general rather than specific. For one thing, the media prove themselves to be scum once again by angling always for controversy, by overemphasising the idea that the 'sceptic' interviewed is 'against' the idea of climate change, and is 'challenging' it. The headlines were along the lines of "Save people, not the planet." I don't know if you could find a more moronic slogan, but I suppose it will appeal to someone: "Yeah. Yeah. I've had enough of the fucking planet. Let's get rid of the damned thing, and just have the people." Anyway, the sceptic interviewed was basically saying (unable to deny climate change) that he thought money should be spent on 'more urgent' things. I find the psychology here really curious. What, really, is the motivation of this sceptic? Even if we accept that no one really knows what's going to happen, don't you want to do your best to prepare for the worst when there's at least strong evidence that it's coming? My impression is that the motivation here is political. That is, like the media, those with a political bent feed off contorversy and division. If anything looks like having a truth that transcends politics, they must, at all costs, challenge and politicise that truth, for fear of losing their power. But climate change is not political. We are dealing with forces that are way deeper than your shallow and petty little 'issues'. These waves and winds take no account of left or right. They are not politically motivated. You cannot engage them in political discourse. For once, we will have to rise above politics to survive. I have said it before, in different words, but this may be a chance for the human race to become spontaneously, apolitically communist, or it may see us all drowning in the farcical mire of politics, before we are finally drowned by the deeper waves of nature.
Interbreeding writes:Well, I find this to be a very interesting post. I naturally would like to seize on the bits which pertain to my own blog post, which probably aren’t the most interesting. Nevertheless, it falls to me to say a thing or two about communism. Firstly, though there are plenty of people around the place who like to envisage communism coming about in a spontaneous way, it of course will not, and your perceptions are right on that score. These days, I tend to think of our entire period of history as the incredibly messy birthing period of communism, one which is certainly nowhere near its end. Secondly, I want to draw attention back to the thing about the politicians and the dictatorship of the proletariat. One thing I want to see is a bit more democracy: elected representatives who are recallable delegates who simply represent the people and do not take anything for themselves. I suspect that a lot of people who certainly do not think they are communists would want that. My commitment to communism was highly envigorated though when, recently, after reading Lenin’s ‘State and Revolution’, I realised that (the Marxist message is that) we will only ever get this level of democratic representation as part of a communist revolution. Of course, the historical phenomenon of communism, even that presided over by Lenin, bears scant resemblance in most cases to such commitments, you are right.That stuff about playing politics is great though, Quentin. It’s almost the same thing as the French case I blogged about. In France they tell people not to think; in Britain they’re telling them not to ‘play politics’, again not to criticise the government. People of course must demand that the government do something, since only the government can. One of my favourite things that Foucault says is to label as blackmail the line that governments routinely take which is to say, “You couldn’t have done any better. We couldn’t have known.” Actually, no, it’s your job to know, you are the ones who are responsible, not us. It’s not our fault we elected you, you begged us to elect you, but strangely you did not do it out of a desire to put in place flood prevention measures but out of hubris. The flood prevention measures will be better under communism.
Hello Interbreeding.Thanks for writing. I’ll see if I can address some of those points later.For now I’m just added an addendum, which is this:http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070723/tts-uk-europe-floods-7ee3caf.htmlSo, when I wrote that I hadn’t seen any enquiry into the media about the links with climate change, that is no longer the case.
either we uncover an honest promethian leadership, or i vote for anarchy. pacifist apolitical anarchy. because power corrupts. and people are asleep.nice rant. all true… all helpless “But any communism that takes place must, to succeed, be apolitical. It must represent the end of politics, not just another form of politics. To reiterate – politics is the problem, not the solution.”i’ve always thought that what we need is some savvy accountants, a few brilliant scientists, some men of common sense and a smattering of truly creative thinkers and form a ‘council’ where noone has the power except the unanimous vote of the council.they put their heads together and spend the money wisely.
My eys are still not great (by any means), so I’m going to take this a little at a time. I’ll start by responding to Interbreeding:I suppose I’m wary about committing myself to anything with a capital letter, metaphorically or otherwise (EG ‘Communism’ rather than ‘communism’). Even if words start off with a small letter, they sometimes end up with a capital, and things are done for the sake of the word that are, well, perhaps not what those who first supported the word would have wanted.Actually, this is quite a complex issue, and I’ve only just got up. Let’s see… I suppose I’m attracted, just as I Artman, to the idea of anarchy – to small, self-governing communitites composed of like-minded people, a bit like extended families. This is also an idea that seems to be supported by the philosophy that most fascinates me at the moment, that of Taoism:http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html#57Not that I don’t have reservations. One such reservation is that, as touched on in my post, the population of the world may well now be too great for an anarchy of small communities. Then the communism that must take place will have to take place on a large scale, which would seem to require the kind of administrative networks that so easily become corrupt networks of power, because the interests of the administrators are not the same as those for whom they supposedly administrate.I suppose that I have been suspicious of things like communism because of their history, and because they seem t require conformity to the dictates of a very particular club with a very particular way of thinking, and I’ve never felt comfortable about having to keep my thought from straying. It strays of its own accord. However, apart from the fact that I have long thought that any ideal society must be without money (and hierarchy), other things have made me reconsider my position. I went to an environmental march not long ago, for instance, and there were people selling copies of one of the socialist papers, and their slogan was something along the lines of, “Any solution to global warming is a socialist solution.” Even though I don’t like sloganeering, and am naturally suspicious of organised politics, I had to admit that this is basically right. I certainly don’t think there’s a capitalist solution to global warming, or to anything. It seems clear that capitalism, like the materialist philosophy on which it is based, is a dead end. Therefore there must be, if we are to continue as a species, a society that is, well, one way or another, communist. I simply retain my doubts about how any true communism is to come about. I’m a little afraid that the dictatorship of the proletariat might prove utilitarian (a philosophy I definitely don’t support), or that it might lead to the kind of hysterias that took place under Chairman Mao.In other words, perhaps, I think people’s attitudes are the problem. If people (including me) could somehow change their attitudes, any system they worked in would cease to become poisonous, and would naturally change as a result. As to what I can do personally, well, I must admit to feeling quite helpless most of the time, but I am not entirely ideologically apathetic. I do live, as much as I can, according to my beliefs, and I do try to take the attitude, as expressed by Blake, that “I shall not cease from mental fight/Nor shall my sword rest in my hand…” This is balanced by the notion that the best we can do is accept and work with the moment in hand. “One thing I want to see is a bit more democracy: elected representatives who are recallable delegates who simply represent the people and do not take anything for themselves. I suspect that a lot of people who certainly do not think they are communists would want that.”I think that would certainly be an improvement on the elected dictators we have at the moment, yes.Well, I’m not sure I’ve really done a very good job of responding to the points you’ve brought up, but maybe I’ve given some general idea of my position.
Interbreeding writes:
I was an anarchist for a long time. The difference between anarchism and Marxism is not about what we want (which both anarchists and Marxists call ‘communism’), but how to get there. Anarchists basically don’t have an account of historical processes, but they basically claim that we can only use communistic methods to achieve communism: we can’t create a world without hierarchy by using hierarchical structures. While that seems to be logical, it actually isn’t at all, any more than saying if you want to make something soft you have to use a soft tool and not a hammer would be logical. Marxists typically understand that historical upheavals are always messy, involve mistakes and steps forward and backward, and that historical upheavals are also inevitable.There have been some clear mistakes made in communist practice in the twentieth century, but there are some (although not enough, I admit) signs that communists are learning from these. Regarding the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, I recently wrote
I feel like I should read more about the actual ideologies behind communism, as most of my concept of communism comes in historical form. I think the only formal study of politics I made was briefly as part of sociology, before university. One thing that made it hard for me to aympathise with Marxism from the start was the emphasis on materialism. Still, it’s something I feel I should learn more about, and the only thing that prevents me is, well, stuff like time-management and prioritising and so on.”Still, I think we are all suffering from the same malaise at the moment: people would like things to be better, but there is no movement to make things better that we can join.”Yeah, it seems like it.I’m reminded of a fictional encounter I saw on TV years back between Blake and some famous pamphleteer of the day (who, I believe, eventually went off to support the American Wr of Independence against the British). I can’t remember his name now.The crux of their exchange was basically this:Blake: “Yeah, you’re probably right we should have a revolution… The only thing is, I’m afraid that if we don’t have a revolution of the spirit first then what we’re looking at is countless revolutions stretching into eternity, each one erecting a gallows more subtle than the last.”Pamphleteer: “What you’re talking about is mysticism. That way leads to introspection and inaction.”Blake: “Yeah. You could be right. Good luck in America. What you’re doing is very important. It’s been most pleasant talking to you.”And the rest, as they say, is history.I feel as if this link, which someone just sent me, has some bearing on the discussion, too:http://herd.typepad.com/herd_the_hidden_truth_abo/2007/07/the-big-opportu.html
simplify, sinmplify, simplify. thoreau said it.i read the link ‘herd.typepad.com’a non violent revolution is possible. but it is not probable because it is in the interest of the present power elite to keep the people in the dark. all their efforts have to do with distracting the masses. while they continue to rake in the dollars through usury and the trickery of the law.every now and then they throw a sacrificial lamb into the fire of the media to placate the people. then they rake in more dollars and devise even more subtle engines to bleed the working class.the simple solution is to disillusion the active populaces in every country as to the need for leadership. those days are gone. just hire people of skill in management of money to spend it wisely. and forget about this fantasy that one man shall lead us all. that goes back to the passe’ concept of kings being the strongest man; the strong man will protect us from danger.
Catherine writes:That last from me!
Anonymous writes:
Hi Quentin,I realise that this makes me an unusual person in these modern times, but my default position towards politicians isn’t one of scepticism, because of my background.I’m still involved with the labour party although I’m taking a back seat recently because I have priorities to juggle. Party divisions aside because that’s irrelevant to this discussion, there is no way I would be able to continue if the majority of people I have met through this involvement had not been bloody hard working altruistic “normal” people.What creates conflict – unelected spokespeople with a personal agenda who spread untruths about immigrants on £100,000 a week of benefits in 5-bed council houses, or the politicians who have to set the record straight while still remaining trustworthy (if you contradict the Daily Mail you must be a liar) and electable, although they are taking a different line to the one swallowed by those who vote for them? Thousands of people who gather together unpaid for a week to earnestly and amiably discuss and make resolutions on social problems in numbingly tedious detail (with the aforementioned people of common sense, scientists and thinkers), or the harpies who ignore these hours of work in favour of a throwaway comment taken out of context that gives the impression the conference was a massive bun-fight from start to finish?Would I want to follow my dad and be an MP?Hours – forget “long”, substitute “constant”. 7 days a week, up at 5-6, bed by midnight if you’re lucky.Money – crapFamily – no chancePeople’s general regard for you – contemptuousThe only possible reason for the majority is because they feel that there is a difference to be made, somewhere out of all this chaos, and that it is worth it.As for me, I’m starting to think I’m too selfish and indulgent. My dad? Spent last week up a wet mountain making up Han Shan poetry. Now he’s working out how he can get back into parliament because he’s thought of another job he needs to do.Why would he bother, only to work with people who thrived on power, lies and playing games? I know that he’d rather be off in the hills or getting bashed about in a wetsuit in the north sea.
Yes, I’ve sometimes wondered what it would be like to really try and make a difference as a politician. Speaking as a complete lay-person, I have the impression that the party-divide does a lot of harm in this sense, since if you do simply want to ‘get things done’ in terms of helping to sort out social problems, a system that seems to require you automatically gainsay your opposition and always compete against them, well, it’s a model for conflict, and it’s not really surprising that there is so little cooperation in society generally with this as our ultimate means of organisation, but if someone can try, in the midst of all that, to make a difference, that’s certainly admirable.
Anonymous writes:
Does a lot of harm, but inevitable as we all have different ideologies. There is more cross-party cooperation and friendship than the media would like to portray tho, and the best people just get their heads down and work.I wouldn’t pretend however that there are not those who are prone to putting party-political one-upmanship above the public interest however, and for me that is the ugliest side of politics, the crowing and the misrepresenting of people to score points. That’s what’s going to kill it for me in the end, I think – but then some days you think “all the more reason for decent people to fight their corner.”There are people out there, particularly younger ones, who are doing great work trying to bring attention to issues like housing, or sustainable transport, or renewable energy, or equal opportunities, and they would have a lot more power if they were able to do that in the context of a political party, but they don’t see the need to do that or they are just completely disgusted at what they perceive politicians to be. Not challenging these perceptions means that you’re disenfranchising people who are not at all apathetic, quite the opposite, they are just turned off engagement with the system. I think that’s the biggest problem for political parties to address, and you can’t blame it all on your detractors.