In part 1 of this series, I suggested that for any revolutionary transformation to fully occur it is not enough for its advocates to be against the existing socio-economic system either in writing or speech. Socio-economic transitions simply cannot be wished or talked into existence. In order to realistically anticipate a transition to another socio-economic system there must already exist an alternative way of living and producing that has been successfully established and been developed. At that earlier point I used the example of the bourgeois civil wars occuring in Europe between the ruling aristocratic elites of the Feudal agricultural system and the rising elite capitalist based bourgeoisie. The former were parasitic upon a long established subsistence mode of agricultural production, whereas the latter were parasitic upon the commercial and industrial system of commodity production already developed and consolidated.

Under the capitalist mode, production was primarily undertaken for sale and exchange rather than for direct consumption. The key point being made in part 1, and again now, is that the bourgeois ‘mode of production’ developed and established itself by many practical examples within the existing Feudal agricultural system. In other words, the revolution in the mode of production had already occurred prior to the transfer of political and governing power to its commercial, economic and financial elites. The aristocratic elite in charge of the Feudal systems would not allow a peaceful transfer of political power in favour of the bourgeoisie and so a series of European and colonial civil wars took place which eventually resolved the problem of political governance in favour of the bourgeoisie.

Whilst civil wars are not inevitable in such socio-economic transitions, they are highly probable because the historical pattern of evidence indicates that established political and economic elites do not voluntarily give up either their privileged positions or the control they have over any existing mode of production. Substantive change in the governance of hierarchical societies is nearly always resisted by the ‘establishment’. Bourgeois resistance to change occured within the 19th century capitalist economic system when an alternative non-profit socio-economic system developed. It was based partly upon economic cooperation in the manufacture of cotton materials. In this case, the bourgeoisie, conducted an economic, political and financial war against the new mode. Most famously in the UK, the Manchester cotton based bourgeoisie organised a successful boycott campaign restricting supplies of raw cotton going to the alternative Owenite cooperative factory at New Lanark.

Therefore this alternative model soon collapsed in the UK, re-located in the USA before finally being terminated there. These setbacks were not the only weaknesses of this particular model of cooperation as that particular  version was a top-down model organised and controlled by Robert Owen, a member of the elite, who was also driven by a religious and moral agenda. Consequently, the only extensive non-religious worker cooperative model remaining in the 20th and 21st centuries was in Mondragon in the Basque region of Northern Spain. However, the early cooperative model, although severely limited in many ways, was extremely successful for a limited period of the mid 20th century in the UK and elsewhere. In the UK there were numerous cooperatively run Farms, Industries, Shops, Banks, and Training Colleges.

Marx, commented upon many of these substantially deficient 19th century models of cooperative working and suggested to their advocates that “…you are digging the grave of cooperation, while you think you are fashioning its cradle.” Nevertheless, he also suggested the means by which cooperative ways of working and living could become part of a revolutionary transition (within the capitalist system) from capitalist forms of production to post capitalist forms. He wrote;

“A cooperative association is formed; after payment of it’s working charges (including labour in production or distribution), it finds itself at the end of the year with a surplus in hand; instead of dividing this surplus among the members, it employs it to purchase land or machinery which it lets out to other bodies of working men , on the associative principle. The rent paid for the land or the machinery and the surplus of each concern beyond the working charges, is again applied to the further purchase of machinery and land, on the same terms and under the same conditions and so on continually extending the power, strength and resources of the association. This is cooperation. It is cooperation, because it establishes a community of interest – the success of each branch furthers the success of every other and of the whole collectively” (Marx Engels. Collected Works. Vol. 11, page 587)

Although intellectually, the above excerpt is completely located within the dominant anthropocentric viewpoint of that 19th and 20th century period, it does indicate how an alternative mode of producing and living could begin within an existing mode of production dominated by capital.  But of course revolutions in living and producing only actually begin by human beings starting to organise and sustain their lives in this revolutionary way. Unlike Resistance, Revolutions in modes of production do not begin by simply writing and talking about them.

Furtheremore, such revolutionary initiatives only become an example for others to follow, when they demonstrate their ability and suitability for sustaining the different model. Until such successful transitions happen, talk of revolution is just ‘pie in the sky’ hogwash. As noted elsewhere, Marx was a product of his time and its knowledge base. He and others had only begun to question the negative role of the capitalist mode of production on a few fundamental non-human aspects of life on earth.

A greater knowledge and understanding of the evolutionary past, present and future of life on earth – as a whole – and the dependence of all species upon the ecologically integrated system of nature, had yet to emerge. At that period in the 19th and 20th centuries, the main concern was with the existence of particular problematic human social forms and their political superstructures. Nevertheless, from the late 20th and 21st centuries due to evidence from practical ecologically based studies, a more Gaia-centric understanding of life on earth has arisen. This new ‘enlightenment’ understanding now indicates that humanity needs to solve more than just the unfair, unequal and genocidal relationships between members of the human species. Humanity also needs to revolutionise the current relationship between it’s own species survival and the survival of rest of the life on earth species.

A Gaia-centric  perspective views life on earth as an integrated, interdependent and interlocked system, which needs all its parts to function so that each species can survive. We now know that before anything else ‘life on earth’ depends upon each species of life being able to transistion through its own particular evolutionary determined process of Nutrition, Metabolosm, Growth, Reproduction + Ageing and Death.  Nevertheless,  during this process each species contributes essential mineral, liquid, protein, carbohydrate resources to the eco-system and thus ensures the (N-M-G-R + A-D) processes of all other species. That is to say that all life on earth fundamentally depends upon completing its sequential process which includes obtaining appropriate Nutrition (N) containing a balance of inorganic and organic material and processes. For example, the whole process  includes all those life-forms that replenish the air and water, and produce protein, fats, sugars and minerals present in the food and natural habitats – that all life needs to survive.

The empirical evidence which is derived from the sciences of biology and nutrition confirms in detail, the truism that an army marches on its stomach and much more. The fact is that any human community only continues to exist optimately by it’s own daily intake of adequately balanced nutrition. Moreover, the largest (organic) part of nutrition (N) for each species is composed of both the product of, and the bodily substance of, one or more other life forms on planet earth. The continuous supply of original inorganic and organic material needs to be digested and Metabolised (M) by the microorganisms and cells of each organism and the results of this process circulated around the cells of each organism in the form of energy supply and the releasing of essential particles and vital minerals.

So clearly it is not politics or social organisation which directly energises and motivates these biological and social processes of life on earth, but the absorbtion of energy and minerals, directly from inorganic matter and organic life itself. The biological foundation on which all human politics, social organisation and culture is erected is the whole of the interconnected and interdependent inorganic and organic web of life on earth. It is this fundamental bio-chemical process, which allows each organism to Grow (G) and Reproduce (R) (each at it’s own rhythm and pace), before eventually Ageing (A) and Dying (D). As already indicated, these processes – which are essential to all life forms – can be intellectually shortened as in the following abbreviation (N-M-G-R + A-D), but the actual phases of each species cannot be shortened or altered in the real world without dire inter-species consequences.

Consequently, this non-human global inter-dependent reality cannot be ignored when considering any future human socio-economic activity. In the past, this absolute dependence of humanity on all the other complex, inter-connected and inter-dependent species of life on earth, for the air we breath, the food we eat, the clothes we wear and many of materials we build and manufacture with, was mostly unknown. For generations, nature was generally seen philosophically and practically as something other than humanity; as a necessary but essentially different realm of existence to the human species on planet earth.

To the religious anthropocentric mind-set a creator God had magically created both man and and the rest of nature, including the complete separation between the two spheres. To the secular anthropocentric mind-set, it appeared that ‘evolution’ had created men and the rest of nature and that the two categories evolved differently creating and perpetuating this separation between them. So even from a secular perspective, the human species was viewed as having evolved from within nature but secular anthropocentric arrogance, particularly in its philosophically honed guise, considered humanity had qualitatively separated itself from nature. In elite intellectual circles it was imagined that nature was ‘determined’, by natural laws, whilst men were self-determined and ‘free’.

Both these anthropocentric tendencies, (religious and secular) mistakenly considered humanity was no longer limited or constrained by the same material boundaries as the rest of nature. The dominant anthropocentric mind-set considered that ‘intelligent’ Science and ‘sophisticated’ Philosophy would overcome any natural physical boundaries or any biological limitations. From an anthropocentric mind-set, the human species and its thinking was imagined to be the pinnacle of the evolution of life on earth. Thus the most outrageous modern anthropocentric forms of philosophical arrogance appear in the writings of the 18th, 19th and 20th century philosophers. For example;

“… the being of nature does not correspond to its concept; its existing actuality therefore has no truth; …” nature is a representation of the idea,” (Hegel. ‘The Philosophy of Nature’. Proposition 193)

Of course the term nature is an abstraction and therefore it is a general concept – not a real thing – and so the use of the term does logically correspond to itself. But of course the actuality of life forms which are included within the concept of ‘nature’, once carefully examined do have a reality corresponding to at least a high degree of relative truth. However, any non-obsequious study of Hegel will reveal that Hegel was a thorough idealist and thought that God had created man and nature and that the real evolutionary developed organisms within nature were physical manifestations of Gods perfect idea. I contend that undue regard for philosophy in general has sown much mischief among human populations, the reason why (and the dangers) are summed up below by another philosopher, Herbert Marcuse.

“Philosophy had never ceased to claim the right to guide man’s efforts towards a rationally mastery of nature and society or to base this claim upon the fact that philosophy elaborated the highest and most general concepts for knowing the world” (Herbert Marcuse ‘Reason and Revolution’. Chapter 2)

And;

” ..the conquest of nature is practically complete..” (Herbert Marcuse. ‘Eros and Civilisation” Introduction.)

Think about the above (often repeated) assertions such as; Philosophy, (incidentally, an almost complete male preserve) “…claims the right to guide efforts toward a mastery of nature (and claims to have) “the highest concepts for knowing the world.” There is no need to make any further case against the arrogance and limitations of most of the 20th century anthropocentric understandings of the real relationship between humanity and the rest of life on earth, than those made by its intellectuals, influencers and politicians from their own words. It was not until the mid-20th century, that the ecological balance of the interdependent network of life on earth was anywhere near fully understood even by a minority.

Until the late 20th and early 21st centuries, looking after nature was at best a moral problem rather than an existential necessity for all life on earth – including humanity. Thinking about nature was conceived as rather like having the choice between a planned garden or an abandoned allotment. Now more and more of the above-noted inter-dependencies are becoming firmly established, if not yet consistently broadcast, widely disseminated, or sufficiently accepted. Therefore, much of humanity is in either a form of ignorant bliss or in opiate type denial with regard to themselves and life on earth. Consequently, it is an essential task to continue to draw attention to the connections between human activity and the increasing loss of key species, such as soil microorganisms (including fungi), insect and animal pollinators of plants along with plants and algae as photosynthetic oxygen producers and food chain sustainers.

Eventually, this existential reliance of humanity on life on earth – as a whole – will become more commonly understood. But meanwhile the problem and its solution should also become part of any future intelligently discussed and organised human society as a fundamental part of revolutionising its mode of living and producing. Humanity needs to balance it’s own nutritional (N) and habitat needs in such a manageable and proportional way that it does not by overproduction, over-consumption and over pollution destroy the key life support species needed to supply the general and particular forms of nourishment (N) either as air, water, or food based photosynthetic life forms.

A socio-economic revolution in the 21st century and beyond as its consistant priority would need to ensure that future human societies do not undermine the general ecological balance of all the life forms that the planetary system has evolved with. The continued viability of the whole planetary system of life on earth depends upon overcoming the past and present anthropocentric level of human understanding, particularly within the thinking of those advocating a revolutionary change in the existing mode of production. Sufficient evidence has already been accumulated to indicate that particular care should be taken to protect the following – often taken for granted and under-valued life forms – which we most depend upon are nurtured and protected.

For example, plants (large and small) and of course oceanic algae, all of which absorb the carbon dioxide other life forms exhale and using the suns energy emissions transform this gas into oxygen. These bio-chemical transformations are vital to all aerobic dependent life forms. Furthermore, land and sea based plants also provide the base-line food sources for all life on earth. Thus plants in their tiniest and largest forms are key organic life support systems for all other species of life on earth. But of course, given the interdependent essence of nature plants cannot do this on their own, they also depend upon soil microorganisms and fungi to allow optimum root absorbtion of vital inorganic and organic material and its effective metabolic processing.

Plants also rely upon other animals and insects as well as wind dispersal for their reproduction (R) processes by means of pollination. And, of course, understanding the importance of these microorganisms to living plants, is not the only concern necessary for the maintenance of life on earth. That is because many varied life forms also dispose of the dead and decaying bodies (using them as sources of nutition) of life forms – all of which will eventually leave a residue of inanimate organic and inorganic material. The dynamic balance of production and consumption created by and during the evolution of the (N-M-G-R + A -D) processes of life on earth has been achieved over millions of years by drawing energy from the continuous orbital revolutions of the earth around the sun.

Although based upon an ‘on-the-surface’ understanding, each species during its function of living is essentially doing it’s own thing, by being both a consumer of organic material while they live and a donator of organic material when later they die (either by predation or after ageing) they are collectively assuring the continual recycling of much of the organic and inorganic material produced by each species and its re-absorbtion into new forms of life. The vast biological system of ‘life on earth’ by it’s very ‘nature’ cleans up after itself and re-uses everything it can. The global results of this inter-connected and inter-dependent network – until the onset of the industrial revolution in Europe – has not only sustained the vast number of species of life on earth, but maintained them in a dynamic but ‘natural’ ecological balance.

Any revolutionary individual or movement of individuals, who put the welfare of the human species first, or defines it’s own welfare according to Anthropocene ideological assumptions, is not a revolutionary movement at all. It is in fact, if not in name, a reactionary single species movement. If in future, humanity is to cease damaging and destroying this essential ecological balance of nature, which after all is the material foundation of all life on earth – including humanities own – the revolutionary changes to be made need to be Gaia focussed. Humanities relationship to nature (life on earth as a whole) can no longer be addressed primarily by issues of how human societies are to be governed or structured.

Thus, any mode of human living, collectively producing and consuming (N) should know how not to detrimentally destabilise that inter-connected and interdependent balance of all those multifarious life forms essential to that balance. The form of human existence, like the existence of all other life forms, needs to achieve a balanced place within the entire web of life on earth. Therefore, it is not simply a different political elite or a different form of elite governance or a different social form of continuing mass production and consumption that needs to be addressed and revolutionised. It is the entire mode of living, producing and consuming which needs to be transformed.

For those who haven’t turned the 19th century Revolutionary-Humanist perspectives of Marx into a universally applicable sectarian dogma, his ‘Theses on Feuerbach’ are still relevant, particularly the 11th.

“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it” (Theses on Feuerbach.)

Waiting for (and encouraging other activists to wait for) the masses, to assemble under the banner of some male-led revolutionary sect with 19th and 20th century levels of anthropocentric understanding amounts to intellectually justified procrastination and is reactionary to boot. It is repeating the same old pattern of leaders-in-waiting expecting the masses to be dutifully led by a self-appointed clique who have adopted the tiered hierarchical mass society model in embryo and need the masses to fund them and carry them and their ideas onward and upward socially and economically.

Besides that process has been repeatedly tried in many countries, during the 20th century in Russia and China and beyond on a large scale and in mini and micro Trotskyist, Leninist, Maoist sects on a small scale. The combined evidence of all these misguided attempts indicate that the results and traditions of this vanguardist model are not worth conserving or repeating. The species task for humanity is to create consistent social and economic conditions of cooperation among themselves – as a species – in order to re-establish and maintain an integrated balance of their own species with the rest of the species of life on earth. The exceptions to the hierarchical mass society  patterns, such as Mondragon and the Kurdish Peshmerga groups in Kurdistan, are of course few and far between. Nevertheless, resistance to hierarchical mass society living and producing will continue whether the hierarchy adopts liberal, capitalist, fascist, or communist ideologies with which to fool the masses.

That is because the form itself is an oppressive, exploitative, divisive and ecologically destructive dead end – for all life on earth. Those really concerned with revolutionary transitions from current hierarchical mass society formations dominated by capital, should begin by initiating self-determining egalitarian, Gaia-centered community alternatives ASAP. Such alternatives would be not only an actual act of defence and Resistance to the death agonies imposed by elites upon our human and other species communities, but where successful, would have Revolutionary potential. Even by success on a small scale, such alternatives will speak far louder than any number of carefully considered revolutionary sounding rhetorical  pronouncements.

Roy Ratcliffe (April 2024)