UK RIOTS: THE NEGLECTED REALITY (Part 2)

In part 1 of this article pointing out the neglect of larger social issues it was argued that blaming the victims of the hierarchical mass society system has become a default position of all political tendencies within the neo-liberal phase of the capitalist mode of production. The mainstream media’s parroting of the ‘Thugs’ and ‘law and order’ narrative emanating from all sides of the political spectrum over the summer of 2024 ‘Riots’, is now being replicated from a different angle – this time from the reformist left. Yet again with regard to civil disturbances and citizen unrest, the social and economic context of the current neo-liberal phase of the global economic system is being either largely or totally ignored.

This socio-economic amnesia is emanating from many of the left who occasionally posture as radicals is similar to the centre and right. It seems that some powerful motive prevents many people from blaming the way we humans are enforced by current circumstances to live collectively. The left, right and centre of the established elite political system will not countenance any serious internal criticism and opposition to the system which privileges them. Their narratives are selected to eliminate any of the problems arising within these societies. Here is another example produced this month by a left liberal campaigning group based in the UK;

“The street violence that has gripped much of England and Northern Ireland since 30 July instead tells a story of who the modern far right are, how they organise, what they believe, and the coalition of hard-right politicians, commentators and influencers who have empowered this hateful movement to inflict widespread violence against families fleeing fear.”

As they openly confess, “instead“, of socio-economc facts it’s a story of the “modern far right”.  For these left liberals the street violence in the UK is a “story” about the “hateful” far right movement of individuals. So in fact it is a ‘story’ which deliberately misses out the facts of a socio-economic system which for many decades in the UK and Europe has increased the wealth and privileges of the rich and decreased the wealth and well being of the working and non-working poor. In this left liberal ‘establishment‘ mindset, the economic, social and political reasons for the rise of right wing beliefs and whatever experiences have made them “who they are”, are apparently not even worth mentioning, let alone seriously considering. I suggest this neglect is because this reformist section of the British establishment and its political representatives in the British Labour Party and assorted NGO’s have for a generation utterly failed to adequately or seriously represent the interests of the lower middle classes, the union organised working classes and the precarious and unemployed working people of the UK and elsewhere.

As a consequence of this failure of the soft ‘left’ to ‘represent’, the interests of a significant sector of UK society, a small section of the latter’s victims of the system have broken away from the ‘established’ reformist wings of the British class system and are seeking alternatives. Disgusted with the two or three generations of three (or two) party establishment pattern, they are choosing to follow what they mistakenly consider are alternative radical means to hit back and disrupt the current established elite ideas, practices and policies. But the above noted mediocre middle class, think-tank intellectuals, rarely start from reality.

So the lefts, typically for intellectually trained individuals, conveniently reason that it is not the actual experiences of the working classes in the UK and Europe which inform what ideas they are expressing, they prefer to assert the opposite. To most intellectuals, their mental  ‘camera obscura’ turns reality  upside down. They follow the mistaken philosophical proposition; ‘I think; therefore I am’, when in fact the real world operates according to the observation that; ‘I am; therefore I think’. Just seriously and self critically reflect on your own intellectual process or watch any new born baby for confirmation that ‘being’ (experiencing) always precedes thinking. Hence these trained liberal reformist inverters of reality  think that it is simply the ideas and messages that the rioters have been given and are expressing which determines how they behave. Thus they write;

“These messages have gathered pace over the past four years as the former Conservative government ramped up messaging to “stop the boats” and accused migrant people of abusing the system while being “child rapists” and “threats to national security”. In the same time period, growing anti-immigrant rhetoric and a failing policy to house asylum-seeking people in hotels has repeatedly triggered real-life violence and intimidation, mainly outside the hotels housing families.”

So the decades of living through austerity and measures undermining the living standards and security of millions of working class citizens administered by Conservative, Liberal and Labour governments is being ignored. Also being ignored is the undoubted ability of the masses to deduce for themselves the overwhelming unfairness of the current system which rewards the few and punishes the many – even during a Pandemic. All these decades of complicity by all wings of the British political establishment is being ignored and instead they want the rest of us to believe that it’s the ideas of the right wing fringe political tendencies which are stirring things up and causing the unrest. It is perhaps inevitable that the manufacturers of so-called politically correct ideas about who is allowed to define themselves as feminine and who is not, would also manufacture ideas which conveniently omits their own class-based complicity in the reality of decades of British and European life.

In this inverted way, the left liberals conveniently avoid dealing with the part of the British ‘establishment’ socio-economic reality they are actually part of promoting, whilst living at the expense of it and protecting it. They are simply adding their influences to the law and order campaign orchestrated by the latest Labour Government’s left liberal ‘benighted’ ‘establishment. The spectacle of an antiquated ‘knight of the realm’ (arise Sir Keir) repeatedly urging the criminalisation of confused and serially angry young teenagers for loudly protesting and wildly throwing office and street furniture about the streets, actually indicates the existence of an alternative story.

The alternative is a story about the experiences of more than one generation living throughout their lives with a lack of adequate school buildings, disappearing youth clubs, few decent skilled jobs, adequate social housing and decaying community environments. The targets these indigenous victims chose (immigrants) as the catalysts for the current riots and disturbances, as confused and as mistaken as these expressions are, are nonetheless the limited and distorted expressions of something deeper. In the UK, Europe and elsewhere there are increasing numbers of exasperated human beings who are now refusing to be treated like sheep and who are refusing to be silenced. Mentally herding (or physically kettling) them toward or within whatever ‘story’ or space seems convenient to the established elite, is no longer working. So long term imprisonment in a prison estate which is already failing and close to collapse is to be tried

Another crucial missing chunk of reality from the current establishment narrative in the UK, Europe and the West, is the ‘story’ behind  how come so many foreign countries have become so inhospitable to their own people? Why is it that those born into them are so desperate to get away that they will risk life and limb in a overcrowded piece of boat shaped plastic and pay out all the money they possess to escape the clutches of their systems and its governing elites? How come many regions of Asia, Africa, and Oceania, which have historically supported large numbers of resident peoples and whose societies literally lasted for thousands of years whilst doing so, with only a relatively few Marco Polo type intrepid travellers venturing beyond their own shores? Why have Asian and African people in the 21st century, suddenly wanted to urgently leave their homes in such huge numbers?

Could this neglected alternative prequel ‘story’ have anything to do with the period of colonial history in which the European elites conquered and subdued these foreign regions? Did the deliberate European ruining of their local indigenous social systems and economies perpetrated in order to obtain possession (or control) of their ample natural resources, not have anything to do with current problems? Could the increasing exodus of people from these now rapidly failing puppet state regimes, be anything to do with the 20th century installation and ongoing 21st century manipulation of them by European and North American country elites? Indeed, the installation of those regimes were deliberately set up by the UK, European and US elites so that they would become long term enablers and agents of the west who would comply with European and North American elite economic and financial requirements.

We need to ask why are the UK and European establishment voices of all political tendencies of left, right and centre, remaining silent on this undeniable Do they think that the modern descendents of these ravaged communities don’t know this colonial and imperial back story to their present urgent need to become immigrants? The Hey Day of the Colonial and Imperial period is in the past but there is still continuing foreign military, financial and political interference, subjection and displacement behind the current wave of immigration. In reality, rather than racist myth, the majority of immigrants, are not raiders of our reduced social funds, they  the current victims of economic, political or military oppression by regimes still supported, fully armed añd equipped by the UK, Europe and the West.  Could it be, that the silence by all these ‘established’ well educated sectors concerning, the impoverishment and oppression of the European working classes and the poverty and oppression of the foreign immigrants trying to get into the UK and Europe, is actually a lack of knowledge of the colonial period of capital accumulation, its horrors and assumptions? I doubt it!

Or is it perhaps a decision to deliberately ignore some highly embarrassing past histories upon which knighthoods, privileged forms of parliamentary living, reporting and ongoing foriegn investment returns (private and institutional) are still fully based upon? So much silence in 2024 on any possible alternative motivational ”stories’ concerning riots and disturbances from the professionally trained chattering middle classes of modern societies, must have a powerful reason to explain it. You normally cannot turn their verbal X, tik tok, Facebook, Radio or TV dihorea off, it normally keeps on gushing out. Commodifying sentences and selling them whether they are repeatedly banal or not is keeping thousands of them in the salaried means to purchase, consume and pollute the planet locally and internationally. Words are cheap to produce, particularly now there are AI sub routines to expedite the recycling of banality; however, corrective humane actions are what is needed.

With regard to the many victims of the current hierarchical mass society systems it is to be hoped that the stoked up frustrations and anger of the current suffering populations in Europe and elsewhere, will soon be re-focussed on the real problem for life on earth and the suffering sections of humanity. I suggest the focus of anger and frustration should be calmly redirected onto the current nature of the elite governed socio-economic system itself. And not just on its latest capitalist based mode of production. Non-capitalist elites are just as problematic as capitalist ones in regard to authoritarianism, oppression and the exploitation of humanity and nature.

Anyone who doubts this only need to read about the reality of Leninist Russia, Maoist China and North Korea under the Kim dynasty. As an alternative to repeating past mistakes, individuals and groups of concerned individuals need to begin thinking and seeking to actually implement alternative, more ecological and humane ways of living now. Being a supportive, cooperative part of the humann species rather than a competative warring section, would not only be preferable in particular but also more in line with the evolution of life on earth in general. Of the millions of species existing on the planet, throughout their millions of years of evolution, no other species has systematically treated other members of their own species with so much hostility and aggression, nor destroyed the environmental resources they needed to lived upon.

Roy Ratcliffe (August 2024)

Posted in Critique | Leave a comment

UK RIOTS: THE NEGLECTED REALITY. (Part 1.)

The recent riots in various UK cities sparked by the tragic stabbings of little children in Southport have highlighted two social narratives, which are primarily based upon narrow ideological understandings rather than on factual ones. This symptom of narrative selection is further demonstrated by the evidence that the actual stabbings have been quickly neglected and the focus directed exclusively upon the issue of immigration. It is here that the two partially correct narratives have been counter-posed to each other as alternative truths. It is being asserted within one narrative, emerging from within the indigenous working class communities, that the already much depleted social resources once available to them are being further reduced and redirected to immigrant communities. Once the facts are examined, this viewpoint cannot be denied so its relative truth has been deliberately ignored or neglected by those in government and media.

The amount of financial and fixed resources directed to support immigrants has been expanded astronomically during the same period as a decline in previous indigenous community resources have been reduced and replaced by austerity reductions, food banks and charity shop purchases. The descendents of the indigenous working classes have had their mid 20th century relative security gained from secure employment and social distress relief reduced by unemployment and cuts to education, health and other social services. Consequently, many UK citizens have been angry, frustrated and relatively powerless for decades and are now joined by a new generation also experiencing deteriorating circumstances.

Yet these facts are missing from within the narratives championed by the right and left leaning political classes. Frustration and anger have therefore, increased exponentially. What is currently happening is that the cause of this relative decline in life experiences and future life chances of current indigenous working people in the UK and Europe, is being attached to the existence of those human beings displaced from other countries who have now become immigrants to Europe.

One set of victims of the current global crisis of the neo-liberal capitalist system – the indigenous victims – are being told by the right wing extremists that this is the fault of another set of external victims – the immigrants!. The additional reality missing from the narrative of the right wing and liberal wings of the political and media ‘establishment’ in the UK is the following. During the same decades that were used by the governing elites to reduce wages and benefits for working people, the resources going toward the rich, super rich and moderately well off were increased either moderately in some cases or astronomically in others. Tax cuts, cheap labour costs and reduced industry and financial restrictions in the UK and Europe have enabled the class of millionnare and billionaire capitalist exploiters to expand their wealth, their numbers and their influence within all countries – including the UK.

Consequently, the reality is that in the 21st century, there are not less socially produced resources to go around, for indigenous and foreign victims of the global system, but far more than there was in the 20th. It is the social distribution of these resources which has been manipulated and altered by successive governments of all political complexions. This unequal social distribution of resources has become part of the problem which lies behind many of the current riots and civil disobedience and is conveniently being ignored.

The right wing organisers of these demonstrations and riots know these basic facts, but for various reasons, are choosing to ignore or neglecting to mention them. This undoubtedly is in order to continue to promote the one-sided blame game of picking on the immigrants rather than on the rich elites who control how disproportionately the global economic system functions. So the various figures in the political establishment are asserting an opposite, also partially correct and valid point, in their narrative of justification for the existing inequality by asserting that immigration benefits some people and the country in general. Whilst it undoubtedly does to some extent, they also choose to ignore or downplay the above noted dispossessed reality for the indigenous working classes. The fact is in 21st century UK and Europe there are enough social resources to adequately feed, house and educate all indigenous working people together with those immigrants terrorised or victimised by their own governments who are now seeking sanctuary.

What ultimately stands in the way of re-distributing these resources to all those who need them is the current hierarchical mass society system governed and controlled as it is by a relatively small class of greedy, overprivileged, inhumane elite individuals, who for decades have shaped the social, economic and financial systems to benefit themselves. These elite minority sectors of hierarchical mass societies are so dehumanised by their privileged life-styles, that in summer 2024, in the background of the riots, they have preferred to financially support the exclusive elite focussed Olympic Games, and a continuing Genocide in Gaza, rather than financially, supporting the schools, hospitals, care homes and local councils of their own struggling communities.

It has also been clear for some time that they would also prefer to financially support the war in Ukraine and continue to despoil and pollute nature rather than relinquish the smallest fraction of their wealth in taxes. Incidentally taxing the rich and super rich would at least ease some of the current burdens upon ordinary people, the environment or the other essential species necessary for the existence of life on earth. With this obnoxious 21st century reality in mind, is it any wonder, that there is widespread discontent, even if some of it is currently confused, misguided and counterproductive?

What also stands in the way of solving the many problems that the current hierarchical mass society systems have created are those who have only managed to grasp partial truths and regurgitate them along with promoting other mythical fabrications. Among those are those fabricators and defenders of the ideologies of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, who also ignore the fact that these ideologies openly justify and condone patriarchal exploitation, state orchestrated oppression and revenge killings in the name of their imaginary god. Marx’s characterisation of religion as the ‘opium of the people’ only scratches the surface of the alienating circumstances attached to living within the past and present hierarchical mass societies. Incidentally, being a childhood victim of religious indoctrination adds to the difficulty many adults have now in deciding how to act collectively together to change the oppressive and exploitative reality of their societies.

Let’s summarise what is currently happening to the low, paid, hard working, precariously employed working classes of the UK, Europe and elsewhere. Many are reduced to living in shop doorways, others on park benches. Others, are just surviving by having multiple part-time low paid jobs, to feed themselves and their children. The exhaustion, stress and mental turmoil this kind of existence brings leads to drug taking, alcohol abuse, self-harming and mental illnesses of various kinds. Others are drawn into the internet world of interconnected and intensified anger, frustration and distorted fantasies of revenge (games and chat rooms) against the half understood processes and actions occuring around them. How can these thousands of mistreated, rejects of the modern hierarchical mass society system be expected to make calm rational sense of a system in which its educated elite are themselves in a constant state of denial concerning the corruption, the injustice, the low and high-level violence and neglect caused by  the socio-economic system they govern?

Far too many citizens have been rendered by the current socio-economic system of neo-liberal capitalism, completely unfit for rational thinking and calm reflection. Within any humane paradigm of understanding of social realities, the blame for the existence of a section of modern societies who are, mad for revenge, full of erratic rage and distorted perceptions cannot be laid entirely on the heads of those citizen victims displaying these symptoms. The system which at a governmental level bombs people into oblivion, starves others to death, builds prisons rather than community centres and homes, and falsely imprisons its critics, is producing on a small scale – in some of its citizen victims – essentially the same irrational and self-centered characteristics which define it at an elite level and on global scale.

Yet typically, it is the neglected, mistreated and misled working class victims who are to feel the full weight of the law at the urging of Labour and Conservative politicians, who stay silent or complicit when in the presence of those responsible for mass killings and genocide.  To use an agricultural metaphor, the system is reaping what it has sown as it did in the 20th century in which two world wars, resolved its many contradictions by removing at least six million of those earlier victims who potentially personified them.

The modern versions of these alienated citizens’ of the system, are among those victims of the present system who are currently being recruited by the right, in the UK and elsewhere, to target the weak and defenceless immigrant victims and to riot and destroy objects in various towns and cities during August 2024. Of course, it is much easier to classify those who the present system currently renders ‘unfit for rational thinking and reflection‘ as ‘fascists’ and condemn them outright rather than trying to provide them with a more accurate view of what is wrong with our global societies.

Explaining to them that what they are being misled into fighting for, will ultimately turn on them and destroy them as it did to others like them in the 1930’s and 1940’s, is currently a necessary – but a completely neglected task. It was in the 20th century,  that a previous generation of angry and frustrated citizens in Europe, initially joined the then small groups of sectarian conspirators who went on to create the openly fascist mass parties headed by Mussolini, Hitler, Franco and Stalin. The evidence of numerous  historical archives indicate that these organisations and their leaders turned upon everyone (high or low) who would not implement the orders they had been issued with. Then when they gained power, they unleashed total war and dragged  global humanity into a previous era of shameful episodes.

Roy Ratcliffe (August 2024)

Posted in Critique | Leave a comment

REMINDER: ENGELS WAS ONLY HUMAN.

In the context of the 21st century multi-dimensional crisis visited upon the planet and its many species of life-forms, it has become popular in some circles to suggest reaching back to the writings of long dead individuals for contemporary guidance. The ones chosen have invariably made outstanding contributions to the understanding of life on earth, and that is the prime reason normally given to urge some of us to consult their opinions. A recent suggestion from some on the left in 2024 has been to study the works of Fredrick Engels.

However, three cautionary factors need to be recognised before undue reliance is placed upon any past researcher’s and their conclusions – and that includes Engels. The first is that they were limited by the quality and quantity of the evidence they had available and chose to base their conclusions upon: Second; they were subject to at least some of the general, class based socio-economic assumptions that were popular and taken for granted during the period they existed on earth; and third, they, like all human beings, were subject to their own emotional responses to events as well as to the intellectual processing of their experiences.

In this article I will provide some additional evidence for recommending a degree of caution before anyone relies too heavily on recent uncritical suggestions that the 19th century opinions of Fredrick Engels are still worth accepting in the 21st. Although Engels was a consistent radical, he nevertheless shared many assumptions typical of the educated men of that period. It was generally assumed by most of the educated elite in the 19th and 20th centuries that the history of humanity – and thus the world – had evolved through a sequence of definite stages.

Crucially, it was imagined that  one stage preceded another and created the conditions and an accumulation of knowledge which was necessary for the development of the subsequent stages. Evolutionary developments were assumed to have a ‘progressive’ purpose! This assumption was a retrospective application to history of the bourgeois  notion of human ‘progress’ which itself had been adopted from the Abrahamic religious traditions of assuming a purposeful ‘creation’ of life on earth, by some invisible mystical being.

Fragments of  what was then known about history and  pre-history were selectively attached to this idea of human progress. Certain historical facts were selected from the historical record which ‘appeared’ to fit this theoretical construction of progress and the resulting assumptions presented as a series of necessary sequences. That type of purposeful narrative became part of a commonly held set of theoretical abstractions  across a range of religious and non-religious educated Europeans.  Unsurprisingly, perhaps, it was an accepted historical perspective shared by a broad spectrum of conservative, liberal and radical educated gentlemen. They generally only differed on the relative (and not the absolute) merits of this supposed historical ‘progress’ unfolding by the mystery of God’s will or by the unfolding of another abstraction known as ‘natural selection’.

Fedrick Engels, the revolutionary minded friend and collaborator of Karl Marx  provides us with an excellent example of this general  retrospective idea of progress as applied to some pre-supposed  stages of history and pre-history. It was most clearly contained within in his lengthy polemic against a religious intellectual called Duhring and carrying the title; ‘Anti-Duhring’. In the section on Force Theory Engels justifies the existence of slavery on the basis that it served a necessary purpose. He asserted that;

“Without slavery,  no Greek state, no Greek art and science; without slavery no Roman Empire, no modern Europe either. We should never forget that our whole economic, political and intellectual development presupposes a state of things in which slavery was as necessary as it was universally recognised. In this sense we are entitled to say: Without the slavery of antiquity, no modern socialism…..When we examine these questions , we are compelled to say  – however contradictory and heretical it may sound – that the introduction of slavery under the then prevailing conditions was a great step forward…..Given the historical antecedents of the ancient world, and particularly of Greece, the advance to a society based upon class antagonisms could only be accomplished in the form of slavery. This was an advance even for the slaves; the prisoners of war, from which the mass of the slaves was recruited, now at least saved their lives, instead of being killed as they had been before, or even roasted as at a still earlier period.” (Engels. Anti-Duhring. Section 4;  Force Theory concluded.)

Engels concludes from this 19th century general anthropocentric perspective that slavery was a “necessary stage”, “a great step forward” in the  “advance” of human hierarchical mass society that was leading toward socialism. He goes even further in his assumptions and considers that the slaves at the time should have viewed their slavery as an advance for themselves as it spared them from being killed or killed and eaten. With only limited 19th century knowledge of pre-history and history,  Engels accepts the general reactionary and bourgeois Hegelian perspective on assuming there is not only  a ‘purpose’ to the unfolding of history, but a necessary one, leading to a stage he and others actually desired – called socialism. How intellectually convenient and counterfactual was that?

Note also that Engels  accepts the 19th century prejudice against an imaginary pre-historical stage of humanity they called ‘barbarism’ in which they arrogantly assumed past Homo sapiens were so ‘ignorant’ that they didn’t know any better than to eat each other. Therefore, they concluded on the basis woefully insufficient evidence that the human species – as a whole – were then prone to routine killing and cannibalism. The well known fact at the time of Darwin and Engels, let alone the ancient Greeks and Egyptians, that no other species of life on earth, including predatory species, routinely turned on their own species for their sources of nutrition, did not cause them (or Engels) to question or refute that prejudiced assumption. He goes on to add imaginatively that;

“So long as the effective working population were so much occupied with their necessary labour that they had no time left for looking after the common affairs of society – the direction of labour, affairs of state, legal matters, art, science, etc. – the concomitant existence of a special class freed from actual labour to manage these affairs was always necessary;……” (ibid)

He retrospectively applies a modern bourgeois economic term of distinction (necessary labour) to a period long before the existence of hierarchical mass societies, let alone ones dominated by the capitalist mode of production. During the period that Engels lived and studied, sufficient accumulated evidence already existed within Europe to contradict that kind of biggoted received ‘opinion’. Evidence accumulated by the many voyages of discovery to the east, west, north and south of the planet had established the fact that native peoples around the globe, practised many different modes of production, which indicated the opposite. For multiple thousands of years, most human groups had plenty of time available after securing enough daily nutrition to engage in any other activities they deemed interesting or worthwhile. Art, music, story telling, craft work and even domesticating pets and modifying their behaviour had existed along with regular decisions of when and where to move their location, when resources became scarce.

Engels provides no evidence for the above asserted state of human society which implies that humans existed like ruminant animals and are assumed to spend most of their non sleeping time in grubbing around for low grade vegetable nourishment from low lying grasses. However, this perspective does not fit into any known historical or pre-historical modes of production such as hunter-gatherer bands, coastal and lake-side fishing villages, goat, sheep or reindeer herders or seasonal pastoralists, etc. His insertion of such an imaginary  fabricated scenario therefore can only be assumed to be part of a polemical construction used to provide a logical ‘progression’ to his following sentence – which encapsulates his own particular view of a hoped for socialist revolution. Thus;

“Only the immense increase of the productive forces attained by large-scale industry has made it possible to distribute labour among all members of society without exception, and this to limit the labour-time of each member to such an extent that all have enough free time left to take part in the general affairs of society, whether theoretical or practical. It is only now, therefore that every ruling and exploiting classes become superfluous and indeed a hinderance to social development… ” (ibid)

Elsewhere I have provided evidence that Engels often mis-understood, the revolutionary-humanist perspectives of his friend and colleague Karl Marx, particularly with regard to Marx’s forensic analysis of the capitalist mode of production, (in the three volumes of Das Capital, the extensive notes known as the Grundrisse or in the three volumes of notes on Surplus Value.) Indeed, the existence of large-scale industry is now demonstrably not the ‘progressive’ good or necessary stage for human emancipation as it was imagined to be, in the 19th and 20th centuries by all Bourgeois intellectuals, of conservative, liberal or even revolutionary persuasions.

Unsurprisingly, such context specific anthropocentric assumptions to varying degrees, were also made by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and Mao. How could they not be? These individuals were also – only human and their understanding limited by their experiences and the knowledge available to them at the time! Therefore, whilst recognising the many contributions to anti-capitalist and anti-patriarchal perspectives made by a number of the above noted individuals we should not abandon our own critical and self-critical research and we should avoid leaning too heavily upon the level of understanding achieved by all individuals living during earlier centuries.

The reminder to ‘Whenever you are sure of something; maintain it with doubt’, provided by Bertrand Russel to his students could be usefully followed by every one of us. We should research as diligently and critically as we can, but always remain open to new information and new perspectives, because these new facts and perspectives once proven  reliable may prompt us to refine, modify or even refute our previous conclusions. Reminding ourselves that we too are only human and as such are products of the limited social and economic circumstances that we are immersed in during our own lifetimes, is not a fatal weakness for us individually nor for humanity as a whole.

Indeed, I suggest this modesty represents a form of evolutionary development for our species. Knowing how little we still know or understand should create humility and caution rather than arrogance and impatience. Consequently, we should develop and retain a healthy suspicion of those who fail to recognise their own limitations and arrogantly assume they have gone beyond making mistakes or beyond arriving at ill informed conclusions.

Roy Ratcliffe (August 2024.)

Posted in Critique | 2 Comments

VICTIMISING THE VICTIMS.

A) Competitive victimhood.

An awareness of the extent and depth of hierarchical mass society forms of oppression and exploitation of all organic life forms has grown considerably over the 20th century. However, this awareness is fragmented into separate categories of victimhood as if there were no common source of these multiple forms of oppression and exploitation. Yet it is clear that the common denominator in the victims of oppression and alienation in such categories as; Young, Old, Disabled,, Sick, Poor, Female, Gay, Unemployed, Immigrant, Enslaved, Coloniised,, Ethnicity, Gender Dysmorphic, Low paid economic,  Precariously employed  or discriminated on the basis of Skin colour, is the existing dominant socio-economic system.

Nevertheless, during exactly the same cycles of social production, these hierarchical mass society systems produce enormous amounts of wealth in the form of visible fixed assets and multiple objects of consumption. The problem is clearly one of the unequal distribution of these abundant resources and it is a problem which is created by those who control the main means of production. The super rich and the extremely rich have for extremely long periods extracted far more than they need for a contented existence; whilst, the super poor and the extremely poor have for long periods extracted far less than they need for a contented existence. Only the moderately comfortable groups situated in the middle income sectors of humanity have enjoyed what is (and should be) the basis for the contentment of all members of any naturally evolved species.

Yet of all the millions of species of life on earth only the human species has created such excessive differences in the mode of existence within it’s own species. It is the disproportionate distribution of the proceeds of social production, based upon the social evolution of the historic and modern divisions of labour within these complex societies, that have created the exclusively human phenomenon of internal-species enforced deprivation and structural victimhood. The historic cases of economic slavery, domestic slavery and in the modern era wage and salary forms of slavery have created numerous categories of human, animal and even plant victims of the current versions of the elite determined anthropocentric system.

In the modern period of educated populations and political forms of governance this phenomenon has now given rise to multiple forms of competitive victimhood. Thus in modern hierarchical mass societies oppression, exploitation and marginalisation manifest themselves in the politicised form of openly orchestrated competitions between victim categories for which category should be defined as the most needy and whose members should be compensated in some social or financial way. We now witness the amazing spectacle of a species which has named itself wise (Homo Sapien) in its daily practice ignoring the practical implications of being a single species and acts as if it were a collective of different species or sub-species, based upon socio-economic class.

So instead of uniting against the hierarchical mass society system of human social aggregation which oppresses and/or exploits them all to a greater or lesser extent, they are all now struggling against each other. These modern categories are involved in often fiercely competitive lobbing and activist group campaigns to elevate their own category of socio-economic alienation over and above the socio-economic alienations of other suffering categories. Whether meaning to or not, these activist groups are engaged in exclusive ‘identity’ battles in order to virtually elevate their own particular category of victim status over and above the status of all the other victim categories. It effectively divides the real human world into a series of competitive sub-worlds based upon virtual levels of social and intellectualised separate identities, rather than  the reality of a ‘natural’ species identity which has existed for over hundreds of thousands of years.

The primary aim of these campaigning groups is secure some current (or future) additional social or financial compensation potential in the existing 21st century informal and formal world of hierarchical mass societies. Despite widespread general over-production, over-consumption, and over-pollution, in the 20th and 21st centuries, this competive victimhood process has become a real world, distorted socialised form of ‘Victimhood Games’. At times it seems as if it is the real world which is mimicking the fictional ‘Hunger Games’  where geographical categories of humanity compete with each other for elite granted benefits. It is a most astounding feature of the success of modern hierarchical mass society divide and rule ideology emanating from our elites that has enabled the reality of an almost universal oppression of so many sectors of society to be corralled within their own almost self-ghettoised physical and intellectual limits within our hierarchical mass society aggregations.

Consequently victim categories have been channelled into competing with each other in the form of exclusive enemy guerilla combattant groups – within the jungle of mass societies – fighting for their own ultimate recognition and some form of compensatory benefit. The tortured logic of these formal and informal ‘Victimhood Games’ orchestrated by their ‘professional’ lobbying groups is to invite the elites in control of the wealth and power of our modern hierarchical systems to choose to put more coins into the modern electronic begging bowl of just one of the categories of the many victims of the elite system.

However, unintentionally meant, this amounts to making one set of victims active participants in effectively further demoting  another category of victim. It is a case of trying to persuade the elite with control of the modern state apparatus to choose to support one particular category of victim in preference to any of the other victim categories. Amazingly, this practice is currently described as motivated by humanitarian concern, rather than a manifestation of a restricted lack of humanitarian concern for all the other categories of victims. Real humanitarian and endangered species concern would be campaigning to create a unified oppositional movement aimed at representing all the victims of this oppressive and exploitative system of living. This single issue inversion of reality  demonstrates the political distortion of rational thinking within modern hierarchical mass societies.

As noted above, it may seem that these competitive charitable industry individual victim appeal sectors have become paradies of the fictional societies depicted in the the ‘Mad Max’ and ‘Hunger Games’ films. However, it would be more accurate to conclude that in actual fact it is these modern distopian novels and films which are merely an exaggerated parody of the real world unfolding around us in which the prequel to the present series of distopian events was the 1930’s Hunger Marches and the First and Second World War killing fields. The fictional paradies of those days were presented in Charlie Chaplins ‘Modern Times’ and the ‘Great Dictator’ and in Berthold Brecht’s, ‘The Threepenny Opera’, ‘Mother Courage and her Children’ and ‘The Good Person of Szechwan’.

B) Victims transformed into perpetrators.

Then there are the victims of hierarchical mass societies who turn themselves into intolerant persecutors of people whose experience of such societies has made them anti-social or intolerant of certain social ‘norms’ or traditions. In this way (and in others) the manifold faults of the ‘system’ become transferred onto the victims of the system. The real depth of this phenomenon is revealed in the behaviour and opinions of many individuals who have arrived at a particular critique of the current version of hierarchical mass societies and become highly intolerant of those who do not share that particular critical perspective. A case in point arises among those left anti-capitalists whose critique takes on a strong dogmatic political dimension so that anyone who takes a different political stance is declared an enemy of theirs and their ideas which needs to to be resolutely defeated. Such human victims of the system are not viewed as other human beings whose varied experiences of social alienation and exploitation have been processed differently and whose motives need to be fully understood.

Instead, a short-cut in selecting evidence and reaching conclusions is frequently chosen and the fact that another group of workers have reached different political conclusions is often interpreted by such sectarian dogmatists as that the former are suffering from some incurable personal mental or intellectual malady. Consequently they are not seen as a different product of essentially the same alienating socio-economic system, and also by only having limited information have reached different conclusions. For example, in the current multi-dimensional crisis, the fact that many traditional working class citizens, having – for very good reasons – turned their backs upon left reformist politicians and voted and/or campaigned for populist candidates, are being declared by many on parts of the spectrum of the left to have crossed some political Rubicon. From exploited and alienated working people they have been intellectually transformed into authoritarian fascists or proto-fascists and need to be openly demonised and actively fought against both intellectually and physically. .

Thus in a number of cases the intolerant so-called politically correct left become the mirror image of the intolerant right and raise the slogan ‘fight the fascists’, whilst the intolerant right raise the slogan ‘fight the liberals or commies’. In this way both sides of this hierarchical mass society politicised spectrum cease to see themselves and each other first and foremost as victims of the hierarchical mass society system who have become the manipulated tools of divided political elites. The danger lies in the fact that this perspective is exactly what the respective elites who are competing for social and political control of their respective countries, need. They want people not to just make political choices but to take permanent and belligerent sides. For those who as yet fail to see how this symptom can unfold it is worth reminding ourselves of Europe in the 1930’s.

The most extreme example of this crisis-produced political phenomenon of left workers versus right workers killing each other in support of one elite or another occurred in Europe of the 1930’s. That was when working class members of the National Socialist Party, in Germany and elsewhere, under the direction of their leaders took to ferociously fighting the working class members of the Communist and Socialist Parties who were also urged by their leaders to ferociously fight back. This convoluted process eventually led to a Second World War fought out primarily between the working class members of Germany, Italy and Japan who were pitted by their elites against the working class members of Britain, France, America and Russia. The final results of this catastrophe were the victorious return in all countries in 1945 of an hierarchical socio-political elite who then governed a much depleted (six million dead) international working class. And the rest is history – as the saying goes.

C) Blaming Weapons instead of the system. .

In this latest round of victim blaming, even inanimate objects are blamed rather than the effects upon individuals of the current system of social organisation. The latest round of shooting in the USA, this time with Donald Trump as the target, has once again triggered the usual torrent of superficial media and politically led thinking. Although others can get drawn into contributing to the torrent of virtual thinking, it invariably stems from those people who prefer to blame inanimate commodities for anything negative that happens within hierarchical mass societies. This produces the phenomenon of otherwise reasonably intelligent commentators, who would never believe that a knife could leap out of a cupboard and stab a human being, or that a bottle of alcohol could leave a shelf and empty its contents down a human throat, or that cocaine in powder form could leave its container and insert itself up someones nostrils, nevertheless quickly lose their rationality.

Being against something highly destructive should not be confused with the blaming of any highly destructive commodity for how it is used by certain individuals. Yet scores of commentators and ‘influencers’ straight away start to blame the availability of knives, alcohol, drugs or high powered weapons, for what happens to turn some people in society from an everyday citizen within some human societies into a killer, a rapist or a militarily paid, dropping bombs assassin. Surely, they know that a bomb cannot remove itself from its storeroom, board a plane and release itself to drop on women and children in Gaza or in Kiev. Most people must know that there needs to be an order from Biden or Putin, actioned by other active human beings in the hierarchical chain of authority. So why do so many refuse to look at the reality of hierarchical mass society, rather than concoct some intellectually constructed virtual reality? Ban the Bomb, the Gun, the Knife, the Poison, the biological weapons, etc., in the mouths of the powerless, is just a strategy of avoiding analyzing the social mess hierarchical mass societies have created since their introduction.

In any case, for those whose mental capacity is not restricted by chemical or ideological impediments, it should be obvious that Campaigns to limit the availability of commodities that can be used as weapons, will not limit the ingenuity of those human beings whose deformed and distorted experiences of living in them, leave them determined to kill and maim members of their own or other communities and will therefore find or invent an alternative means. The real problem for humanity and the rest of life on earth, is to identify what causes some human beings to lose their essential humanity which exists at their birth and is developed during their neonate period of nurture and replaces it with varying levels of deliberate inhumanity. The cause clearly cannot be biological since it occurs among no other species of life on earth, nor among all the human species living on the planet. Therefore, logic suggests, the cause must be located within the dominant social form of human living; in other words in the socio-economic structure of hierarchical mass society living.

It is currently impossible to imagine that enough people will emerge in the short term from the general victimhood of bourgeois ideological forms of thinking and who can therefore rise out of Marx’s “Muck of Ages’ analogy and therefore become “fit to found society anew”. I write these pessimistic words with considerable sadness because even most of the self-declared ‘Marxists’ and ‘ecologists’ have contributed, and are still contributing, their own layers of detritus to that mound of accumulating intellectual and material anthropocentric ‘muck of ages’. It is this 20th and 21st century mixture of elite led, top-down, now well absorbed mixture of ignorance and arrogance which stifles debate, non-dogmatic discussion and restricts non-sectarian activism. The practical and ideological competition at the heart of all hierarchical mass society systems – as now turbo-charged by the capitalist mode of production – has like a virus, infected even those thinkers and activists who are otherwise wishing to attempt to reform the system but currently remain trapped  within the anthropocentric parameters of current hierarchical mass society forms of human aggregation .

Roy Ratcliffe (July 2024)

Posted in Critique | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

GLOBAL PRODUCTION & DESTRUCTION. (Part 3)

In the final part of this series, I suggest it is important to fully recognise that a significant part of the destruction taking place under the auspices of the now almost universal hierarchical mass society systems is in the realm of emotions. It is not just the external inorganic and organic material of the planet, which is being destroyed by production for profit, but also the socio-psychological essence of the human species. At its fundamental bio-chemical and evolutionary foundational levels, the human species has evolved into a social species par excellence. The existence of each individual human organism not only depends upon the extended contributions of their biological parents and their nurturing support, as many other animal species do, but also upon the support of many other significant social individuals making up the complex divisions of labour spread across our communities. Our individual lives or our social systems could not function as they do without these thousands of other men and women who ensure that the delivery of some aspect of mass society living is kept constantly in motion.

Furthermore, these complex human social systems are also absolutely dependent upon the contributions of millions of other complex, bio-chemical organic species in nature that initially provide the oxygenated air we breath, the clean water we drink and the material basis of the essential organic food chains that we obtain from the life-cycle of plants, insects and animals. Even a partial understanding of this network of species and inter-species dependence and interdependence of life on earth, gives rise in the human species to particularly strong forms of emotional attachment to parents and significant others in the form known as various types of love and affection. Thus forms of emotional attachments already exist between family and friends as well as among close associates within the wider community. However, a more comprehensive understanding of this close knit web of inter-connected life can give rise to an affection for and love of life and nature in general.

The problem for humanity and the rest of life on earth is that the social form of hierarchical mass society structures, are such that for most human individuals even the above noted partial understandings of their absolute dependence and inter-dependence upon life on earth, is truncated, distorted and frequently eroded or obscured by the enforced competition created by these societies. Hence, the phenomenon in hierarchical mass societies of extreme forms of indifference and even antipathy to the welfare of other human, plant, insect and animal life forms, that all human beings depend upon to exist and survive. Furthermore, the competition within these societies is frequently so intense that the alienation and estrangement from ‘life on earth’ in general and from other human beings in particular is so severe that it results in hatred and fear between individuals and communities. Murder, extreme physical violence, war and genocide, are not ‘natural’ symptoms for they are completely absent from the interactions of the millions of other species of life on earth, yet are now commonplace among many human beings who become socialised within hierarchical mass societies.

Moreover, this tendency resulting in hatred, war and genocide is still not universal among the human members of hierarchical mass societies. It remains a minority aberration among a relative few members who are deeply traumatised and/or socialised by hierarchical society structural alienations and estrangements. However, this problem of hatred, war and genocide becomes exponentially dangerous and exacerbated when the minority who are so affected by the structural alienation and estrangement become concentrated in the hierarchical elite power structures of such societies. It is these elites at the head of political power structures in war cabinets, financial cabals, industrial monopolies, and government beaurocracies who can enforce the practical results of their own accumulated alienation, indifference, competition and hatred upon the majority of their citizens. Therefore, in considering any future form of human societies the emotional biological essence of humanity needs to be seriously considered, understood and nurtured, because this also expresses – in human form –  the more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the unique inter-dependent essence of life on earth.

Therefore, in order to build upon and maintain social cohesion, within future human communities, there will need to be close positive personal interactive and intellectual relationships as well as wider cultural ones. But close interactive relationships for humans are only possible by frequent close and egalitarian proximity. Other life forms such as birds, insects and ruminant animals can associate in extremely large flocks, swarms and herds, of multiple thousands, but as mature organisms these are their own gatherers and individual consumers of essential nutrition, resting and nesting. Consequently, apart from reproductive activity, (and with a few exceptions) long term close intimate relationships in these collective species are almost entirely missing. An individual wildebeest, bat, swallow or bee, does not seem to feel lonely by the lack of such close interactive relationships in a herd, flock or swarm, but humans are different in this regard.  Humans can feel desperately lonely even among  large numbers.  Extreme loneliness (a compounded form of alienation and estrangement) within cities of millions is already a massive debilitating and ‘unnatural’ contradiction of the essence of human evolution. It is a condition which has been socially introduced and consolidated by the hierarchical mass society form.

So in order to counter this unnatural existence in future, the human species needs to aggregate within a smaller egalitarian unit within any larger aggregation. In this socio-economic regard, it has become clear that hierarchical mass societies produce more practical problems than they solve and these problems have become existential for all forms of life on earth, but that is not all. In fact the emotional problems these social forms create for humanity are also existential, as murder, war, genocide and even suicide indicate. This suggests that a transition away from such social forms has become essential on the basis of multiple considerations. However, it is unlikely that a future alternative form of human society will emerge by directly transitioning from existing capitalist based alienated hierarchical mass societies to non-capitalist based mass societies, as some on the left in the past and present have imagined.

A direct transition from one social form  to another by gradual reform or political revolution has proven impossible throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. The altered circumstances created by neo-liberal capitalism in the late 20th and early 21st centuries has made it even more unlikely by the altered scale and altered relative proportions of the classes and sub-classes within hierarchical mass societies. This extended and differentiated class composition, makes it highly unlikely that one class will ever become united enough to be able to implement transitional reforms or sufficiently united to actually carry out succesful revolutions. In fact Engels, Marx’s closest collaborator, had already come to that same conclusion way back in the 19th century. He noted that;

“All revolutions up to the present day have resulted in the displacement of one definite class rule by another….One ruling minority was thus overthrown; another minority seized the helm of state in its stead and refashioned the state institutions to suit it’s own interests…..Even when the majority took part, it did so – whether wittingly or not – only in the service of the minority….”

Is that not exactly what happened in the Russian revolution of 1917 and the Chinese revolution of 1949? The masses became the much slaughtered cannon fodder in a series of battles, the results of which simply enabled a new elite regime of ‘communists’ to replace an old regime of ‘elite’ capitalists or aristocrats. Engels continues rather hopefully;

“….but the proletariat grown wise by experience had to become the decisive factor – was there not every prospect then of turning the revolution of a minority into a revolution of the majority? History has proved us, and all who thought like us wrong. An insurrection in which all sections of the people sympathise will hardly occur; in the class struggle all the middle strata will probably never group themselves around the proletariat so exclusively that in comparison the party of reaction gathered around the bourgeoisie will nigh well disappear.” (Engels. ‘The Two Tactics of Social Democracy.’)

Note that Engels asks himself and the reader a rhetorical question “was there not every prospect then of turning the revolution of a minority into a revolution of the majority?” but he asks it without fully answering it. No matter: history has provided the emphatic answer to that rhetorical question raised by Engels in the 19th century. It came in the form of what transpired within a very short period of time in the cases of the 20th century revolutions in Russia and China. The masses who took part in these politically orientated civic ‘revolutions’ were disarmed and ordered back to an alienating form of producing as much raw and finished material production as could be designed and completed. That return to high levels of industrial production ‘as usual’ was implemented while the new Bolshevik or Chinese communist elites got down to the business of ruling with an iron fist and attempting to encourage the workers in other countries to follow the Russian and Chinese 20th century examples.

In the same article, Engels further notes that by that 19th century stage the industrialised production of efficient weapons of mass destruction in the hands of professionally trained armies was such that it would be foolish for working people to line up against the military forces of modern states behind barracades, with bricks, stones and assorted home-made weapons or guns meant purely for sport. These informal weapons would prove useless against well trained armies equipped with the latest form of automatic (now computer designed and guided) weapons. This realisation led Engels to consider and suggest the alternative of a Parliamentary road and a reformist transition to a post-capitalist form of mass society. Yet this was a proposal which has repeatedly been proven to be sterile. Interestingly, it is at that point that another firm principle established by Marx was abandoned by Engels and by subsequent self-appointed followers of Marx who declared themselves to be ‘Marxists’. Marx on behalf of himself, Engels and others who previously thought like him, had repeatedly written;

“The emancipation of the working classes must be achieved by the working classes themselves. We cannot therefore cooperate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic persons from the upper and lower middle classes.” (Marx/Engels. Selected Correspondence. Progress page 307.)

It seems very few people have stopped to consider why this was a firm principle adopted by Marx and not just some throw away patronising deference to the then largely uneducated masses he and Engels were in contact with. He had already reasoned in a series of writings known as ‘The German Ideology’ that a change in the mass consciousness was necessary in order to go beyond hierarchical mass society systems and secure an alternative mode of production. He reasoned that this could only be achieved by the direct pactical involvement and experience of the masses themselves. After a long section on the ‘Real Bases of Ideology’ in that particular document, Marx ended the section with the following;

“Both for the production on a mass scale of this Communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a ‘revolution’ ; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.” (Marx. ‘The German Ideology. Section D)

Leaving aside the Victorian use of the male term for humanity as well as the fact that the form of community controlled living espoused by many during Marx’s lifetime was not what transpired in Bolshevik controlled Russia or Maoist controlled China (or elsewhere) I suggest it is important to register that Marx really meant. He not only consistently refers to a socio-economic revolution in how society functions in securing it’s natural (N-M-G-R + A-D) biological and social processes, but also to a need for a revolution in human consciousness of that process. And that these revolutionary transitions are not going to be achieved by theoretical or intellectual means. Philosophical debates or training courses focussing on thinking things through are not the main means of revolutionary changes to how people live and produce.

Such revolutionay changes only occur on the basis of pactical steps worked out and consistently implemented in practice. Any implementation and ownership of new modes of living and producing will only be achieved by the process of people persistently creating them in their technical and social practices and not by means of  a process of elites producing documents and others reading or analysing them. Life on earth is primarily a practical process, not a theoretical or ideological one. The insightful opinion on working class self-activity expressed by Marx in 1846 was not altered by his later analysis of the Paris Commune in 1848 in which he noted that;

“…plain working men for the first time dared to infringe upon the governmental privilege of their ‘natural superiors’ and under circumstances of unexampled difficulty, performed their work modestly, conscientiously and efficiently..” (Marx. Struggles in France. Page 76.)

Yet by 1917, Lenin, the self-declared (and often naively hero worshipped) ‘Marxist’ was already successfully convincing a majority of his Bolshevik Party members that;

“…the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class…It can only be exercised by a vanguard that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class…..The dictatorship of the proletariat does not fear any resort to compulsion and to the most severe , decisive and ruthless forms of coercion by the state.” (Lenin Collected Works. Volume 31 p 421 and Volume 32 p 21.)

The firmly held position of Marx on the emancipation of the part of humanity forced into slavery and wage (or salary) slavery, being by their own practical efforts had been reversed by the ‘Marxist’ Lenin (and his subsequent imitators) into working people being forcibly led by and ruthlessly coerced into, industrial production by an authoritarian state elite into performing activities determined by that elite. To my knowledge, no Bolsheviks or ‘Marxists’ then (or since) have argued against that Leninist reversal of Marx’s clearly and repeatedly espoused Revolutionary-Humanist principles. In considering the other 20th century tendency which still lingers on in the nostalgic memories of uncritical followers of that 20th century vanguad tradition we can read the assertions of the supposedly ‘Marxist’ Leon Trotsky who around the same period as the Lenin quotation above, declared;

“…we can have no way to socialism except by authoritative regulation of the economic forces and the resources of the country, and in the centralised distribution of labour power in harmony with the state plan. The labour state considers itself empowered to send every worker to the place where his work is necessary. And not one serious socialist will begin to deny to the labour state the right to lay its hand on the worker who refuses to execute his labour duty. (Trotsky. ‘Terrorism and Communism.’ Page 153.)

Fascist levels of state orchestrated oppression in order to increase levels of production and consumption are more than hinted at in this assertion of what was necessary in Trotsky’s understanding for creating a post capitalist mode of production. Fascist levels of authoritarian oppression and exploitation were openly put into practice by Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin and the majority of their Bolshevik supporters. There are many other such examples of past middle-class left revolutionary intellectuals and politicians departing from the revolutionary-humanist and pro-feminist principles and practices adopted by Karl Marx and those who adhered to his revolutionary-humanist ideas. Sadly it is those departures which have lived on in the inadequate political and historiographical legacy of these particular anti-capitalist trends and are being reproduced and replicated again in the 21st century. However, for those interested in understanding this inadequacy further, I have documented a great deal of these authoritarian and inhumane departures and sectarian dogmatic posturings in the free download section in the previously mentioned banner below the blog picture heading.

Yet the vanguardist trend still continues to pop up every so often in different guises. Here are a couple of extracts from a 2024 anti-capitalist manifesto – this one advocating a concept of eco-socialism.

“Ecosocialism replaces profit with measurable social and environmental needs, for instance human happiness and aligning human society within planetary boundaries again. We start from what is sustainable and necessary for a good life for every human on the planet. This means guarantees on quality of life for every single human – and we build a global economy that can sustain that. For instance we could aim for a global energy usage of 3.5 kilowatt per person, powered by renewables and geothermal.”

This group of anti-capitalists and self-claimed ‘marxists’ seem to have directly copied the Bolsheviks and also ignored Marx on the question of the necessity of workers emancipating themselves and of the working class ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.” In this ‘manifesto’ Marx’s proposal of ordinary working citizens practically implementing a new form of living by their own collective decisions has been abandoned by a second generation of so-called ‘Marxists’. These modern elites – in waiting – have already anthropocentrically (and generally patriarchally) decided that the criteria for deciding on future global human production should be the abstract formulation ‘human happiness’. They even propose, without knowing what that future holds, that a 3.5 kilowatt allocation of electricity per person should be provided for each individual!

Note  that they consider that the global economic activity of humanity should be built on the basis of sustaining that anthropocentic abstraction human ‘happiness’. Their primary concern is not with raising their own or other peoples consciousness of the ecological necessity of sustaining life on earth as a whole – without which nothing beneficial is possible in future. This formulation is reminiscent of Lenin’s boastful disclosure in 1921 of the state commisions abstract calculation of how just many pairs of workers shoes (two pairs each!) would be necessary to produce in the following five year plan. Whilst during the same 1919-1921 period Lenin was also threatening to severely punish working people and even shoot them if they failed to obey state orders, a policy his successor Stalin enthusiastically continued. This 2024 manifesto is also full of the earlier noted abstractions and thus it implies similar socialistic central planning and state enforcement procedures.

Note also in the above extract the all inclusive use of ‘we’ is not defined as the working classes collectively deciding ‘what is to be done’, because like Lenin’s ‘what is to be done’ this has already been decided upon in this manifesto by a modern restricted planning group from within a current ‘marxist’ vanguard group. They are already fulfilling and practicing their own self-elected role to explain to ‘uneducated’ working people what needs to be done and confidently assuming that their own particular reasons why will be shared by future generations. This particular 21st century left manifesto, therefore, represents another mixed regurgitation of past abstract formulas together with an idealised wish list compiled by members of a self-selected political sect. Moreover, the fundamental class orientation of this wishful thinking self-indulgence becomes blatantly obvious from the following extract.

“Transport is not just about getting around. Being able to move, stay connected, and access different parts of the world is a fundamental part of our humanity and we reject its commodification for profit.”

I suggest that in this extract, modern anthropocentric middle class obsessions with foreign ‘enlightenment’ (read ‘self-indulgent’) travel are being considered by this vanguard planning group as fundamental parts of humanities future ‘entitlement’. When in actual fact the two superficial aspects; staying in contact and access to different parts of the world’, have become a fundamental part of capitalist; Facebook, Tik Tok technology and Airline and Cruise ship profit making and is not a fundamental part of basic humanity. In the current ecological context, does not ‘access to different parts of the world’, now represent a part of Marx’s “muck of ages” which needs to be got rid of?

Indeed, humanity by the billions can hardly feed themselves, find a decent home or afford decent health care, let alone “access different parts of the world” except by the dangerous life threatening means of small boats across dangerous channels and seas. Furthermore, even without the profit motive, any form of future mass travel in terms of the production, maintenance and propulsive energy required for mass transport vehicles and the infrastructure they require, would be a massive drain on the earths resources. De-coupling mass transport from the tentacles of capital investments, would still mean it would also represent a substantial element of the production, extraction, pollution and material destruction of the environment, therefore, of its climatic stability and of its essential life forms.

Air, sea and land transport in whatever form of vehicle or propulsive energy used already constitutes one of most environmentally unfriendly and costly of the non-essential activities of modern hierarchical mass society living. The desire to frequently exit the local community for enjoyment and stimulation rather stay within it to produce social integration, enrichment and the mental well being of young, old and infirm, is not a fundamental part of humanity, but a product of the existing hierarchical mass society system harnessed to the capitalist mode of production. But in any case for genuine revolutionary-humanists now, what in future is considered ‘fundamental parts of humanity’ should be decided by those future working citizens. They will be the ones constructing any post-capitalist future. They are the ones who will be left with the ashes and ruins of the current elite profit-driven economic system and they are the ones who will have to do the best they can with what is available and intelligently decide what is sustainable and not.

If there was even an ounce of humility and understanding of what is necessary, something would become clear to these “philanthropic persons from the upper and lower middle classes.” – of all political persuasions, currently sat at their laptops formulating ‘blue’, ‘green’, ‘yellow’ or ‘red’ manifestos explaining what future working citizens should all be implementing. It would become clear that imaginatively constructing a future for others to follow – is not their affair!
I further suggest that the task of contemporary revolutionary-humanists is to sum up as diligently, accurately and honestly as possible what mistakes have happened in the past and what is really happening to all life on earth in the present period. Or as Marx once suggested to his collaborators, and I consider this advice is still relevant almost 200 years later;

“We do not dogmatically anticipate the world, but only want to find the new world, through criticism of the old one. ….But, if constructing the future and settling everything for all times are not our affair; it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists..…We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it doesn’t want to”. (Letter from Marx to Ruge in 1843. Emphasis added, RR)

Roy Ratcliffe (July 2024)

Posted in Critique | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

AGREEMENT FOR LIFE!

Posted in Critique | Leave a comment

LEFT LEG IN; RIGHT LEG OUT!

(You do the Hokey Cokey and shake it all about)

So members of his Majesty’ Loyal Opposition (the Labour Party) are claiming an astounding victory in the latest UK General Election – yes! However, this only reveals that their grip on reality is blinded by their euphoria at now getting their feet to dangle in the trough of high salaries and privileges, paid for by courtesy of the tax payer legally shackled to the hierarchical mass society system in the UK. The reality is that the citizens of the UK have distanced themselves from both the right wing leg of the British State (the Conservatives) and the left wing leg of the British State system (the Labour Party). In fact in the latest General Election, the citizens of the UK have distanced themselves the greatest from the Tories and even some of the Labour voters voted tactically in order to keep the number of Tory MP’s down to the minimum. Despite the unprecedented crisis for working people in the UK neither political wing of the British Establishment actually gained votes.

The knock on results of this result is almost the reverse of the last election in which large numbers of the traditional Labour voters switched to the Tories to show their disgust at the New Labour Parties track record since Tony Blair and his right -wing support group shunted the Labour Party away from its electoral roots among the British working class. The Blairite Coup ended the post war facade of the Labour Party being against the established British Ruling elite and being for the working men and women of the UK and the working class desertion to the Tories was the result of that betrayal. That pre-Blairite facade had been created by the Labour Party being in a coalition parliament during the 1939 to 1945 War with Germany led by Winston Churchill and the Conservative Party. The war against Germany was in order to save substantial parts of the British Empire from a second attempt by the German ruling elites to take them over.

The first attempt by the German hierarchical mass society to obtain land and resources controlled by the British Empire had resulted in the First World War. The second attempt by Germany resulted in the Second World War. A further boost to the facade by the Labour Party came with the post war reconstruction of the UK and Europe in which reforms to the hierarchical system in the UK introduced free health services, free further education, social housing provision, social security and pension provisions paid for by National Insurance Contributions. Since these reforms mostly benefited the working classes, and since a post-war Labour Government was the government to fully implement them, the myth or facade of the Labour Party being the party of the working class was established. That facade was eroded under other post-war Labour governments by incomes policies and attacks upon the British trade union movements, until the last tattered remnants of the facade were stripped away by Tony Blair and his cronies.

Since that time the Labour Party and its leadership have reinforced the Blarite tendency of emphasising a one-nation Labourite ideology to counter balance the Conservative one-nation Tory ideology. The one-nation ideology is an ideology that is fully committed to maintaining and preserving the three class system of hierarchical mass society living based upon the neo-liberal phase of capitalist development. That is to say it is based upon; a ruling class; a middle class; and a working class, all working and administrating the socio-economic system to maximise the profits (and interest) of those who own and/or control large amounts of money in the form of investment capital. In effect, the Labour Party and the Tory Party are the two political legs which hold the socio-economic body of the UK upright and able to manoeuvre within the global system to the benefit of its ruling, political, economic, financial and bureaucratic elites. This is why Tony Blair and other Senior Labour Party members have been able to enrich themselves out of office and why Boris Johnson and other senior Conservative Party members have been able to do the same or in most cases much better.

The Labour Party under the leadership of Keir Starmer and his shadow cabinet members went so far in order to reassure their British Establishment masters of their loyalty to the hierarchical mass society system in the UK, that they could not condemn the horrific genocide taking place in Gaza. Nor did they risk their future stipends by a call for a halt to the UK supply of material, information, advice and encouragement to the genocide perpetrators in the government of Israel. Thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women and children were allowed to be slaughtered during the months these individuals sat tight lipped on the opposition benches in the highest seat of governance in the UK. Silent, except when they were caucusing to plan and prepare for their ascent into higher places of UK office and privilege than the ones they held at the time. That silence and inaction during the most vicious concentrated attack upon defenceless civilian men, women and children, since the Second World War tells you practically everything you need to know, about them. It tells you just who they are prepared to sacrifice in order to not spoil their chances of obtaining high Office. This silence also explains why so many people in the UK could not in all conscience turn out to vote for them even to get rid of the much hated Tories.

Nevertheless, the election of the Sir Keir Starmer led Labour Party, despite having less than hoped for electoral support, means they do have enough Members of Parliament to push through many reforms to the hierarchical mass society of Britain. However, given that Starmer and his associates have marginalised the few remaining left of centre Labour Party members and MP’s it is unlikely that anything of substantial benefit to the working classes of the UK will be enacted by them. The likelihood of anything of substantial to benefit infrastructure or to prevent further pollution of air, sea, water or offset climate change, ecological destruction and essential species loss, is unlikely. This is because they will first and foremost be dedicated to maintaining the entitlement rights and privileges of those making up the three classes of UK society. Since the hierarchical mass society system is controlled by the elites and the elites are dedicated to protecting their own entitlement rights and privileges before all else, then the future of the UK in their hands is fairly predictable. Any few remaining hope’s and illusions in Sir Keir and his knights around the Number Ten labourite top table, are almost sure to be dashed.

Roy Ratcliffe (July 2024)

Posted in Critique | Leave a comment

GLOBAL PRODUCTION & DESTRUCTION (Part 2)

In part one of this series further evidence was produced to demonstrate that hierarchical mass societies prior to the ones dominated by the capitalist mode of production, were also dominated by the characteristics of increasing levels of production and destruction. Elites in control of such societies always wanted more essential and non-essential material. Consequently, hierarchical mass societies of humans have always exhausted the local supplies of inorganic and organic materials faster than local nature could reproduce them and so stealing resources from other human beings and other life forms, becomes a periodic strategy sooner or later.

In this part two, evidence will be presented that this phenomenon, because it is structural, still continues. Thus on February 4, 2022, before the actual invasion of Ukraine territory, Vladimir Putin travelled to Beijing, and during that visit Putin and the Chinese leader Xi Jinping exchanged a partnership agreement with no limits attached to it. Since that date, China has not condemned the invasion and destruction of much of Ukraine and has supplied military equipment to assist Russia in that dedtruction. The hierarchical mass society system grinds out and reveals it’s own inner logic.

It is clear from this ‘no limits partnership’ that the accrimonious disagreements leading to the well known Sino Soviet split and even a possible Sino-Soviet war during the mid 20th century that those particular tensions are no longer in existence. But it is less well known that there is some close family history involved on the Chinese side. Xi Jinping’s father Xi Zhongxun, became influential within the 20th century Chinese Communist Party and was promoted to (and led) a Chinese-Soviet Friendship Association from shortly after the final victory of Chinese Communist Forces in 1949. However, Xi Jinping’s father was purged by the Maoists for being suspected of colluding with the Soviets.

Despite being assisted by the Russian Communists and having the same ideological framework as the Russian Soviet system the Chinese regime also soon operated on the customary hierarchical mass society socio-economic assumptions that the Russian Communists had already adopted under Lenin and Stalin. The assumptions being a class system of; a ruling elite class; an administrative elite class; and a class of workers in industry and agriculture. In addition, the two so-called ‘socialist’ regimes did not combine economic and social forces but quickly became rivals and competitors, for resources, territory and ideological influence on the world stage.

It is clear that not long after their ascendency, both regimes abandoned their earlier ideological commitment to something they called ‘socialism’ but which was still an authoritarian and hierarchical version of social control and ruthless exploitation of wage labour. The concept of a workers state and workers control was never implemented and campaigning for and world revolution remained nothing more than a rhetorical gesture. Therefore, for multiple decades they have approached each other as hierarchical mass societies both committed to the capitalist method and means of production and both effectively run by one party political regimes. So their no limits agreement needs to be understood in this real socio-economic context. It is not even a renewal of the old state capitalist form of hierarchical mass society. Since both regimes are in open socio-economic and military rivalry with the USA and the EU, the hierarchical elites in each bloc have agreed to have no limits to their mutual support against the NATO alliance headed by the USA and Europe.

It also needs to be remembered that both the 20th century Bolshevik Leninist/Stalinist elite and the 20th century Maoist elite saw their world historic task as to become the leaders and promoters of world socio-economic revolutionary activity based firmly on combining forms of wage labour and state control of past stored up labour or capital. That is to say that their original intentions were to promote political revolutions to initiate regimes that would put into state ownership all the previous private means of production (thus private capital would become state controlled capital) and the regimes communist elites would control the state by authoritarian or totalitarian means. These state-capitalist forms of hierarchical mass societies were always intended to employ the workers as wage and salary slaves, and to replace previous individual or corporate capitalist elites with politically appointed elites.

Ever since their inception, the socialist and communist elites of Russia and China have controlled their wage slaves via their authoritarian bureaucratic and state law enforcement institutions – and have done so ruthlessly. So within less than one generation, that world revolution rhetoric was abandoned in its Bolshevik and Maoist iterations along with their state capitalist forms of economic production, but of course the hierarchy retained the hierarchical mass society form and in due course re-privatised the states capital assets which benefited the new hierarchical elite.

Consequently, both these regimes are now unambiguously committed to the capitalist method of production and commited to the continued existence of a privileged elite to both control socio-economic affairs and to benefit from that enforced relationship. Therefore, they both exhibit the structural motives of production and destruction of inorganic nature in general and of all organic life forms in particular. These highly politicised versions of hierarchical mass societies have just joined the ranks of all hierarchical mass societies and have become a continuing part of the problem for humanity even though some of the elite involved thought themselves to be the solution. But then all elites think that whether they are aristocrats, conservatives, liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists or fascists.

These facts alone should be a reason not to spread illusions that the 20th century petite bourgeois ideological expressions of Bolshevism, Maoism (as with those of Liberal, Conservative, socialist, social democratic or fascist) 9have anything positive to offer 21st century humanity. With this in mind, there is another important reason to reject the suggestions of those exhibiting this 100 year old uncritical and misinformed left nostalgia for 20th century Bolshevism and Moaism. Since many of those individuals and groups uncritically peddling these 100 year illusions in 2024, claim to be influenced by Marx and Engels, it is worth contrasting their own social and historic responsibility with how Marx and Engels dealt with the passage of time and the repetition of old dogmas. In a Crtique of the Gotha Programme, produced by a left faction of the German Social Democratic Party, in 1875, Marx noted that his purpose in writing this criticism was;

“…to show what a crime it is to attempt, on the one hand, to force on our Party again, as dogmas, ideas which in a certain period had some meaning but have now become obsolete verbal rubbish, while again perverting, on the other, the realistic outlook, which cost so much effort to instill into the Party……by means of ideological nonsense about right and other trash so common among the democrats and French Socialists.” (Marx. Gotha Programme.)

The contrast Marx drew between a ‘realistic outlook’ and ‘idealistic nonsense’ and his scathing remarks concerning ideas turned into dogmas and amounting to ‘trash’ and ‘verbal rubbish’, just couldn’t be made clearer. How both Marx and Engels faced up to their own past mistakes and illusions, is also informative in this regard. Writing earlier about the crisis situation during the 1850’s Fredrick Engels, commenting on behalf of himself and Marx, wrote the following;

“But history has shown us too to have been wrong, has revealed our point of view at the time to have been an illusion. It has done even more: it has not merely dispelled the erroneous notions then held; it has also completely transformed the conditions under which the proletariat has to fight. The mode of struggle of 1848 is today obsolete in every respect, and this is a point which deserves closer examination on the present occasion.” (Engels. ‘The Two Tactics of Social Democracy.’)

Now I agree with the statements by both Marx and Engels that neither were ‘Marxists’ as they both publicly insisted at various times in order to distance themselves from such illusions and dogma and I remain somewhat critical of Engels, particularly after Marx had died and was no longer available to correct Engels on his misinterpretations of his ideas. However, the above extract does display a crucially important characteristic they both adhered to. It reveals a level of honesty and humility that both Marx and Engels applied throughout their lives. It emphatically illustrates their ability to publicly admit being wrong and to adjust their assessments of socio-economic developments in relation to the changing conditions introduced by the technological dynamism of the capitalist mode of production. They display a level of honesty and integrity that I have found missing in most of their self-declared followers.

In my sixty plus years of studying as a working class activist and participant observer of the left tendencies of Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism and Maoism as well as of the many bourgeois political tendencies from Labour, Liberal and Conservative, honesty and integrity have been a routinely absent individual and collective dimension. Never admitting being wrong; rarely diligent in even reading the longer analytic economic and political studies written by Marx; never apologising for misleading others with their often half-baked opinions; and never being embarrassed by lying to (or deceiving) each other and their followers. These political symptoms have become not just a hallmark of the original bourgeois hierarchical elites but also of many of those petite-bourgeois so-called anti-capitalist radicals who claimed to be opposed to the capitalist system and yet who aim to become part of a future governing elite.

So in stark contrast to the 20th and 21st century ‘Marxists’, left sectarians and other bourgeois and petite bourgeois tendencies, Marx and Engels in these and many other extracts, openly noted that their earlier assessments and recommendations could be the result of their own illusions and erroneous notions. More important I suggest, is their recognition; that during their own lifetime, the historical unfolding of reality had on many occasions also ‘completely transformed the conditions under which the proletariat has to fight’. If the most astute and rigorous anti-capitalist thinkers of the 19th century knew that after a short passage of time and after some accumulated material changes, their earlier assumptions were wrong and required a ‘closer examination’, then how much more so, should a closer examination of the relevance of 19th and 20th century opinions and notions be required in the 21st century?

Since Marx and Engels studied the socio-economic system in Europe, there have been Two World Wars, further Globalisation, Automated levels of Industrialised production, 24/7 global Air and sea transport, numerous Fascist type regimes, and the collapse of two supposedly Marxist-led revolutions in Russia and China. Then on top of all that economic and political change we now have climate change, ecological destruction and serious species extinctions, which were all unknown to Marx and Engels. Furthermore, how much credence can be given to those anti-capitalists in 2024 who simply regurgitate and recommend these century old opinions and notions by Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and Mao and their often context-specific and unconvincing notions, without issuing any warnings and caveats to their readers? Working people would be extremely unwise to put their trust in such uncritical and unself-critical advocates of anything to do with important issues of the future of their own welfare and that of life on earth as a whole.

There is indeed a profound crisis facing anthropocentric focussed humanity and that crisis extends beyond the disfunctional economic, financial, social and political spheres of hierarchical mass society global living. The crisis now reaches deeper than repetitions of warfare and genocide and deep into the very bio-chemical foundations and climatically evolved cycles of life on earth itself. Therefore, it should be obvious that these increasingly deep and wide levels of 21st century crisis will not and can not be understood or negated on the basis of 20th century anthropocentric ideologies with merely the tacked-on addition of an appendix expressing vague ecological awareness on the end of 19th and 20th century type manifesto’s and political party programmes. Unless the extent of the above noted material changes and social crisis within the current anthropocentric hierarchical mass society is reflected in the consciousness of those who have at least recognised there is a serious problem, then the answers to new problems will continue to be cobbled together from partial readings of such dredged up ast opinions. In any case it should be equally clear that simply regurgitating past opinions derived during previous historical stages of the hierarchical mass society systems is no longer good enough.

For example, proposing to peacefully remove the privately owned capitalist mode of production from within hierarchical mass society structures (even if that were possible in reality) and assuming that hierarchical mass societies would still continue on the basis of an alternstive elite who would determine – from their own perspective – what is produced, when it is produced, where it is produced and how much is produced. Similarly, the contradictory anti-capitalist promoted idea that cities and countries of multiple millions can function humanely on the basis of a top-down but self-governing multitude (which was suggested in a ‘left’ document that I read only this month) is pure fantasy. With numerous divisions of labour between those who produce the basic bio-chemical essentials of living (food, clothing and accomodation etc.) and  those who consume them, there arise profound social contradictions when the numbers increase beyond a certain point.

There are therefore limits to the numbers who can socially aggregate on that basis without conflict arising and of course with conflict comes the need for social control which in turn leads logically to the imposition of a separate controlling hierarchy with the means to enforce their control.  Also for another form of mass society future to be possible, whether some people like it or not, it will need to be one which collectively restricts the amount of production and destruction it routinely engages in. Humanity, needs to reduce it’s own production, consumption and the destruction of natural resources to a level at (or below) the naturally evolved rate of reproduction of all those essential life-forms in the food (and environmental renewal) chains, upon which all life on earth depends. Therefore, to ensure a future for a continued blue (and green) planet, rather than a red one,  a radically different form of human aggregation, and a different existential purpose and process of production and consumption for humanity will be needed.

Roy Ratcliffe (July 2024)

Posted in Critique | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

GLOBAL PRODUCTION & DESTRUCTION (Part 1)

In the globalised system of hierarchical mass societies the combined global input of raw materials and the combined global output of production and waste materials – issuing from all countries – are staggering in their volume and frequency. The results of this 24/7/365 economic activity constitute the primary factors which have led to the global pollution of air, land, sea and fresh water. The combined raw material extraction, commodity production, transportation, consumption and waste deposition, is a direct result of the current industrialised and now automated method and mode of production.

It is this mode of production in general which is also resulting in climate change, polar ice cap melting, sea level rises, high and low temperature fluctuations, vast areas of ecological destruction and escalating cases of species loss. Crucially, some of the species losses are those essential to life in general but which are routinely taken for granted such as microorganisms, plants, algae and insects. It is these species which form the basis of all organic food chains and which are also the transformers and providers of the inorganic gases all other species need to breathe. The ecological balances that over millions of years all life forms on earth have evolved to be healthy within, are provided by the inorganic and organic material available on this one finite planet. This is why the type and purpose of global production and consumption currently practiced by humanity needs to be drastically reduced.

With this reduction of production in mind, the four hierarchical mass society blocs, Russia, China, EU and USA, are by far the biggest global producers and consumers of essential and non-essential planetary material. Consequently, these blocs are also the largest contributers to the above noted continuous degredation and destabilisation of the bio-chemical and ecological balances of life on earth. The same four blocs of hierarchical mass societies also contain the 21st centuries most powerful and powerfully entrenched and protected elites who are supported and defended by their political and legal systems in general and their specially trained and armed forces in particular. These elites can therefore initiate change or effectively prevent it whenever they decide to.

In this latter regard, it is important to understand that the elites in control of these 20th and 21st century hierarchical mass societies are dedicated to maintaining and conserving the existing mode and method of production – in all the attributes of it that are essential to them. Therefore, what is really seen as essential and therefore ‘important’ by such powerful elites is a crucial determinant in what happens to global production and consumption (and thus to the health of people and the planet) in the coming decades. The last dozen decades in general and the last year in particular have revealed some clear pointers as to what is considered important and essential to the global elites and in particular to those in the above named big four.

In the last 12 months, we have witnessed that what is considered important – above all else – to the elites in at least two of the above blocs, (Russia and the USA) has not been the well being of humanity in general nor their own citizens in particular. They have ramped up production across every main economic sector and particularly in the production of weapons of mass destruction. Russia has done so in order to use them to invade parts of Ukraine and the USA has done so to supply weapons of mass destruction to Israel in support of its campaign of genocide within Gaza.

It has been clear for some time that the elites in China have not only increased military production for land, sea and air based military combat but have also focussed on increases in non-military production by implementing the Belt and Road Initiative. The latter is planned to create improved trade links between 75% of the world’s populations by creating a high tech and more extensive version of the ancient Silk Road commercial links between countries in the East and West. 140 countries have already signed up to it, revealing that these too are anxious to increase production and consumption by the methods of mass production, extraction, transportation and waste disposal. Furthermore, the EU countries have agreed to increase military expenditure, which is of course, like all forms of production, is based on the extraction of inorganic and organic materials by industrial methods. In addition the elites of each EU member state have all tabled plans for increased general production. These elites are an obvious part of the problem and not part of the solution to climate or ecological extinction events.

If the big four polluters and producers are not prepared to even plan to significantly reduce extraction, production, transport, consumption and waste accumulation and instead are intending to increase it, then the ‘hopes’ of the ‘green’ campaigners and other wishful thinkers for sustainable production to be embraced by the worlds elites are more than likely to be dashed yet again. In fact it seems from the planned increase in military expenditure by the elites in the countries of the big bloc economies that these elites are anticipating future wars over the planets shrinking resources of inorganic and organic materials and also further wars over free access to markets for their planned increase in levels of commodity production. This is logical for them because for the capitalist mode of hierarchical mass society to function, whatever is produced must be sold, otherwise the investors in economic production cease to invest in it and production grinds to halt – and with it the social fabric built upon it begins to unwind.

What has yet to dawn on most people is that the hierarchical mass society system is locked into a system of production and governance of it by anthropocentric pro-capitalist, patriarchal elites who have no intention of reforming their mode of production or their way of governing. This is vividly illustrated – even in the cases when this way of governing leads to mass murder in the form of aerial warfare and systematic genocide. Consequently, the elite perspectives on the future are very different than the rest of their populations. They reason that they will be able, by their wealth or ‘official’ position, to escape the worst effects of what will visit the rest of us and they will be able to protect themselves from any adverse climatic conditions or potential disasters.

This historic pattern of elites looking after their own welfare before all else was repeated during the fears over a Nuclear War in the post- second world war decades. At public expense in time, labour, materials and money the elite ordered deep bomb and contamination proof isolated bunkers to be built into which at the outbreak of war they could descend while their populations were being incinerated by thermal blasts, or tortured by food and clean water starvation or by being frozen to death during nuclear winters. Given this relatively recent track record, it would be naive of the rest of us to think that if plans have not already been made and implemented by the elites for their protection against any future climate associated disasters, then they will be made and implemented when the possibility of a dire straits situation becomes imminent.

Having boozy parties, while their vulnerable citizens were dying during Covid pandemics were only a tip of the iceberg example of the mental difference between privileged elites and the majority of ordinary working citizens. Elites have a different perspective on life and radically different assumptions about what is fair or right. Consequently appealing to them by petitions, demonstrations and campaigns involving pleas to protect or benefit the masses has proven a complete waste of time in the past and continues to be demonstrably futile in the present.

Over many decades, it has become obvious that the elites in most of the hierarchical mass societies harnessed to the capitalist mode of production, have become split over the increased use of multicultural labour within the economic system of capitalism. One section of the elite in the advanced capitalist countries forming the left wing liberal and social democratic sections of their countries, want to increase the internal and external use of less expensive labour of whatever skin colour, ethnicity or religious ideology it may be part of. These particular elite sections pretend to be champions of internationalism, humanism and equal rights, however, beneath their political correctness rhetoric they represent the rights of national elites to exploit and make profits from wherever they think appropriate within a global network by employing any kind of human labour either in their home countries or abroad.

Another section forming the right wing populist and Republican elite sections of their countries currently wish to exploit low cost labour in their foreign bases but wish to restrict the use of foreign low-cost labour within their own particular countries. So these particular sections pretend to be champions of local indigenous labour and advocates of preserving national cultures. However, beneath their populist policies and anti – woke rhetoric they also represent the rights of national elites to exploit and make profits from wherever they think is appropriate. The only difference between the two elite sections is over when and where they think exploitation and oppression should take place.

Neither section is really concerned (and never have been) with the human rights or welfare of the working and unemployed classes. Both are united in wishing to preserve their class right to exploit and oppress whoever they can and in forcibly maintaining the hierarchical mass society system which allows them to do so. Sadly, many on the left have seen this split between the elite sections superficially in conventional political terms and have failed to grasp what is occuring at the socio-economic level. This superficial grasp of contemporary reality  even extends to parts of the seemingly radical left and  has led to a false dualistic paradigm in which one section of the elite is viewed as Fascist and the other section as Liberal democratic. Therefore, in political elections which decide which section of the elite shall continue to govern hierarchical mass societies, they simplistically advise working people to choose what they personally judge to be the lesser of two evils.

Of course choosing the lesser of two evils is still inviting an inhuman level of ‘evil’ (!) upon ones self and ones contemporaries but worse than this they condemn those workers whose alternative viewpoint sees the greater evil as the so-called left-liberal, social democratic section of the hierarchical elite and then claim these non-establishment workers also as Fascist or fascist dupes. In doing so they introduce deep socio-economic splits among the working classes, based not upon any underlying socio-economic analysis but upon their own inhuman personal and often politically sectarian opinions. Sadly, sectarian inhumanity, is frequently demonstrated on the left as well as the right. In fact in historical and contemporary terms these two sections of the elite are extremely authoritarian and both of their authoritarian tendencies will sooner or later morph into fascistic levels and even combine in order to protect their system from the efforts of workers to defend their living standards.

A further interesting and crucial litmus test of elite humanity in general comes with the issue of protecting children. Even most animals will do their utmost to protect the offspring of their own species, from danger and death. Even predatory animals do not mass kill their own or any other life form.  Furthermore,  within the human species the desire to protect children (not just our own but others also), is normally even greater than that of other species. But look at the callous indifference and disregard to the fate of thousands of the children of Gaza by the US, UK and EU elites. They could have stopped supplying the means to bomb the bodies of children into unidentifiable shreds of skin and bone by nothing more difficult or demanding than a simple phone call or by issuing an order paper to the manufacturer or supplier to cease munitions deliveries. Internationally the genocide support group of elites did nothing except find reasons not to suspend their political agreements to supply the means for systematic genocide of civilian men, women and children. This and the obvious fact that by increasing non-war production they are nevertheless also effectively continuing to maim and kill parts of the global eco-system which keeps us and them alive, is the strongest possible indictment of the social effects of their hierarchical mass society system.

Incidentally, the hierarchical mass society economic system has been unfit for the purpose of an intelligent homo sapien species for multiple generations and has frequently been rebelled against. It has also collapsed from it’s internal and external contradictions on a number of occasions but it keeps on managing to be revived. However, this system has reached it’s most unfit levels in the 20th and 21st centuries. In its western liberal form it has become such an obviously destructive and inhuman socio-economic system that in a mood of desperation some individuals are currently suggesting that the ideas behind the hierarchical state capitalist mass society systems created in 20th century Russia and China, as bad as they were, are worth copying or replicating elsewhere. This suggestion demonstrates a complete absence of a thorough evaluation of these particular hierarchical mass society systems which were then, and now, partially camouflaged by describing them as benign systems and calling them socialist.

The reality, however, was completely different and a substantial amount of detailed evidence and evaluation of the practices and ideas of its early leadership in the Soviet Union which substantiate this negative assertion is available in three parts. They can be download for free by clicking on the ‘Free Downloads’ tab along the banner under this blogs picture above and following the links. But I shall also produce further short sections of this article in order to update some relevant evidence concerning the current 2024 situation of Russia and China.

Roy Ratcliffe (June 2024.)

Posted in Critique | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

SENSE & NONSENSE ABOUT REGIME CHANGE

Discussions on Regime Change have ebbed and flowed over the decades, even though the phenomenon has not always been described in this way. It is now used by pro-capitalist elites to describe getting rid of an elite in charge of a hierarchical mass society or movement that is resisting the desires and expectations of another dominant hierarchical mass society also harnessed to the capitalist mode of production. The First and Second 20th century World Wars between two sets of political regimes resulted in the replacement of the elite regimes of the defeated side. The Vietnam War was a failed attempt by the Western Aliance to change the North and South Vietnam Communist Regime as was the war on the Korean peninsular.

The two more recent wars in Afghanistan were also attempts to replace regimes hostile to the western alliance as were the wars conducted by NATO in Iraq and those in Syria. The current wars between Russia and Ukraine essentially commenced as attempts to change the regime in Ukraine and the war on Gaza is an openly stated attempt by Israel to forcibly replace the regime of Hamas over the Palestinian people. Although in this latter case the larger truth is that the war on Gaza and the West Bank represents an attempt by the Jewish State of occupation (designated as Israel) to gain absolute control of the entire land of historic Palestine.

Therefore, it is a form of distorted nonsense to consider, as some recent commentators have suggested, that Regime Change by modern hierarchical mass society ‘states’ is something exceptional or something new. In fact, Regime Change is as old as the establishment of the hierarchical mass society form of human aggregation itself. It matters little what formal expression has been used to identify this process, the ‘essence’ is invariably the same. The essence of regime change and genocide started as early as approximately 860 BCE in the middle east, and as one ancient ruler then boasted about it, it frequently took the following form.

“I drew near to the city of Tela. The city was very strong; three walls surrounded it. The inhabitants trusted to their strong walls and numerous soldiers; they did not come down or embrace my feet. With battle and slaughter I assaulted and took the city. Three thousand warriors I slew in battle. Their booty and possessions, cattle, sheep, I carried away; many captives I burned with fire. Many of their soldiers I took alive; of some I cut off their hands and limbs; of others the noses, ears and arms; of many soldiers I put out the eyes. I reared a column of the living and a column of heads. I hung up on high their heads on trees in the vicinity of their city. Their boys and girls I burned up in the flame. I devastated the city, dug it up, in fire burned it; I annihilated it. (Standard Inc. , col. I. 113 – 118./ quoted in ‘A History of Babylonian and Assyrians’. By George Stephen Goodspeed. Section 168.)

Three thousand years later, and boys and girls are still being burned up but now in the flames of US supplied and Israeli delivered bunker bombs and other munitions in similarly  devastated Gaza. It is also well known that the Macedonian Greek ruler Alexander (frequently spun as ‘great’) later took his armies around the middle and near east and ‘changed regimes’ left right and centre, from India to Egypt and many places in between. Indeed, he instituted regime change wherever he decided it was possible and lucrative to do so. In the two later Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage, the elite generals of the Roman Armies decided to get rid of the elite regime in charge of Carthage in the most emphatic ways. This included overthrowing them and stripping their assets in foreign domains from Carthage elite possession in the second Punic War. Later still, in the third Punic War, the Roman promoted to General, (Scipio) ordered the decimation of the entire population of Carthage either by genocidal slaughter or by enslavement of the remaining survivors.

So the sensible conclusion is that regime change and genocidal elimination of populations are two aspects of the same elite-driven socio-economic logic operating within all hierarchical mass societies. The nonsense talked about regime change is that it is only deranged madmen such as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Khomeini, Gaddafi and such like who engage in such brutal forms of regime change and genocidal activities. That opinion is clearly ill-considered nonsense because a long series of British, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portugese and American elites – designated by historians as rational and stable – nevertheless over three centuries of colonial aggression conducted regime change operations throughout the continents of India, Africa, South America, North America and of course Europe.

The above, indisputable historical facts, in each case demonstrate almost exactly the same thing; that regime change and genocidal actions against indigenous populations are part and parcel of the general socio-economic logic of hierarchical mass societies. It does not matter who is in charge of them, the same dynamic evolves.  Moreover, this socio-economic logic unfolds irrespective of what historical period, what geographical location or what ideological tendency (secular or religious) they were created within. This inhumanity is a built in structural issue. But this overwhelming historical and contemporary evidence also demonstrates and reveals much more. In addition it demonstrates the tendency of hierarchical elites to either downplay or totally ignore the inbuilt logic of their own hierarchical system of socio-economic activity. It also invites the question (and reveals the answer) why the ‘rational‘ and ‘stable‘ elites and their intellectual and propaganda servants ignore this indisputable tendency and its ruthless manifestation.

I suggest the reason for elites ignoring this inbuilt tendency stems from a mixture of ignorance and self-interest. The self-interest of elites in the hierarchical mass society system lies in the fact that the obvious power, influence and relative wealth these systems are designed to deliver to those elites, is a powerful incentive to ignore any shortcomings or existential problems the hierarchical mass society system continually displays. The degree of general ignorance of this fundamental systemic flaw in the hierarchical mass society system of social living arises from the fact that to eradicate this level of ignorance requires a detailed historical knowledge together with an informed revolutionary-humanist perspective, both of which are lacking among elites. These two factors, historical ignorance and a revolutionary-humanist perspective, are inadequately developed or totally undeveloped within elites in general and are particularly absent in those elites who are trained to govern.

But this twin absence is also strongly evident among those intellectuals whose consciousness arrives at partial forms of criticism of the latest iteration of the hierarchical mass society system, now known as the capitalist mode of production. Anthropocentric ideology, in it’s latest bourgeois form, dominates intellectual thinking across the whole social and political spectrum of educated citizens. This abscence was evident in the dominant ideologies circulating among the 20th century anti-capitalists such as the Bolsheviks and Communists headed by Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky in the Soviet Union and Charman Mao in Communist China. The socio-economic form of hierarchical mass societies was not fully understood by them as the cause and therefore was not merely a symptom of the alienated and alienating structure of human to human and human to non-human relationships within life on earth. Therefore, strict hierarchical leadership and authoritarian control was as ruthlessly promoted and adhered too among those ‘socialist’ and ‘communist’ leadership ranks (and their imitators) as it was among, Fascists, Islamists, Zionists, Conservatives, Liberals, Labourites and Christian Social Democrats.

Sadly, this unquestioning and uncritical tendency of promoting and retaining hierarchical mass society systems is perpetuated among their modern anti-capitalist ‘followers’, who in the 21st century often simply regurgitate essentially the same sectarian platitudes as their long dead ‘hero’ leaders. The best many of their dedicated followers of that particular fashion, can come up with is to recommend that modern critics of the current elite anthropocentric system read the early 20th century works of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky or Mao for inspiration and guidance in the 21st. This, phenomenon illustrates the long established truism that educators are always first in need of education themselves and that teaching something before you have fully understood it yourself frequently represents a case of the extremely short-sighted arrogantly offering to lead the blind through a minefield.  To my knowledge, not one of these modern advocates of following 20th century anti-capitalist vanguardist perspectives of Bolshevism or Maoism have pointed out the essential similarity between the hierarchical regimes of the left, the right and the centre or the long historical record of all such hierarchical mass society regimes, that are briefly noted above.

This tragic shortcoming represents not only their own personal failure to understand the real history of all hierarchical mass societies, but also involves them in putitive attempts to misguide present and future generations of working people into repeating the drastic mistakes of previous generations. These mistakes begin precisely with the ‘trust me and follow MY LEADER’ syndrome that were made in previous generations and are due to the same lack of understanding by the ‘left’ of the hierarchical anthropocentic system as a whole. If anyone recommends reading Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky or Mao without mentioning their uncritical acceptance of the hierarchical mass society model both in their theoretical studies and in their actual institutional practices, this I suggest implies a level of wilful or neglectful ignorance. Like cigarette packets those left orientated ‘brands’ intended for intellectual consumption as with other right wing and liberal orientated political ‘brands’ should carry a warning that utilising  ‘the contents can seriously damage your health’ as well as the health and well being of those around you.

Roy Ratcliffe (June 2024.)

Posted in Critique | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment