This is one of a series of 24 articles that I hope to compile into a book – working title: The Commoners’ Manifesto: Neither Capitalism Nor Communism. Here’s an introduction to the series. Comments welcome, including disagreement and debate. I want to present commons as a decentralised alternative to both of those systems of centralised power. When I use the words capitalism and communism (unless I state otherwise) I mean what has been manifested in their names, rather than theory.
I have always been wary of theories that posit a mechanical progression in the same way as I feel distant from deterministic narratives. Nature - and human nature with it - is far to complex to be predictable in any general or precise way. That is not to say that humans can't be conditioned to act in fairly predictable ways and Capitalism has achieved this in an era of unprecedented access to sources of energy-density.
The centralised state will not be dismantled by violent revolution. As you point out, revolution was in practice more an exercise in seizing the state and the power it could wield rather than an attempt to destroy it. It will die out, though, as it becomes more and more irrelevant and the restoration of the commons is, if not inevitable, an attractive alternative.
I would strongly advocate for progress in this direction to be accelerated as my fear is that the collapse of the state will leave a vacuum for complete disorder and the rise of armed groups.
It is all a choice in the end and our conditioning will play a big role in which choice we make.
I agree with Bookchin's analysis that our attempts to separate ourselves from and dominate over nature is where everything went wrong, with the domination & exploitation of women, workers, ethnic minorities, and the Global South in general following on from that.
So the West's much-lauded "civilisation" was never anything more than a marauding trail of destruction, a bit like a locust swarm, and it tried to obliterate all the ways we had of living in harmony with nature and respecting planetary boundaries. It is those old ways that offer our best chance of salvation now.
But regardless - 1. as I mentioned in the article, it's what happens when the state is seized and controlled centrally that's important, whatever it's initiators call themselves, and
2. what 'Marxism' are you talking about? Are an advocate of his later work, that didn't involve the proletariat organising to seize the state at all? (in which case I'm with you).
Plus (quote from the article): 'When I use the words capitalism and communism (unless I state otherwise) I mean what has been manifested in their names, rather than theory.'
I have always been wary of theories that posit a mechanical progression in the same way as I feel distant from deterministic narratives. Nature - and human nature with it - is far to complex to be predictable in any general or precise way. That is not to say that humans can't be conditioned to act in fairly predictable ways and Capitalism has achieved this in an era of unprecedented access to sources of energy-density.
The centralised state will not be dismantled by violent revolution. As you point out, revolution was in practice more an exercise in seizing the state and the power it could wield rather than an attempt to destroy it. It will die out, though, as it becomes more and more irrelevant and the restoration of the commons is, if not inevitable, an attractive alternative.
I would strongly advocate for progress in this direction to be accelerated as my fear is that the collapse of the state will leave a vacuum for complete disorder and the rise of armed groups.
It is all a choice in the end and our conditioning will play a big role in which choice we make.
Look forward to the next chapter!
Great article, thanks for sharing.
I agree with Bookchin's analysis that our attempts to separate ourselves from and dominate over nature is where everything went wrong, with the domination & exploitation of women, workers, ethnic minorities, and the Global South in general following on from that.
So the West's much-lauded "civilisation" was never anything more than a marauding trail of destruction, a bit like a locust swarm, and it tried to obliterate all the ways we had of living in harmony with nature and respecting planetary boundaries. It is those old ways that offer our best chance of salvation now.
Why do you feature an image of Lenin. Lenin was a capitalist politician and exponent of state capitalism. His methods are not those of Marxism https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990/1990s/no-1027-march-1990/marxism-versus-leninism/
Lenin would have disagreed with you - https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/tasks/ch12.htm.
But regardless - 1. as I mentioned in the article, it's what happens when the state is seized and controlled centrally that's important, whatever it's initiators call themselves, and
2. what 'Marxism' are you talking about? Are an advocate of his later work, that didn't involve the proletariat organising to seize the state at all? (in which case I'm with you).
Plus (quote from the article): 'When I use the words capitalism and communism (unless I state otherwise) I mean what has been manifested in their names, rather than theory.'