critical-mass.net

“A Lesson too late for the learning?”

Large swathes of the world are currently either being burnt to destruction by grassland and forest fires, flooded away by swollen rivers and incessant downpours, or being bombed into rubble by orders of some unhinged military or political elites. All of this mayhem is creating immediate devastation for people, animals and vegetation. Even many of the so-called advanced countries where these fires, floods and fighting are occuring are being plunged into pre-industrial and pre-medieval conditions as electricity, fresh water and food supplies are compromised or totally interrupted. The much depleted modern emergency services (fire, flood and health) are stretched beyond their capacity to fully respond. The much celebrated 20th century precarious normality can now be gone in the space of a day or two!

The focus of media attention is of course, primarily on the places where these disasters are occuring, but the repercussions of these extreme climate events will be much wider. The world’s climate, like the worlds economic system is globally connected. A loss of arable land by fire, flood (or war) in one region has geographical implications and time dependent repercussions upon other regions. The current mode of production dominated by capital and capitalists has been more concerned with speculation and immediate returns on investments to have bothered to make sure sufficient defences and reserves are available to deal with such frequently predicted disasters. It will therefore, take time to make devastated land fertile again and time to repair accidentally and deliberately destroyed buildings and infrastructure before production and distribution of essentials can return to pre-disaster levels.

In the collapsed  intervals between, it will not be the elite who suffer. Indeed, given the current climate instability, pre-disaster levels will only return if these predictable disasters are not followed too closely by another. The present unprepared situation in 2023, like the predicted, but unprepared Covid Pandemic crisis, should come as no surprise. Disasters such as these have been warned about for years, sometimes decades, before unfolding,  but governments and oppositions comprised of pro-capitalist elites have preferred to ensure that the future profits and dividends for themselves and their supporters are secure rather than their countries citizens, their infrastructure and services.

Bailing out their banker buddies with billions after the 2008 financial crash was preferred by elites to ensuring billions were spent on robust sea, river and fire defences and that emergency services were amply staffed and adequately paid. During the late 20th and early 21st century decades when the systems elites were creating the means for the number of millionaires and billionaires to mushroom, the basic urban infrastructure was neglected, jobs for workers were reduced, or made precarious and intentionally under valued and underpaid.

The same period witnessed repeated climate warnings and dire predictions by scientists which were denied or discredited by elites of all persuasions until the evidence could no longer be denied. The tactic was then changed into engaging in a period of protracted ‘pie crusts and promises’ discussions and delays interspersed by the annual rounds of COP meetings. This was a tried and tested strategy of procrastination for the governing elite have ensured that the capitalist mode of production is designed and modified to enable the needs of capital to dominate over the needs of humanity.

So despite the widespread knowledge in the late 20th century, of the progressive deterioration and pollution of air, water and soil quality, plus the intentional and unintentional culling of essential insects, plants and animals over the past fifty or more years, the systems elites and their supporters have ploughed on literally, metaphorically and industrially, by encouraging production and consumption regardless of the consequences for life on earth in general. The current elite strategy of pretending to be promoting a solution to climate change, pollution and ecological destruction by ‘green’ production methods is all form and no substance.

The maximum amount of production and consumption possible to facilitate the acquisition of profits and to accumulate wealth is still the elites reason d’ etra. In addition to the elite motive of uncontrolled greed, too few of the global population are aware of, or concerned about, the future of life on earth, to bother with the serious study of the socio-economic system and to trouble themselves with the level of activist commitment needed to produce a radical transformation. The hierarchical mass society system and its commoditised rewards has captured humanity, both physically, intellectually and emotionally. The desire for unlimited electrical energy has become a drug for many modern users; the desire for it has now become a ‘conditioned’ need and so any risk to ensure a present and future ‘fix’ will be contemplated. Even some on the left have hopped on the nuclear energy bandwagon on the basis that they would prefer future generations to suffer further nuclear contamination rather than themselves make do with less electricity now or an intermittent supply in future.

The distractions of immediate gratification, entitlement and self-satisfaction has saturated the daily thinking and activities of overwhelming numbers of all classes. The consequences therefore, are eerily predictable. The elite and their supporters in the middle classes will continue to keep the present system producing and consuming whilst ignoring or covering up and fudging the problems and avoiding radical solutions whilst they do so. It is obvious that humanity cannot and would not want to entirely undo the complex division of labour and technology within mass society formations, but humanity needs to do something to bring production and consumption into an ecologically balanced relationship with the rest of life on earth before too much imbalance triggers much larger extinction events.

The obvious first step would be to end the ability of the class who are the key instigators of the process of ever increasing production and consumption to continue to pollute air, sea and land, to cut down forests, and dig open cast mining scars wherever they see fit. Since it is the ruling elites, who through ownership and control of capital investments and the technical means of production, are the key instigators of ever increasing production and consumption, these capitalist organisations need to be prevented from doing so. Furthermore, since from decades of overwhelming evidence they clearly will not voluntarily reduce production and consumption to a level compatible with radically reducing climate warming, and ending ecological destruction and pollution, they will need to be forced to do so. However, as this class has all the organs of influence and power within its control, this will not be an easy or simple task.

Consequently, preventing them from continuing business as usual will require a strong and determined popular movement with a clear intention to remove them and their ilk from those decision-making positions of power and influence. Indeed, any such radical movement would also need to remove all decision-making positions of power and influence so that the wielding of power – in all its manifestations – (economic, financial, political and military), by a minority can no longer be used to take mass society communities in directions that have not recieved unanimous approval by all citizens. However, such radical revolutions do not occur as a conspiracy of a few so-called revolutionaries, they are the result of large scale dissatisfaction among populations who have tried to improve their situation over long periods of time without success.

When dissatisfaction has turned into desperation for a ‘critical mass’ of people and existential problems simultaneously exist for the wider  masses, then a revolutionary movement can start to form. A study of past top-down revolutionary changes, (eg .the English Civil War, the American Revolution, the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution) suggests that an additional factor to the above internal tensions which can trigger revolutionary events are irreconcilable antagonisms and splits occuring within the ruling elite. However, even then, as in the Arab Spring, maintaining or creating positions of power and leaving a new elite in control of those positions, does not solve the inherited problems for the natural world in general or for the bulk of humanity in particular.

An additional, conservative factor in the 20th and 21st centuries, is that the elites have now created an international brotherhood of alliances and mutual pacts of cooperation and defence such as United Nations (UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, (NATO). Although these are ostensibly agreements to defend each others hierarchical mass society system against foreign overthrow and conquest, they can easily be used to defend each members hierarchical systems against internal attempts at overthrowing any hierarchical system. These alliances have been used this way in the past and will be undoubtedly used in that way again. Furthermore, it is a matter of historical record that for close to a century, national elites have been characterising organised internal dissent as the work of foreign countries or their willing agents among the indigenous populations.

In the event of serious attempts to oust the elite or change the system there is every possibility that these elite international institutions will be used to prevent or reverse such a revolutionary transformation. There would therefore, need to be a considerable atrophy or dissolution of such elite alliances for a challenge to the hierarchical mass society formation in any particular country to prove successful. Until such processes have matured and decayed sufficiently the hierarchical mass society system dominated by capitalist elites will continue until some form of ecological or climate collapse will occur. Indeed, I suggest that what is most likely to happen before enough people (a critical mass) emerges prepared to advocate a revolutionary change to social forms of production, is a catastrophic system collapse either due to another destructive world war or a domino like series of ecologically or climatically triggered catastrophes.

I would love to be wrong in this latter regard but either way, in the wake of any form of existential catastrophe, or an unexpected revolutionary change of socio-economic direction, it will be essential to any future construction or reconstruction of human mass societies that the knowledge of, and lessons learned from, the past and present are preserved and made widely available. It would be a tragedy of immense proportions for humanity to continue to make the same tragic historic mistakes yet again and replicate the past pattern of recreating yet more hierarchical mass societies on the self-destroyed ruins of previous hierarchical mass societies. The alternative form of mass society to a hierarchical one is obvious from the logic of the form itself. Since the skills and activities of the whole community are needed to allow mass societies to function, so the whole community should ensure that an effective means of collective decision making – by the whole community – is designed and implemented.

Such a collective decision making process would be the obvious arena for all proposals and actions to ensure that present and future production levels should not pollute, damage or destroy any part of the remaining life on earth support system which had survived and to restore as much as possible of what has already been lost. Such a community led programme of action producing goods and services for need rather than greed would solve the problem of unemployment for there would also be a probable desire to correct all the past neglect and restore to life on earth what has been intentionally and unintentionally taken away from life on earth. Producing for sustainability and restoration of lost balance instead of production geared to elite private wealth accumulation would create worthwhile jobs for all along with reduced hours of working.

As the most conscious and knowledgeable species of life on earth, the time is well overdue for humanity to re-establish an acute awareness of our responsibility to understand and protect the complexity and inter-dependence of life on earth. Therefore, every new recruit to viewing humanity from the ecologically sustainable standpoint of the rest of life on earth, rather than viewing life on earth from the unsustainable standpoint of current anthropocentric humanity, will become a vitally important part of the tasks ahead. I suggest the further evolution of our bio-chemically conscious, self-conscious human species into a non-discriminatory supporter of life on earth – in all its varied forms – is a more sustainable and worthy alternative than continuing to be the equivalent of a self-indulgent, alienated species bent consciously or unconsciously on destroying all the organisms on its own planet.

“The times, they are a changing”.

The starting and ending sub titles are borrowed from my teen age memories of singing Bob Dillon songs.

Roy Ratcliffe (July 2023)

This final article on this series of misunderstandings of Marx, by ‘Marxists’ and other commentators who misunderstand aspects of Marx’s research, concerns the idea that Marx proposed a definite economic mode of production to replace capitalism. It is a common mistake made by system designing ideologists on the left, particularly talented intellectual ones. Even among the most sincere of them, there is often a patronising wish to save working people from the trouble of having to work things out for themselves and from having to evalulate and change things when they get them wrong.

The elitist assumption, taken from the bourgeois and petite-bourgeois playbooks, is that the mass of ordinary people will need a blue-print produced by experts of various kinds, which they can then meticulously follow. The history of the Bolshevik leadership in the aftermath of the collapse of Russian Feudalism in 1917 demonstrates the results of this assumption. The Bolshevik Central Committee discussions and the setting up of the State Planning Commission and the numerous Organising Bureau’s, indicate the elitist thinking involved. Furthermore, Lenin at the ‘Extraordinary Seventh Congress’ of the Russian Communist Party convinced the delegates that what was needed in Russia was;

“…the transformation of the whole of the state economic mechanism into a single huge machine, into an economic organism that will work in such a way as to enable hundreds of millions of people to be guided by a single plan…unquestioning subordination to a single will is absolutely necessary….” (Lenin. Complete Works. Volume 27 page 90/91 and 296.)

A single plan and worker subordination to a single will, that was the alienating essence of Bolshevik socialism’. Years previous to this, Marx had written a particularly scathing analysis of an earlier ‘programmatic’ blue-print influenced by a man (Ferdinand Lassalle) who also thought he knew best how guide working people. In an letter, later entitled ‘Critique of The Gotha Programme’, Marx, describes much of the content as; “verbal rubbish; “ideological nonsense”; “trash”; and, “a monstrous attack on the understanding“. The whole document is well worth the read and he often returned to the theme. In a further example Marx notes the following;

“Individual thinkers provide a critique of social antagonisms, and put forward fantastic solutions which the mass if workers can only accept, pass on and put into practice. By their very nature, the sects established by these initiators are abstentionists, strangers to all genuine action,…” (Marx . ‘The First International and After.’ Penguin. Page 298.)

Turning from the role of individual thinkers to the role of elite created state organisations, Marx studied and wrote about the oppressive power of centralised states and concluded in the case of France and other similar examples that;

“The executive power possesses an immense bureaucratic and military organisation, an ingenious and broadly based state machinery, and an army of half a million officials alongside the actual army, which numbered a further half a million…Every common interest was immediately detached from society, opposed to it as a higher, general interest, torn away from the self-activity of the individual members of society and made a subject for governmental activity, whether it was a bridge, a schoolhouse, the common property of a village community, or the railways, the national wealth…(Marx. Surveys, from Exile. Pelican. Page 237/238.)

The multiple alienations Marx had identified in the 1844, Manuscripts, German Ideology and many other early and later writings, created by the divisions of labour in hierarchical mass societies, were given structural solidity by state institutions. Any serious student of the development of the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1923, before Stalin took over total control of the Party and State, will recognise that the above extract describes, with a high level of accuracy, the general pattern of state control established in the Soviet Union under the leadership of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and the Bolshevik Central Committee. It was a pattern which lasted until the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union and was repeated elsewhere and mirrored in either a Fascist or liberal form in a many other countries. Any serious study of Marx would conclude he was not an advocate of recreating a future hierarchical mass society state formation to replace the capitalist one.

I suggest that the many observations of capitalism and the frequent mentions of ‘socialism’ by the extremely dilligent Marx, constitute the literary basis for numerous intellectuals and commentators thinking that Marx had a definite, alternative social system in mind. Thus, at a superficial level of comprehension, Marx’s frequent references to ‘socialism’ or ‘communism’, are incorrectly interpreted as the presentation by Marx of an embryonic, alternative hierarchical socio-economic system to capitalism. However, that particular interpretation can only be upheld by ignoring the many references by Marx which not only undermines any such impressionistic idea but completely negates it. For example Marx elsewhere makes completely clear the function of communism in his view;

“Communism is the position as the negation of the negation and is hence the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation and rehabilitation. Communism is the necessary form and the dynamic principle of the immediate future, but communism, as such is not the goal of human development, the form of human society.” (Collected Works. Volume 3 page 306. Emphasis added. RR.)

If main thing readers absorb from the above extract are the two mentions of ‘communism’, then their uses as abstract, (and as yet insufficiently defined process) has been intellectually transformed into representing a future system of hierarchical mass society based production and consumption. Whether or not this was the path of misunderstanding that the Bolsheviks took from an incomplete and partial reading of Marx, it is impossible to say, but it is clear from the writings of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and many other Bolsheviks – that is how they understood the content of the terms, socialism and communism. For example, Trotsky echoing Lenin’s ‘single plan’ and single will, ‘asserted;

“..we can have no other way to socialism except by authoritative regulation of the economic forces and resources of the country, and in the centralised distribution of labour power in harmony with the general 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’. New Park. Page 153.)

The above abstract demonstrates how far a self-proclaimed Marxist intellectual such as Trotsky can get from Marx’s revolutionary-humanism even after having read some of Marx. The same applies to Lenin. Little wonder that other less intellectually gifted ‘Marxists’ have also completely misunderstood Marx. Trotsky, throughout his political career was dedicated to “authoritive regulation’ saw working people not as potentially rounded and capable species beings, but primarily as sources of ‘labour power’ to be stripped of their self-activity and detached from any common interests and subordinated to themselves and their higher power state plan.

Just how far Trotsky had kept himself away from Marx’s revolutionary-humanism can be judged by re-reading the above quote from his ‘Terrorism and Communism’ and mentally inserting the word ‘national’ in front of every occurrence of the word ‘socialism’. I invite the reader to go back over the previous quote and try it for themselves! This renders the passage entirely in line with the reality of National Socialist (Nazi) Party in Third Reich Germany. Interestingly, this whole question of misunderstanding Marx was anticipated during his life time and after his death by his close friend and activist buddy Engels. Engels wrote;

“Unfortunately, however, it happens only too often that people think they have fully understood a new theory and can apply it without more ado as soon as they have assimilated its main principles, and even those not always correctly. And I cannot exempt many of the more recent ‘Marxists’ from this reproach, for the most amazing stuff has been produced in that quarter too.” (Engels. Selected Correspondence. Progress. Page 396.)

In the context of considering the potential second hand misunderstandings of Marx’s use of the abstractions ‘socialism’ and ‘commumism’, it is important to understand that Marx – as an activist and intellectual – was not operating in a vacuum. At that 19th century period of time, there was a vibrant international activist trend among the working classes who were using the terms socialism and communism. Therefore in corresponding and meeting with them, Marx and Engels also used these commonly used and then accepted terms.

The 20th century Stalinist nightmare of authoritative regulation had not at that time totally degraded the meaning of the term communism into its political opposite – as a Fascist form of authoritarian regulation. Consequently, Marx had his own definition and interpretation of the meaning of socialism and communism – which is contained in the phrases highlighted above in bold and now repeated below. Marx in particular was concerned to identify and articulate the revolutionary role of the working and oppressed classes as part of a;

“..historical development in the process of human emancipation and rehabilitation‘; and, ‘communism, as such is not the goal of human development”.

For Marx the concept of ‘communism’, therefore, did not represent the post-capitalist “goal” of yet another system of hierarchical mass society, but the term represented the generic evolving ‘process of human emancipation and rehabilitation’. Furthermore, according to Marx, no such ism was the goal of human development nor the future ‘form of human society’. Indeed, Marx had previously written that the socialism and the later communism he referred to was to be understood as follows;

“This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism.” (Collected Works. Volume 3 page 296)

So in Marx’s own words, he considered that the next stage in the process of human emancipation and rehabilitation (after the latest hierachical mass society form based upon capitalism), was to be based upon a fully developed naturalism, which equalled humanism and a fully developed humanism required a revolution to achieve. Moreover, Marx at the time, considered that capitalism would be the last antagonistic form of social production.

“The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that eminates from the individuals’ social conditions of existence…(Marx. Preface. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.)

Of course Marx could not know that Bolshevik ‘Marxists’ would later interpret his views as the need to usher in a state-capitalist mode of social production crammed with so many antagonisms, that show trials, assassinations, gulags and tortured confessions were necessary to ensure the hyper exploitation of human labour continued under their rule. Thus the bourgeois mode of production was not the last antagonistic form of social production, the Bolshevik and Maoist led modes of state-capitalist production continued the tradition of hierarchical mass society formations. This 20th century outcome reveals in no uncertain terms that Marx, was never a Marxist, (as he asserted before he died), but a revolutionary-humanist. His Revolutionary-Humanism was so thorough that it also extended to a criticism of politics.

“Revolution in general – the overthrow of the existing power and the dissolution of the old relationships – is a political act. But socialism cannot be realised without revolution. It needs this political act insofar as it needs destruction and dissolution. But where its organising activity begins, where its proper object, its soul comes to the fore – there socialism throws off the political cloak.” (Marx/Engels. Collected Works. Volume 3. Page 206)

Marx was not always correct and even when his conclusions were entirely valid at the time he made them, the socio-economic changes which have occurred during the period since his death, may have made some of them less valid or some not even valid at all. However, few intellects have equalled him and no one has surpassed him in his economic, social and political analysis of the capitalist form of hiersrchical mass societies. Consequently, in my opinion he deserves far more respect than he is given by his detractors and more than is often expressed by his so-called admirers. He dedicated much if his life to identifying and assisting in;

“…the great transformation to which the century is moving – the reconciliation of mankind with nature and itself. (Marx. Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy.)

After two World Wars and countless wars between nations alongside a continuing war against nature in the form of climate change, insect, plant and animal destruction, air and water pollution; the reconciliation of mankind with itself – and with nature – has never been more pressing and Marx’s ‘Revolutionary-Humanist’ perspective has never been more relevant.

Roy Ratcliffe (July 2023)

Despite a number of references to Marx, the documentary evidence I have recently seen which was focused upon a reformist transition from the capitalist mode of production to an eco-socialist mode of production, indicates further misunderstandings of Marx. This evidence suggests that some of these documents are the products of a privileged intellectual trend from within the middle class. Before considering these more recent examples further, it will be useful to remind ourselves of the problems associated with a fundamental division of labour in hierarchical mass societies. One of the crucial divisions of labour in this regard is between those individuals whose labour is predominantly manual; and those whose labour is predominantly intellectual.

Manual labour, by it’s very essence deals with real tangible objects, which can only be manipulated and recombined by considerable physical effort and using limited physical means (mechanical, electrical, or chemical) of one kind or another. Consequently, external reality is a constant, direct companion and objective tutor in correcting the efforts and final outcomes of the manual labourer. If the manual labourer gets some or all of it wrong this is obvious; the product doesn’t work or function satisfactorily.

Intellectual labour, however, deals purely with thought entities (abstractions) which can be manipulated and recombined freely at will and with relatively little physical effort. Consequently, various levels of internal virtual reality or unreality, are the constant companions of the intellectual labourer. The only objective tutor (‘reality’) is often far removed from the mental efforts of the intellectual. If intellectual labourers get their formulations wrong (eg. the sun going around the earth), it may not be immediately obvious that it is wrong. In this way, imaginary and incorrect (flat earth type) thought entities can persist widely and for many generations. Even the potential corrective of peer review (in this case by earth centred medieval religious scholars) is nevertheless still a subjective corrective, and for many generations was used to confirm rather than correct this mistake.

Unless intellectual assumptions can be experimentally confirmed, confirmation bias can perpetuate misunderstandings that are far removed from reality. Even the more science based disciplines of knowledge are frequently burdened with having to correct false and unwarranted assumptions about the reality intellectuals were at one time certain about. Marx frequently raised the problem of a growing difference between ideas and reality.

“Logic – minds coin of the realm, the speculative or mental value of man and nature – its essence which has grown totally indifferent to all real determinateness, and hence unreal – is ‘alienated thinking’, and therefore, thinking which abstracts from nature and from real man; abstract thinking.” (Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. ‘Critique of Hegelian Dialectic’.)

Marx points out that ‘logic’, the tool we use to think about thought-entities (ie. words and concepts), often becomes indifferent to all real determinateness and thus becomes unreal – or alienated thinking. Too often thought entities are  considered by intellectuals to be real entities. For example, Plato’s ideal thought entities he considered as the true entities and the real natural entities he considered as imperfect copies of the ideal. Although in the above extract Marx was considering the philosophical mind set, (as personified by Hegel with his Hegalian pursuit of the ‘absolute’, ‘reason’ and ‘divine providence’,) yet elsewhere Marx locates this same trend in the religious and political realms of thinking.

The danger for us ‘thinkers’ he points out is that our thinking too easily becomes ‘abstract thinking’, and thus ‘alienated thinking’. By assuming our thought entities are ‘real’ entities it becomes easy for us to intellectually manipulate our abstractions and assume we have started from a ‘true’ understanding and arrived at an even greater one.  When in fact more often than not we have never even departed from the virtual world of ideas. In this way intellectual thinking can become self contained or ‘alienated’ from it’s natural source – reality! Here is an example of this type of intellectual manipulation of thought entity abstractions, that I recently came across’;

“…even in an ecosocialist, post-capitalist regime: “Ecosocialism does not exclude the possibility of pursuing further sustainable economic growth once capitalist production is overcome, but degrowth communism maintains that growth is not sustainable nor desirable even in socialism.” (emphasis added. RR.)

In this particular extract, the intellectual projection of an imaginary future transition between the present capitalist mode of production and an indeterminate ‘speculative’, “eco-socialist post-capitalist regime” (ie. mode of production complete with a ‘regime’), contains an amazing number of abstractions. The determinants of a present and future reality have disappeared from the authors mind and imaginary ‘isms’ (ecosocialism, degrowth communism and regimes) are given agency to “pursue sustainable economic growth”. The lack of any deterministic connection with reality in this extract is therefore quite mind boggling. The real agency of change – life on earth – in the form of humans, other life forms and nature along with their real contemporary context, are nowhere referenced. Such ‘thought entities’ are floating adrift in their own virtual world of abstractions.

The real and present danger is that strung together thought-entity passages, like those above (and below) can be considered by non-intellectuals as ultra clever and beyond their understanding. Consequently working people start to assume that thinking about the future is best left to the intellectuals. In actual fact the extract above describes nothing real. It is not just beyond ordinary understanding it is beyond ordinary reality. In his critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx described such misguided abstractions – within anti-capitalist discourse – as verbal rubbish and ideological nonsense; and more tellingly warned that they perverted a realistic outlook. As Marx added to the above noted ‘critique’ extract, they cease to represent real nature and real human beings;

“The human character of nature and of the nature created by history – man’s products – appears in the form that they are products of abstract mind and as such, therefore, phases of mind – thought entities.” (Marx. Ibid above)

The producers and promoters of abstract anti-capitalist thought entities are not above using bits of Marx as a reputational means to support a degree of authenticity to their abstract propositions and future speculation about ‘regimes’.  Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky were exceptionally skilled at using (and abusing) Marx’s writings this way. This mode of thinking and the practice of not fully understanding the problem of hierarchical mass socIety alienations, exposes two critical things about the petite bourgeois nature of such assertions and hypotheses. 1. Their misunderstanding of the function and role ideas and 2, Their misunderstanding of the human agents of revolutionary change. Therefore when Marx noted that;

“It is not the consciousness of men which determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” (Marx. Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’.)

Marx was alerting the reader to the fact that a persons social position in a hierarchical system (their social existence or social being) to a considerable extent, determines their consciousness and this in turn determines how that consciousness is manifested and articulated. What and how they think, say and write is not neutral or untainted by their position in the social division of labour. The partial level of understanding by intellectuals was the basis of Marx’s frequently articulated principle that the working classes should be the authors and architects of their own emancipation in any transition from wage slavery and full slavery to a post hierarchical, post capitalist mode of production. He resolutely considered that;

“The emancipation of the working class 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.)

Marx had a number of things in mind with regard to thinking and being, but among them was the recognition that the division of intellectual and manual labour in hierarchical mass societies, was more detrimental to the revolutionary humanity of intellectual workers than to manual workers. Their privileged position in the hierarchical division of labour, creates the illusion among them of the superiority of mental workers over manual workers and the socio-economic subordination of the latter to the former. For students of the role of the Bolsheviks in the 1917 Revolution in Russia, it becomes clear that the Bolshevik Central Committee of middle class, lawyers, academics, writers and former clerics, were not aware of the principle of workers self-determination repeatedly articulated by Marx, or if they were, they clearly ignored it and set themselves up as the ‘thinkers‘ guiding and instructing the ‘doers‘.

This socially imposed hierarchical distortion between social thinking and social doing requires an appropriate recognition and remedial action prior to and during any revolutionary transition from capitalism to any post capitalist mode of production that revolutionary workers deem appropriate. Marx was clear from understanding the reality of hierarchical mass societies, that there was a need – as soon as possible – to permanently abolish the actual as well as the intellectual distinction between mental and physical labour. So when we also read the following, pre-determined speculative thoughts about an intellectually imagined future, alarm bells should be ringing deafeningly.

“… from a socio-ecological point of view the question of growth or de-growth is simple: there cannot be a yes or no answer. Some flows, stock, and activities should grow; others should not grow but decrease, for example, the production of weapons.”

And;

“In this transition, starting under capitalism, the capacity for climate mitigation and adaptation along with elimination of energy poverty afflicting the global South must be created in the form of mainly wind and solar energy supplies.”

And;

“Degrowth Communism is close in concept to Solar Communism both with a steady-state physical economy, realizing a 21st century update of Marx, “From each according to her ability, to each according to her needs”

And;

“Society, particularly in rich countries, must move towards a steady-state economy, which requires a shift to an economy without net capital formation, one that stays within the solar budget. Development, particularly in the rich economies, must assume a new form: qualitative, collective, and cultural — emphasizing sustainable human development in harmony with Marx’s original view of socialism.

And;

“But rich countries, having the historic responsibility for generating dangerous climate change from their consumption of fossil fuels with the greatest impacts on the global South, now must be held accountable to finance and help implement the necessary wind/solar energy infrastructure especially in the global South, as well as converting their own physical economies to green cities, electrified public transit, agroecologies, etc, dismantling the military industrial fossil fuel complex.”

In these previous five quotes, we have modern philanthropic intellectuals (well meaning or not) debating what future socio-economic formations of working people should be implementing. Indeed, in reality, the abstraction ‘rich countries‘ like all abstract collective terms cannot have responsibility for anything. Countries do not generate anything. Only specific communities of people generate dangerous climate change and some very poor people living in rich countries generate very little – so why – even in speculation or imagination – should the latter be responsible for financing the global south, wind and solar energy infrastructure?

These so-called eco-socialist formulations lack a concept of the responsibility of the ruling capitalist class elites within hierarchical mass societies that have long determined productive activity. This latter formulation also implies that the existing system of rich countries will be conserved, rather than revolutionised in order to implement these green city measures. The use of words such as ‘must’ and ‘should’ indicate an implicit, if not explicit desire of intellectuals to ultimately direct what future actions in a future (as yet non existent) eco-society should be implemented. And unless stated otherwise, these ‘must-do’ measures, surely imply the continuation of a top-down model of society to ensure that what the intellectuals think rich societies, ‘must’ and ‘should’ do – is actually done.

Which is exactly what the Leninists, Stalinists, Trotskyists and Maoists achieved prior to and during (including utilising references to Marx) the early 20th century revolutionary uprisings – with such dire totalitarian consequences! Those 20th century intellectuals were consciously and systematically prescribing a privileged (vanguard) role for themselves as articulate intellectual leaders (ie. ‘thought entity’ creators and manipulators) and persuaded (and eventually forced) the oppressed to become ‘their’ followers and this intellectual ‘vanguard’ led them back into the intense exploitation of factories, fields and five year orgburo plans.

It is clear to me that although the authors of the above quotes have referenced Marx a number of times they have failed to fully understand the revolutionary-humanist principles established by Marx, many of which have been mentioned in each of this series of ‘Misunderstanding Marx’. I suggest that the authors of the quotes, instead of updating or being in harmony with Marx, are dangerously close to becoming similar to some radical activists that Marx identified during the Paris Commune and wrote about in 1848.

“In every revolution, there intrude, at the side of the true agents, men of a different stamp; some of them survivors and devotees to past revolutions, without insight into the present movement, but preserving popular influence by their known honesty and courage, or by the sheer force of tradition;…….After the 18th March, some such men did also turn up and in some cases contrived to play pre-eminant parts. As far as their power went they hampered the real action of the working class, exactly as men of that sort have hampered the full development of every previous revolution.” (Marx. ‘Class Struggles in France’. Peking edition page 84.)

Yes of course there is a need to update some of Marx’s suggestions, where the actual material circumstances have changed, but the principle essences and fundamental structures of hierarchical mass societies such as classes, multiple alienations, extreme exploitation of human and other ‘natural’ resources and unnatural divisions of labour, have not changed. The working classes are no longer assembled in massive factories, warehouses, shipyards, offices, mines and foreign- based factories, and many are now precariously employed, unemployed, homeless or desperate migrants. Consequently this ‘occupational’ change of working people needs to be factored into the lived reality of the 21st century. The ruling classes are also more numerous, more diverse and more heavily defended than in previous centuries. The degradation of nature and climate changes have also accelerated so all these changes need to enter the present revolutionary-humanist perspective pioneered by Marx.

However, the alienation and estrangement of the bulk of humanity from their own essential social-species nature continues, as does the domination of intellectual labour over manual labour in social, political and economic affairs. The continuous degradation of the whole integrated and interdependent bio-chemical planetary system which is the foundation upon which all life on earth has evolved also continues unabated. Human beings are through their natural evolution, a socially integrated and multi-talented species, but one now conflicted and divided within itself by the formation of hierarchical, divided mass societies, which started in the near and far east.

It is only in the last four or five hundred years that this capitalist based hierarchical model was imposed on the whole planet by armed Europeans in a project of armed conquest and extermination. In creating hierarchical mass societies historical individuals introduced a negated version of human social forms and this hierarchical model needs to be progressively terminated (negated) by humanity or else nature and humanity will possibly be substantially terminated by the hierarchical mass society model. In conclusion, here is final critical note from Marx on those intellectuals who assume they have all the answers needed for the future of humanity and the rest of societies individuals just need to listen and implement.

“These prophets ‘teach’ their disciples, who appear in remarkable ignorance of their own interests, how they are to work and enjoy communally.” (Marx/Engels. Collected Works. Volume 6 page 47.)

I would add that those of us who have some love of mankind and nature, should like Marx, become, articulate associates alongside and with the exploited and oppressed in any movement aimed at the actual transition of the present hierarchical forms to future non-hierarchical forms.

Roy Ratcliffe (June 2023)

All hierarchical mass societies from ancient to modern (whether authoritarian or democratic) have been riven by conflicts which are products of the occupational and class-based contradictions within them. The ruling elites within them can only continue to rule as long as sufficient numbers within society in general or within their own class in particular, are relatively content or if not, are unable to rebel. The ruling elite individuals themselves can only continue to rule as long as the elite clique which supports them are sufficiently united and have control of the main means of repression.

Splits in the ruling elites can threaten the domination of the faction in control, but any such cleavage of itself, does not present revolutionary opportunities. Divisions occuring purely within the elite do not represent anything other than the possibility of a change in the personnel who will dominate in future or in the consolidation of the existing one. Clearly such active splits in ruling elites can take the form of political or military manoeuvring to test out or achieve some kind of resolution. However, in the case of extremely authoritarian elites, such as Russia, where political solutions are restricted or absent, military solutions become the dominant means of change or resistance to change.

The fissures in the ruling edifice of Putin’s Russia are probably many, but mostly opaque to the outside observer. However, the one that has opened up between the two war criminals, Prigozhin and Putin, has undoubtedly widened. The first named heading the Wagner group and the second one heading the Russian Federation. The cracks that widened during the the Special Miltary Operation (War) in Ukraine however, are not confined to these two criminals. The earlier anti-Putin and anti-war tendencies in Russia were silenced in the predictable totalitarian manner.

In order, to engage in a predatory war against Ukraine, Putin has not only jailed opposition characters but has physically eliminated many of them and like Lenin and Stalin before him has effectively silenced any form of public criticism. Yet the cracks in the social system are still there and more are appearing. The war effort itself has further impoverished the ordinary Russian citizen and taken the lives of many family members. As was the case under Stalin, what cannot be said publically can be thought privately. How wide this public rift now becomes and how it is resolved remains to be seen, as will the ideological expressions utilised by each side to justify their actions.

However, for the two ‘leading’ characters in this Russian ruling elite drama, the rift is increasingly existential. If this acrimonious division is not quickly resolved, the results will be catastrophic for one or the other or even both and will be detrimental those who get caught up in the dispute. This ‘rebellion’ of the Wagner group, with its seizure of cities, assets and sorte toward Moscow, was no Battleship Potemkin moment heralding a revolution of the lower classes, as occurred in 1917. If this manoeuvre was not a ruse to secure a deal between the two agents of Crimes Against Humanity, it may be phase two of a struggle among rivals for ultimate control of the Russian war machine.

Of course if the schism between the two escalates it will further exhaust the resources of the state and further alienate the suffering population of Russia from the ruling elite. However, it should be remembered that the complaint by Prigozhin all along was not against elite power, or against the war on Ukraine but the fact that it was being mismanaged by the Russian military elite. He considered that the Russian armed forces were so badly supplied and led that they were being treated as ‘cannon fodder’. An allied complaint being that his own troops were bearing the brunt of the fighting.

Whilst we do not know the detail of the deal brokered by Lukashenko of Belarus it is possible that Putin has agreed to shake up the Russian Military establishment and intensify the attack on Ukraine, providing Prigozhin exits and ceases to be involved. The fact that the mobile advance toward Moscow by Wagner troops was called off and its leader given exile in Belarus suggests that Prigozhin’s initiative did not attract sufficient support within the Russian military establishment or among enough of the rank and file soldiers. This is despite the widespread disatisfaction of Russian troops with how the Special Operation is being conducted.

If the above was the case, for Prigozhin, therefore, a negotiated retreat was a better alternative to outright civil war or defeat. If Putin has not been sufficiently weakened by the failure of this war to achieve its objectives and also by his failure to prevent or counter this highly visible ‘rebellion’, then Prigozhin’s future exile may be short lived. Putin is weakened if he carries out this threat against the Wagner Group mutiny and weakened if he doesn’t.  As we know, anyone who crosses Putin, on less serious or public issues, tends to fall out of buildings, have heart attacks or have their coffee or door handles poisoned – no matter where they seek exile.

Putin’s public declaration of dealing severely and quickly with this  mutinous ‘stab in the back’, has ongoing implications. At this level revenge is possible by any number of indirect means. This entire incident demonstrates that the control of power in unpopular totalitarian regimes is often weaker than it appears on the surface. It is often secured by a delicate balance between many interested and influential forces. It only takes one important source of regime support to be removed (or reinforced) to cause either a collapse or a strengthening of totalitarian power. The ‘balance’ between the many conflicting needs in Russia is so precariously constructed that it will take very little shaking to destabilise the existing establishment.

In the short term, either Prigozhin or Putin could ‘fall’ (literally or metaphorically) or even prevail in an uneasy truce or in a superficial reconciliation, but it is unlikely that the Russian state will continue its present trajectory for much longer before further fissures widen and other divisions break out. This truncated rebellion has demonstrated that rebellion is possible against Putin but requires more strategic planning. When the dust has settled around this dispute between these two Mafia style oligarchs, the reality of the global socio-economic crisis will reassert itself. Like all hierarchical mass societies, Russia is in a profound social, economic, financial, political, environmental and ecological crisis.

The Special Military Operation authorised by Putin was in many ways a distraction to deflect from the growing socio-economic crisis in Russia and to gain some extra resources by control of the Ukraine economy. It was bound to fail against Ukraine and in fact this adventure to make him and the Russian State ‘Great Again’ has done the opposite. It has exposed Russia’s  totalitarian fragility.

Every hierarchical mass society country, large or small, faces the problem that the needs and excesses of sustaining their elites, are draining the wealth created by the working classes away from those at the bottom of the hierarchical structure and depositing it in the accounts of the already rich. The productive capacity of industrial countries is now so independent of mass labour and so dependent upon high intensity machinery that the gap between the increasing volume of mass production and the decreasing purchasing ability of mass populations, has created an unbridgeable gap. Consequently, a severe socio-economic social crisis looms everywhere.

All the world’s elites are unstable, because the hierarchical mass society system itself is unstable and the modern versions, based upon the capitalist mode of production, have accelerated and intensified that instability. Russia’s territorial size will not shield it from the global malaise. Its removal as a global competitor for production will not save the western capitalist alliance. The culture of entitlement to unlimited consumption engendered by the capitalist system is so embedded in mass society consciousness – particularly in the west – that very few are prepared to even cap their consumption at present levels let alone consider reducing them for the sake of other underconsuming global citizens or for the ecological or climatic health of the planet.

Furthermore, the possibility of mass society living without hierarchical structures based on occupation and class, has failed to register as a possibility, within all classes. The current consensus among politicians, economists, bankers and media that by finding the holy grail of some future ‘clean energy’ and increasing production and efficiency this will solve most problems is naive to say the least. In theoretical speculation on paper and in imagination, this proposed ‘economic’ solution will satisfy elite wealth accumulation and stave off civil unrest by the discontented masses, but in reality it will only increase the current problems not solve them. World Wars dominated the 20th century, Civil Wars may well dominate the 21st.

Roy Ratcliffe (June 2023)

This is the fourth article in this series of ‘Misunderstandings of Marx’ prompted by statements I have come across during 2023. The first dealt with the mistake of assuming that Marx considered capitalism as the fundamental problem facing humanity. The second that Marx considered that the concept of a ‘socialist mode of production’ was the means of replacing the capitalist mode of production’. The third that Marx considered that the working classes should overthrow the capitalist state and create a socialist (or workers) state. This fourth article attempts to explain 1, why Marx has been so frequently misunderstood; 2, to provide further detail on the causes of the multiple alienations of humanity; and to 3, stress the uniqueness, (among all the species of life on earth) of the routine inter-species extermination of life forms and human beings by other human beings.

The individual versus the collective.

Misunderstandings of Marx arise, not only from the general neglect of the huge extent and detail of his published writing, but also because he is more famous for his unique forensic analysis of the capitalist mode of production, than for anything else. The three volumes of Das Capital, the three volumes of notes on Surplus Value and the series of notebooks known as the Grudrisse, are all devoted to understanding the functioning and purpose of societies based upon the domination of capital. This predominant focus on capitalism, by Marx, has given the impression to many people, (both those who agree with Marx and those who disagree), that he considered the capitalist mode of production as the fundamental cause of the problems facing the bulk of humanity. Whilst it is true that capitalism – as the latest form of hierarchical mass society – has accelerated production and amplified the problems of alienation and servitude facing humanity, Marx recognised that it is the hierarchical mass society form itself which is the fundamental problem. It is this form of society, which is not only a problem for humanity, but also for the rest of life on earth. With regard to the former, Marx noted that;

“The starting point of the development that gave rise to the wage labourer as well as the capitalist, was the servitude of the labourer.” (Marx Capital Vol 1, page 715.)

In other words Marx recognised that prior to the capitalist mode of production, society’s were hierarchical and divided into classes, in which large sections of humanity were forcibly bound to forms of ‘labour’ servitude, known as serfs, peasants or actual slaves. Therefore, the alienation of the bulk of humanity from their natural, species essence had occurred prior to the domination of capital and had coincided with the formation of hierarchical mass societies. Indeed, in a number of places and toward the end of what became volume 3 of Das Capital, extracted from Marx’s notes contained the following;

“We have seen that the capitalist process of production is a historically determined form of the social process of production in general. The latter is as much a process of material conditions of human life as a process taking place under specific historical and economic production relations, producing and reproducing these productive relations themselves, and thereby also the bearers of this process, their material conditions of existence and their mutual relations, ie., theirparticular socio-economic form. For the aggregate of these relations, in which the the agents of this production stand with respect to Nature and to one and another, and in which they produce, is precisely society, considered from the standpoint of its economic structure. Like all its predecessors, the capitalist process of production proceeds under definite material conditions, which are, however, simultaneously the bearers of definite social relations entered into in the process of reproducing their life.” (Capital. Volume 3, section 3, chapter XLV 111)

Whilst recognising that Volume 3 was assembled by Freidrich Engels, from Marx’s notes, the fact that this excerpt chimes accurately with many other such statements by Marx, means we can be assured it accurately portrays Marx’s assessment of previous hierarchical mass society forms. This needs to be mentioned because Engels did not always portray Marx accurately, a fact which has led some ‘Marxists’ in the tradition of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and Mao, to also misunderstand Marx’s revolutionary-humanist perspectives. The Capitalist process of production, “Like all its predecessors” maintains, alienating divisions of labour, class divisions, and gender inequalities and thus the need to exercise oppressive forms of control and manipulation.  Hierarchical mass societies, through the division of labour, certainly introduced the possibility and actuality of larger and larger human societies living together as economically viable collectives. However, hierarchical societies achieved this result only at the expense of introducing a rift between the socialised human individual and their natural species essence.

The extreme exploitation of nature and people became the normal operating procedure for hierarchical mass societies, from their ancient inception. The three forms of human alienation noted in ‘Misunderstanding Marx – 3’ (ie. from nature, from each other and from other human communities) are consequently the originating alienations of humanity from nature and thus the natural essence of the human species. These alienations have continued to exist. Ageism, Sexism, Misogyny, Racism and Sectarianism are all symptoms of alienation resulting from the denial of the natural/social essence of humanity and its replacement by individual competition within hierarchical mass society formations. In 1843, Marx duly noted this rift between the natural ‘species being’ evolution of humanity and the alienated ‘individual being’ within hierarchical mass societies. This recognition was almost two decades before his major forensic level of economic analysis in Das Capital. He had reasoned that;

“Only when the real, individual man re-absorbs in himself, the abstract citizen, and as an individual human being – has become a species being in his everyday life, in his particular work, and in his particular situation….only then will human emancipation have been accomplished.”(Marx. Collected Works Volume 3, page 168.)

The need for human beings in their everyday life to return to their earlier condition of acting and thinking for each other and for the the benefit of the collective (ie. acting as species beings) rather than acting and thinking purely for themselves (ie. acting as competitive individual beings), was the humanist motivation behind Marx’s life-long philosophic, economic and political endeavours. As previously mentioned, he correctly noted that by the creation of ‘divisions of labour’ within mass societies, the undoubted efficiency gained in total social production, had been offset by a varying degree of alienation and conflict arising directly and indirectly from those divisions. With the development of set divisions of labour, individual interests became the primary focus of individual existence and of day to day concern, within hierarchical mass societies. Gradually, therefore, the common interests of the whole society, (and the species) became subordinate to the concerns of the most powerful individuals. Where classes or socio-economic associations of individuals developed, the shared individual concerns within the various classes also became separated from the interests common to the whole community.

In this way, individual conflicts, class-based conflicts and national conflicts became the constantly abrasive interactions within and between hierarchical mass societies. By the perpetuation of this hierarchical social means of living, the human species became engaged in perpetual forms of conflict within their own social formation and with various other human communities. These conflicts are muted at times and flare up at others, but are never entirely absent. Thus, for example, the the interests of wealthy classes, to increase their wealth at the expense of the interests of the other classes, may be resented by the majority but may not flare up immediately into open conflict (slave revolts, peasant uprisings, general strikes, civil wars) until it reaches a certain explosive intensity. Furthermore, these internal group alliances within mass societies rarely cohere around a single policy idea or a single individual representing one, but around a cluster of personal interests and/or ruling factions, with one promoted from within them as a figurehead.

Thus, the interests of powerfully placed elite individuals within a ruling dynasty or faction desiring more wealth, power and control, (eg. Alexander, Xerses, Charlemagne, Hitler, Putin, Trump, Johnson etc.) can arrogantly drag a whole society into a war of attrition, or manufacture an economic depression. During such conflicts, the common interests of the majority and even the personal interests of the elite, are exponentially compromised and frequently totally sacrificed. It is also the case that many, if not most decisions taken by elites are not rationally based but result from their emotional reactions to the contradictions within hierarchical mass society. Furthermore, the relatively well off within hierarchical mass societies, can (and do) also wilfully ignore the reduced status and welfare of minority groups until these take action (such as peasants in previous modes of production, and now nurses, teachers, transport workers etc). These low status victims of the hierarchical mass society system are then hypocritically blamed and pilloried for frustrating or ignoring the personal or common interests of the the elite or the rest of society.

The actual and potential conflicts between the individual interests, the class interests, and the collective interests of humanity have been elevated exponentially by past and present hierarchical mass societies and are the underlying sources of personal struggles and anxieties as well as social and political ones. Mental health disturbances; forms of addiction; anti-social outbursts; incarceration and a scale of legal punishments, are the manifestations of these unresolved conflicts at an individual level. These exist alongside the collective manifestations of these same tensions and conflicts which also result in religious, political, gender, ethnic and identity struggles and the negative behaviours resulting from them. This particular form of hierarchical social evolution by humanity to maintain the pattern of Nourishment, Metabolism, Growth, Reproduction, Ageing and Death (N-M-G-R + A-D) has brought it into existential conflict with the natural, bio-chemical processes of evolution for all forms of life on earth – including it’s own.

Individual and collective inter-dependence.

Within the rest of life on earth it is also possible to distinguish between the individual and the collective in each species, and also to establish how these two interests among each species of life on earth are integrated, rather than being continually fought over. Each species individual is actually reproduced from within each species by the cooperation of other individuals. One generation begets another and the young either integrate socially or move elsewhere and if they find adequate resources they repeat the (N-M-G-R + A-D) process of all previous generations. Objectively, the individual could not exist without the existence of the collective and the collective could not function smoothly without the cooperation of the individuals. That is how life on earth in general and for all forms of life on earth, (from bacterial cells to schools of whales) has ‘naturally’ continued for the millions of years that it has existed. It is also how the hominid mammalian species functioned as they evolved into their modern Homo sapien, variants some hundreds of thousands of years ago. Marx acknowledged this pre-historical stage of human societies which alongside hierarchical mass societies, continues throughout all history before he moved on to analyse the capitalist form of social cooperation, noting that;.

“…life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things…..Therefore, in any interpretation of history one has first of all to observe this fundamental fact in all its implications and to accord it it’s due importance…The production of life, both of ones own in labour and of fresh life in procreation, now appears as a double relationship: on the one hand as a natural, on the other as a social relationship. By social we understand the cooperation of several individuals, no matter under what conditions, in what manner and to what end. ” (Marx. ‘The German Ideology’. Section 1 History.)

The first part of this generalisation concerning life applies to all life forms and indeed since the 20th century we can now give due importance to the original natural and social, Nutrition, Metabolism, Growth, Reproduction, Ageing and Death (N-M-G-R + A-D) processes of life on earth. However, less than ten thousand years ago, what really began to negatively distinguish sections of the human species – from the rest of the ‘life on earth’ species – was not language, fire or tools, but the formation of hierarchical mass societies. Notably, along with these hierarchical formations, emerged a unique tendency and propensity for the human species to continually turn upon itself and ruthlessly destroy individuals and groups of it’s own species. No other species of life on earth has individual organisms routinely and deliberately harming or assassinating other members of their own species either in single events (murder), larger events (multiple homicides/massacres/school shootings etc.), or collectively in the mass assassinations and extinctions, known as wars and other types of genocidal incursions.

Although predatory species have evolved, which routinely engage in the killing of individuals from other species for nourishment (N) they do not do so to individuals of their own species, either for food or other reasons. Nor do they engage in mass cullings of prey animals, they just kill enough for survival. Even the well publicised animal conflicts between males for mating among the other species are discontinued well before life is extinguished for the losing animal. Simply backing off or moving away by one combatant ends such animal conflicts over mating. Moreover, there are no insect or animal equivalents of the so-called honour killings or the rapes and murder of females within any other of the millions of species of life on earth. Yet it is an indisputable statistical fact that a proportion of the so-called ‘civilised’ human species – within hierarchical mass societies – aggressively discriminate, hurt, oppress and enslave members of their own species (and other species) and fight and kill each other routinely, by wars and skirmishes for a variety of random reasons.

That contrast, between life on earth – outside of hierarchical mass society formations – and those within them, should give sufficient cause for most of us to stop, think and consider. Why has a species classifying itself as wise and claiming to have created ‘civilisation’ out of ‘barbarism’ actually created it’s own self-alienating and self-destructive tendencies and self-perpetuating cycles of killing it’s own kind? And, of course, along with that self-destruction, the routine and mechanized destruction of many other key, life-sustaining species, by deforestation, overfishing and pollution. Since such behaviours only emanate from within hierarchical mass society formations, the how and why is answered by studying the socialisation and normalisation processes contained within such societies. Beyond such research studies, in considering the future for life on earth, it becomes obvious that humans need to end hierarchical forms of mass society living, abandon their own self-indulgent, ego-centrism and change the focus of their concerns.

A revolution in thinking and behaving is needed.

Hitherto, ‘life on earth’ has always been studied from the perspective of a curious and/or acquisitive, wealth-seeking, section of humanity. The study of humanity from the perspective of ‘life on earth’ has hardly begun. I suggest this can be now be achieved relatively easily and needs to urgently begin – if there is to be any useful evolutionary future for humanity. Just as an individual organism is dependent upon the collective species for its bio-chemical and social existence, (for birth, support and reproduction), each individual species of life on earth, is dependent upon the collective conitributions of all the integrated species of life on earth – even the largest animal is dependent upon the smallest grain of pollen! It may appear to current anthropocentric, ideological reasoning that the future survival of nature ultimately depends upon humanity; but in reality it is the future survival of humanity which ultimately depends upon the survival of the integrated life support system of nature. Destroying that is an indirect form of self-destruction. Consequently a revolution in how humanity thinks needs to accompany a revolution in how humanity lives.

It is undoubtedly the case that, all mass societies require mass production and mass consumption of (N) and these in turn create mass pollution and massive disturbances of the organic and inorganic structure of the planet. The ‘green’ agenda of obtaining and using so-called ‘cleaner’ energy sources will not break this self-destructive anthropocentric cycle of production and consumption. Indeed, the creation of a source of cheaper and cleaner energy would only spur on the productive dynamic of elite-led hierarchical mass societies to even greater intensities and increase rubbish accumulation, contamination and pollution. The potential knock on effect is obvious. With increases in production and consumption – whatever the energy source – there will be increased global warming, further sea temperature rises, more forest fires and even more air-born industrial pollution. Therefore, there is a present and future danger of insufficient clean and clear air around the planet.

Without sufficient clear air, there will not only be breathing problems for all us animals with lungs, but but also insufficient sunlight; without sufficient solar radiation, there will be insufficient photosynthesis by land and sea plants.
Without sufficient photosynthesis by ‘healthy’ land and sea plants, insufficient oxygen-absorbed air and plant nutrition will be available for insects and animals to Metabolise, Grow and Reproduce. Without sufficient insects and many animals, very little plant pollination will occur, without sufficient plant pollination there will be even less nutrition (N) available and even less production of oxygen. Hierarchical mass society humanity is already on a decades long downward trajectory! Therefore, a few thousand factory air filters and millions of home insulations are not going to prevent such an outcome. At least one past huge extinction (dinosaurs) has been put down to a heavily contaminated atmosphere preventing sufficient land and sea based plant photosynthesis.

Moreover, the collapse of an integrated, and interdependent circle (or cycle) of anything can begin at any point in the circle. In the case of life on earth a serious and continual disruption – within any key species – and within any of the natural, Nourishment, Metabolic, Growth, Reproductive, Ageing and Death phases (N-M-G-R + A-D), which are common to all forms of life on earth, and the outcome is predictable. Sooner or later this disruption and distortion of life on earth will trigger a catastrophic extinction event.

Roy Ratcliffe (June 2023)

Another recent example of misunderstanding Marx recently came to my attention and exemplified the attempt to use Marx to underpin a position that I suggest had it been made while Marx was alive, he would almost certainly have rejected. I read the following assertion;

“One of the main ideas that separates revolutionary socialists from reformists is the tremendous insight that Karl Marx learned from the experience of the Paris Commune of 1871, that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”[23] In other words, as Lenin expanded upon in State and Revolution,[24] the state is not a neutral body that could be used just as well by the working class for its aims, as the capitalist class uses it. Instead it needs to be dismantled and replaced by a new, genuinely democratic state that would serve the interests of the working class in power.”

Whilst the first part is essentially accurate, the second section, linking Lenin, to ‘expanding upon’ Marx is either a result of naivity, ignorance or a sectarian form of recruitment propaganda. On many levels the above extract displays the dangers of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing. The assumption of sufficient knowledge – in such cases – produces confident assertions of correct understandings that are far from it. In fact the actual creation of a state against the interests of the working class in 1917 to the 1940’is purely a creative action by Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, not Marx. In fact Lenin admitted at the 4th Congress of the Commintern as early as 1923 that the state the Bolsheviks had created was operating against them and thus against the interests of the working class. (See Lenins Complete Works Volume 33 page 428/429). But since Marx is named as the inspiration for the above extract, here is what Marx went on to say about the essential nature of the state;

“Where political parties exist, each party sees the root of evil in the fact that instead of itself an opposing party stands at the helm of the state. Even radical and revolutionary politicians seek the root of evil not in the essential nature of the state, but in a definite state form which they wish to replace by a different state form. (Marx/Engels. Collected Works. Vol 3. page 197. Emphasis added RR)

Students of the Russian Revolution of the 20th century, will recognise that this replacement of the state form was essentially the key part of Bolshevik political programme. It is a common mistake to think we have grasped a complete understanding of something when only a part of it has been grasped – and even then not always fully. Indeed, it would seem from their efforts, not only the author of the above lines, but also Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and most of the Bolshevik intelligentsia had also failed to fully understand Marx. The revolutionary-humanist perspective of Karl Marx on ‘politics’ the ‘state’ and ‘alienation’ seems to have entirely escaped their attention. Lenin’s polemic in the ‘State and Revolution’ and his theoretical mention of the ‘withering away of the state’ was replaced with its absolute strengthening under his own post 1917 rule and also that of Trotsky and Stalin.

It seems that reality, rather than ideology, has still not sunk into most examples of oppositional consciousness. In fact is the hierarchical mass form of society, with its class divisions which gives rise to the need for a ‘state’. It is not the state or capitalism, which gives rise to class divisions. Retain class and other established divisions within any socio-economic system and alienation and insoluble conflict will continue and so to will the need for a state to ‘manage’ and control them. In contrast, Marx was absolutely clear on the need for the economic foundations of human societies to be free of the class control of the means of production, whether the class was comprised of ancient tribal warriors, medieval feudal aristocrats, modern bourgeois capitalists, or any kind of political vanguard.

The really sad part to me is that after more than 100 years and the availability of most of Marx’s writings, he is so little understood. Consequently, it is possible in 2023, to read the following;

“Ours is a strategy to build an ecosocialist movement powerful enough that it could overturn and dismantle the existing capitalist state and replace it with a genuinely democratic and participative workers’ state.”

Really! A “genuinely democratic and participative workers’ state.” Now what would that look like? Does the author know, and hope that the reader does, or is its inclusion just a rote-learned abstraction, plucked out of a previous historical contex? In fact a state according to Marx is “based upon the contradiction between public and private life, on the contradiction between the general interests and the private interests.” (ibid Vol 3 p 198). This contradiction and the need for its permanent removal will be briefly considered in ‘Misunderstanding Marx – 4’, to be published later. Meanwhile, land and human alienation, another source of neglected  insights emphasised by Marx.

Land! The first condition of human existence.

“To make land an object of huckstering – the land which is our one and all, the first condition of our existence – was the last step toward making oneself an object of huckstering. It was and is to this very day an immorality surpassed only the immorality of self-alienation.” (Marx ‘Outlines of Political Economy’.)

In the 21st century, it needs to be recognised that the ‘immorality’ of human self-alienation achieved within hierarchical mass societies (including their self-flattering description as ‘Civilisations’) is not the direct result of the forces of nature, as bourgeois ideology likes to imagine. It is in fact the indirect results of the human social forces of nature implemented and mediated through just one type of human social structure – hierarchical mass societies!

Biologically and economically, hierarchical mass society humanity remains absolutely dependent upon life on earth in general (ie nature), for air, water, food and non-food materials, but unlike hunter-gatherer humans and all other life forms, human individuals within hierachical mass societies do not relate intimately and directly to life on earth’s essential bio-chemical sources of nutrition (N) and other useful raw materials. In hierarchical mass societies the relationship of human individuals to their own Nutrition, Metabolism, Growth, Reproduction, Ageing and Death (N-M-G-R + A-D) life-cycle processes, are several times removed and socially mediated.

The natural materials they encounter, utilise and fashion on a daily basis, are already in an alien, socially processed form. They exist as dead, value-laden commodities. The vast majority of citizens are provided with natures products by a numerically variable, often far-distant minority, whilst the rest (the majority of citizens) are at least one, and sometimes twice, removed from continual direct contact with the other living and non-living materials, they actually need to survive. In this way it appears in their individual and social consciousness as if their survival directly depends upon the hierarchical mass society structure and not directly upon life on earth in general.

For example, the baker, does not raise the crops or grind the grain; the butcher does not hunt, raise or kill the animal; the woodworker does not grow or fell the trees, the metal worker does not mine the ore, etc. In advanced hierarchical mass societies, the vast majority of citizens see only partly finished organic raw materials to work on or finished organic materials to consume by use or digestion. For the majority of human beings in hierarchical mass society forms of existence, the direct daily link between humanity and those many other species of life on earth they actually depend upon, has been severed.

In hierarchical mass societies, even those who have retained a direct link with life on earth, such as animal breeders, herders and slaughterers, crop planters, grain harvesters, lumberjack’s, miners, etc., their relationship to their occupation has become a routine daily and weekly grind. There is little (or in some cases no) positive emotional involvement during their direct contact with the human and non-human organic world in general. Furthermore, for obvious limited sensory reasons, there is no immediately detectable connection between land and sea based plant photosynthesis and the sufficiently oxygenated air we all need to continually breathe – so it is taken for granted, instead of understood.

These (and other) natural sensory and social ‘disconnections’ represent one generic form of human alienation – alienation from the rest of nature – the very source from which humanity emerged and of which it remains an integral part. In addition, the hierarchical and occupational divisions between mass society citizens also removes most daily practical common activities between them or with the other human beings in different classes. This daily, occupational social isolation, is intensified as within classes and between classes, individuals are encouraged (or required by the system) to compete with each other for status, position, rewards, and even base line benefits, such as food and housing.

Although at one level the hierarchical mass society is a functioning whole it is a fundamentally fractured unity of internally competing individual, family or class conflicts. Hierarchical mass societies are riddled with contradictions and riven with conflicts that reach deep into the most intimate personal human relationships. These contradictions and conflicts have to be patiently endured, emotionally or chemically controlled or forcibly contained, but they are never fully resolved.

This constant competition represents another form of human alienation – this time citizens are alienated from members of their own family, their own community or their own national society. Furthermore, when each hierarchical mass society runs out of sufficient ‘nature’ (ie. natural resources) to keep its citizens in the manner they have become accustomed, the logic of the elite is to expand its geographical area of exploitation. If the area sought for land or resource acquisition is already occupied, then the compelling solution for the elite is to take what they desire by force from those already relying upon it. This represents yet a third form of human alienation – this time from other human communities. This is another form of alienation within and between it’s own species.

This lack of common daily unified tasks and in particularly the continuous deadly competition between human individuals and between their societies is therefore unique among all the other forms of bacterial cell, plant, insect and animal social life forms on earth, but not unique in a good way. The resulting intra and inter-species antipathy and even hatred produced by hierarchical mass societies since they began within the last 10,000 years, is a uniquely human and late-developed species phenomenon. It is the first of it’s kind to emerge during the millions of years that the millions of other species of life on earth have evolved.

Moreover, alienation from nature and each other in the 21st century has gone even further than in previous centuries. Individual transport vehicles driving on crowded roads, has visibly and statistically increased intolerance (road rage) of other people similarly occupied. Takeaway food (just eat), video games, and working from home has isolated individuals even further from each other, and from nature. Even the working classes (or the precarious proletariat) are no longer employed to work in large numbers together as automation and artificial intelligence have reduced their numbers in factories, fields, mines, docks and offices. In the 21st century, automation, machine learning and computer-guided robotic appendages, have relegated masses of workers to a largely redundant status.

Alternatively, it has increasingly forced many of them – ironically amid modern mass societies – to eek out a contradictory individual existence in the, self-employed, dog eat dog, gig economy. Obsession with mobile phones and computer games has also dragged many individuals further away from a positive collective social reality into an individual world of frequently competitive, negative, electronic virtual realities. In these ways, the obvious long term mental health issues promoted by social competition and alienation are continually amplified by the ‘systems’ economic and financial ‘gamers’ and compounded by escapes into their profit-motivated, gadget assisted, personal fantasies.

Roy Ratcliffe (June 2023)

Another critique of capitalism I came across recently revealed yet another common misunderstanding on the anti-capitalist and pro-capitalist left. After describing some of the climate and ecological problems faced by humanity the author suggested the necessity for a revolutionary struggle to implement the following;

“….a model of socialism as one of sustainable human development.”

Here we have the abstraction ‘socialism’ articulated like some semi-religious incantation which ought to magically convince the reader to ‘believe’ in its relevance without the need for a detailed definition. This is despite its use by fascists (as in National Socialism), Stalinists (as in Socialism in one country) and Maoists (as in Socialist China), not to mention, assorted Social Democratic socialists in various countries. In reality, rather than fantasy, there is no current accepted definition of socialism and the term was so elastic in the past that its use was practically meaningless. Indeed, the term was given up by Marx in the 19th century – even before the totalitarian nightmare of Fascist socialism, and of course, the totalitarian Stalinist and Maoist socialist variants! If some people wish to resurrect the discredited and discarded idea of socialism, they should at least acknowledge and analyse it’s different historical manifestations and establish a convincing reason why the concept should not remain as an intellectual fossil to be studied by later generations.

Furthermore, the addition in the above quote of the phrase, “sustainable human development” still represents an anthropocentric and idealistic abstraction. What on earth does ‘sustainable development’ actually mean? Can continuous development ever be sustainable? Yet however it may be further defined, it is still not a ‘sustainable human development’ that should be the focus of present and future human activity. The actual problem humanity needs to solve is to ensure the sustainability of the whole, integrated, interdependent, ecological system of life on earth, not the already excessively privileged elite human section of it. This eco-system of life on earth, which prior to the creation of hierarchical mass society systems, had evolved as one inter-connected, inter-dependent ‘life on earth’ system, consequently needs urgently to return to such a condition. However, it will not return to that dynamic balance between by implementing the following advice offered to humanity.

“…revolutionary struggle in these circumstances [that] will need to evolve in two phases.” The first is an “ecodemocratic phase” in which there is a mass struggle to “demand a world of sustainable human development.” This goes over to a ‘more decisive, ecosocialist phase of the revolutionary struggle.”

The above summary, imagines the future solution to the steep existential decline hierachical mass societies are currently sliding down, is via a different form of political governance. The author or authors of the above lines has already undemocratically formulated a two stage political programme he or she wishes the rest of us to follow. A future mass struggle is imagined to somehow emerge so as “to demand a world of sustainable human development”. According to this political programme the purpose of the mass struggle is not to actively create a sustainable human development but to demand one! But demand it from whom? The answer in this scenario can only be from some future ruling hierarchical elite. The hoped for revolutionary mass struggle in this scenario is not to overthrow hierarchical elites and establish a sustainable human integration within the evolutionary cycle of life on earth, but to demand it be done for them – by a hierarchical elite.

In other words, the author thinks the problems caused by hierarchical mass society formations, can be solved by hierarchical mass society formations. First by establishing an eco-democratic hierarchical phase and then a hierarchical eco-socialist phase. The active agency demanding this course of action is imagined to be an ‘environmentally aware proletariat’. No thought is being given to the fact that the proletariat is now atomised, and split into competing occupational sections of rival, gender, ethnic, religious and numerous other alternative ‘identity’ sections. This wish list is simply an intellectually inspired fantasy. In the 21st century, there is no practical or ideological basis for a unified proletariat. This particular retro-Marxist example is part of current line of thinking that has reached back into 19th century anti-capitalist tradition in an attempt to rescue the valuable revolutionary-humanist perspectives identified by Karl Marx, but in order to plagerise these perspectives – not to update them.

Consequently, in doing so it has dragged along with it the no longer apropriate tactical means to achieve the revolutionary replacement of a capitalist based hierarchical mass society by a non-hierarchical future for humanity. It is worth reminding ourselves of what Marx actually wrote on this question when thinking about the consciousness of any class acting as the change agents altering hierarchical mass society on behalf of humanity.

“…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’; the revolution is necessary..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 the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.” (Marx. German Ideology. Section 6.)

The idea of a mass of class conscious ‘aware’ proletarians becoming revolutionary – en masse – was derived from the 19th century socio-economic industrial working conditions then in existence. However, that alteration of men on a mass scale did not take place in the 19th and 20th centuries. Indeed, the ‘muck of ages’ in terms of sectarian killing, mysogeny and racism deepened and thickened and became state sponsored, under the leadership of the middle-class radicals such as Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao and the Fascist socialisms of Mussolini and Hitler. Thus the failed industrial state-capitalist model the Leninists, and Stalinists contrived (based upon an almost complete misunderstanding of Marx) is still being implicitly if not explicitly proposed in the 21st century.

A revolutionary programme of gaining power by election (eg. early Marx on England); or by politically-led, ‘vanguards’ (eg. Bolsheviks and Maoists) consequently not only spectacularly failed but served to pile up the ‘muck of ages’ in mountainous heaps. These 20th century century ‘solutions’ failed because they remained firmly rooted within a hierarchical system and merely continued that system with a different and allegedly more ‘enlightened’ communist party elite in power. Lets be clear, to function, a hierarchical system – because it is not natural – must be ruled by force. The 19th century peasants became 20th century workers, and the revolutionary vanguard became reactionary totalitarian rulers. (See ‘Revolutionary-Humanism and the Anti-capitalist Struggle’, on this blog.)

In contrast to this nostalgic regurgitation of past practices and failures, the change in material conditions and the advance of knowledge since the late 19th century, requires a re-assessment of how the original and continuing multiple alienations of humanity and ‘nature’ identified by Marx can be ovecome and resolved in the 21st century. It is now possible to definitively know that the human species is not separate from this system of nature and that elite members of humanity should no longer be considered as being similar to a collection of Capability Browns’ tasked with imaginatively re-modeling aristocratic, overgrown landed estate. Humanity is an integral part of that integrated life-support system we call nature and it is that dynamic fluctuating ecological balance which needs to be re-established. Sadly, such misunderstood lines of reasoning are trapped within dualistic modes of thinking which still implicitly conceives humans as separate from the rest of life on earth or nature. In actual fact, humans are just one particular (egotistical) aspect of life on earth (ie. nature). Consequently, the above-noted formulation still has humans ‘regulating’ the complexity of nature, which even the best and most eco-friendly brains do not fully understand.

However the worst examples of humanity neither understand nor care about life on earth in general only about their own life on earth. Those will carry on as they see fit. These so-called socialist ‘solutions’ require hierachical social forms to continue and become the totalitarian enforcers of this ‘socialistic’ model of ending the problems created by hierarchical mass society forms. That is the socio-economic equivalent of standing in a large bucket and trying to pick yourself up by pulling upwards on the handle. An anthropocentric solution to self-inflicted anthropocentric problems cannot possibly achieve the desired results. Moreover, a dominant ruling elite will never allow such a reformist perspective to emerge. Future anti-establishment mass struggles will continue to be met with massive crackdowns and reformist diversions as they have been for decades. Although the ultimate corrective to the current malaise within nature and within hierarchical mass societies remains their complete revolutionary transformation, a completely different pathway to that end needs to be considered.

Roy Ratcliffe (2023)

During the last six months I have read numerous articles aimed at convincing people to engage with the problems of pollution, climate change, ecological loss and poverty and most of them have suggested implementing certain reforms of the existing capitalist mode of production. Only a few articles have suggested that these negative symptoms originate from the mode of production itself. Even among those who have accepted that Karl Marx had usefully contributed to understanding the problems facing humanity,  most have failed to fully understand the revolutionary-humanist perspective Marx did so much to promote.

Some have noticed that in many of his writings, Marx mentions the absolute dependence of humanity upon ‘nature’, (ie. life on earth in general) as, of course, it is the multifarious inorganic materials and millions of species of life on earth, which supply the material conditions for all forms of organic existence. Every organic life form, large or small, is nourished by absorbing some inorganic material and some organic material obtained from another life form. But he also drew attention to the social form of this human dependence on nature and correctly concluded that at any stage of human social development considered, there is a material result which includes;

“.a sum of productive forces, a historically created relation to nature, and of individuals to one another, which is handed down to each generation from its predecessor;” (‘German Ideology’ . Section 7 ‘Summary of the materialist conception of history’.)

These two primary relationships, (to nature and each other) are the fundamental basis of, and are the ‘essence’ of the human species. However, Marx noted that in hierarchical mass societies, individuals were not only alienated from each other but also from nature. He concluded that this was the result of a) the division of labour (ibid section 4)  and b) the division into classes. The generation Marx belonged to had inherited from its predecessors a hierarchical mass society based upon the domination by the owners of capital, in the areas of commerce, industry, and finance. In each of these domains of capital, its owners, related to nature and people, as sources of raw materials to be exploited as efficiently as possible.

The capitalist mode of production had also inherited from its predecessors human relationships which were based upon three classes of individuals. A ruling class of the most powerful and wealthy individuals, who owned and controlled the main means of production; a working class, that produced everything needed for society in the form of food, water, clothing and housing; and a middle class, that administered and managed the system of governance along with the further cultural aspects of production which had  arisen upon this economic foundation. Yet in  focussing upon the most recent ‘capitalist’ iteration of the hierarchical mass society forms, Marx did not ignore the fact  that the problem of alienation was implicit in the actual form of hierarchical mass societies – not simply in the latest capitalist version of them.

However, this comprehensive level of understanding of ‘alienation’ has frequently failed to enter or in some cases to remain in the general consciousness of all three social classes and has also eluded many of those who have accepted that Marx had made important contributions to understanding the human condition. Consequently, many self-proclaimed ‘Marxists’ have assumed that it is the capitalist form of hierarchical mass society which is the problem for humanity and ‘nature’, and not the hierarchical form itself. Thus, suggestions most ‘marxists’ have made, both past and present, have sought to deal only with the capitalistic element of modern hierarchical mass societies. Thus a recent example of such partial understanding asserts the following;

“Any society “extracts its natural-material use values” from nature, but “in a capitalist commodity economy, this realm of second nature takes on an alienated form, dominated by exchange value rather than use value, leading to a rift in the universal metabolism.” This contradiction arises out of the particular way in which capitalism goes about transforming the natural world through collective labor. This leads to a “rupture by capitalist production of the “eternal natural conditions,” constituting the “robbery” of the earth itself.”

The first phrase is essentially correct, however, after the word “but” the rest assumes that capitalism is the cause of the “rupture” of the “eternal natural conditions” and “robbery of the earth itself”. This reveals an incomplete understanding which then concludes that  it is capitalism which is the obstacle and that overturning the capitalist form of hierarchical mass society will solve the current problems for humanity and nature. The continuing logic of such a half grasped understanding of the problem therefore goes on to suggests  solutions which are not actually solutions but a continuance of hierarchical mass society forms under a different type of hierarchy. Thus:

”This (overturn) will mean “a vast redirection of society’s social surplus to genuine human requirements and ecological sustainability as opposed to the giant treadmill of production generated by the profit system.” Such a transformation can only occur in “a society directed to use value rather than exchange value.” (emphasis added RR)

A redirection of the existing vast social surpluses assumes this vastness will continue and I suggest presumes some socio-political force will do the redirecting, which in hierarchical mass society formations will be sections of the existing or an alternative hierarchy. Furthermore directing production toward use value, rather than exchange value – within a hierarchical mass society – will not reduce alienation or over-production, nor pollution, nor the abuse of other life forms.  The consequential unbalancing of the fundamental evolutionary  (N-M-G-R + A-D) processes of life on earth will continue. The evidence for suggesting this lies in the historical record.

Use value production in ancient hierarchical mass society formations did not eliminate overproduction, over consumption, species loss, human created ecological destruction and periodic  warfare between rival hierarchical systems over resources. Whatever social system  is to replace the hierarchical mass society form in the future will therefore, need to avoid a) strict divisions of labour and b) divisions of influence and control based upon any elite determined criteria. This may also mean a sub-division of mass societies into more manageable numbers. The key orientation points for all  life on earth is to ensure that Nourishment, Metabolism, Growth, Reproduction plus Ageing and Dying (N-M-G-R + A-D) are adequate for, but not detrimental to, all forms of life on earth. Moreover, the collective wisdom and not the elite selected wisdom of human communities,  would need to be directly engaged with decisions affecting life on earth as a whole.

For it is neither collective labour in the abstract nor production for exchange values which causes human alienation and a rift in the relationship between humanity and nature. That rupture exists in all forms of hierarchical mass society formations.  Capitalism is merely the most recent and extreme iteration of this hierarchical form, but with such technological advances that make this form qualitatively and quantitatively  different than previous hierarchical mass society forms. However, it should not be forgotten that the alienation of humans from humans and humans from the rest of life on earth began from the earliest forms of hierarchical mass societies. In other words from ancient Sumer, Babylon, Egypt and beyond. The dualistic divisions of labour between rulers and ruled, between productive and unproductive labour, between male and female, also existed during the later Persian, Greek, Roman and Islamic Empires. These dualistic divisions are both the cause and consequence of the alienation embedded in modes of production based upon the hierarchical mass society form.

This is why alienation and the rupture within humanity and between humanity and nature, existed not only under ancient modes of production and continued within societies dominated by capital. It is also why these two fundamental disorders continued in those  hierarchical state-capitalist mass societies, hiding under the linguistic disguises of ‘fascism, ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’.  Class divisions, wage-labour, exploitation, of people and nature continued and even intensified under these different descriptive labels which were applied to the same old hierarchical mass society form.

Roy Ratcliffe (June 2023)

The current stage of the capitalist mode of production is causing, climate change, widespread air, land, fresh and sea water pollution, along with ecological destruction. As a consequence more and more voices are being raised calling for remedial action. These calls are aimed at slowing down the rate of exploitation and degradation of the inorganic and organic material of the world. They rarely contain proposals to end these symptoms completely. It helps to understand that such limited reformist calls to introduce measures to restrict the symptoms, are invariably driven by two sets of motives.

The first group of motives emanate from people who actually enjoy advantages from the existing hierarchical mass society systems. Consequently they do not want to undermine the system which produces and guarantees, those advantages. Nevertheless, they do not want too many disadvantages to accumulate and impede upon their own future lives or the futures of their children. The second set of motives come from people, who may or may not enjoy advantages, but who think that private ownership of the means of production is the cause of social inequality and ecological destruction.

The first set of voices, want the existing legal systems of states to enact and enforce tougher restrictions upon those activities which produce the destructive symptoms noted above. Logically they comprise of a spectrum of Conservative seekers of top-down totalitarian solutions. The second set of voices want the state itself to enact and enforce such restrictions. Logically the latter are a spectrum of socialist seekers of top-down totalitarian solutions. From within a dualitic way of thinking, both these tendencies may wish to consider themselves (or be considered by others) as complete opposites, but that would be a mistake.

This is because both tendencies are united in the wish to continue the hierarchical mass society form of living. They just differ over which pool of political dogmatists they desire the ruling hierarchy to be drawn from. Despite superficial appearances, in the complex dialectics of real life, Capitalism, Imperialism, Fascism and Stalinism, are only opposed to each other politically – not economically or socially. Only those trapped in a dualistic habit of thinking could suppose otherwise. All the above tendencies are reactionary because they all to wish conserve the essential structure of hierarchical mass societies.

It is actually the acceptance of these socio-economic structures as natural which has become  the prime cause of social and ecological conflict and disintegration. If the readers is in doubt about this reasoning,  just compare the economic, financial, social and political actions against life on earth – and ordinary people – of the present ruling elites in as diverse a group of regimes as those in China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Greece etc. The current 21st century office holders of national financial, economic, political and military power are no different in this regard than their predecessors were in the 20th century.

The labels they chose back then were either Fascist; Socialist; Communist; Liberal; Social Democratic or Populist. However, by sensibly avoiding simplistic dualistic distortions, it becomes clear (for those who want to see) that all these labels served to disguise the same old dish of fetid hierarchical mass society top-down corruption, bribery and inhumanity. Consequently, all those groups of reformist hopefuls who campaign for one or other of these political forms to replace any other, are inappropriately clutching at straws.

Political ideas and practices are the distorted and distorting results of fundamental social and economic divisions; they are not the solution to humanities problems. Since the problems that all ‘life on earth’ faces are caused by humanities current mode of production, based upon socio-economic divisions, the solutions require revolutionary socio-economic changes. Consequently, in hierarchical mass society systems, clutching onto political straws is ultimately useless;  the waters are metaphorically, as well as literally, polluted and rising fast.

The class systems of modern hierarchical mass societies are such that a relative small majority of the elite class hold all the institutions of power and influence. They will not introduce any reform which will restrict the income-producing activities of most powerful sections of their own class. Second, there is a sizable middle class who, despite any difficulties they are currently experiencing, do not wish for anything other than to preserve the existing system. Their long and short-term ‘hope’ is to encourage  the elite to soon have enough sense to reign in the worst culprits of pollution and eco-destruction. Other than that for them it is business as usual.

Even though most working class people know the current system represents a dead end, they no longer have any vision or understanding that other modes of production are possible. Currently they have been limited to making the best they can within the existing rapidly deteriorating setup. It has become clear to most of them that the 19th and 20th century idea that democratic systems set up by the elites will, allow a gradual transition to a more humane and ecologically sustainable socio-economic system, is an illusion. Allowing lengthy rational discussion and healthy honest debates was always part of the plan to wear working class activists down whilst shaming or flattering them. In the 21st century, the Parliamentary road to social improvement is now for careerists only.

Furthermore, what is true and what is false in the public domain has long been a matter of manipulated opinion, spun by artful spin-doctors and just lately is assisted by computer-aided artificial intelligence. The Orwellian nightmare of “NewSpeak” is currently everywhere. Citizen “Thought Police” stalk the Internet 24/7 looking for “Thought Crimes” and then hurry to “UNPERSON” any perceived offender. What we see and what we hear in peace as well as war, is being increasingly artificially manipulated or deceitfully ‘forged’.  All this ‘interference’ within public and private communication networks suggests that the whole system will have to fundamentally collapse before enough chaff and clutter is dispersed to allow clarity to emerge.

Perhaps it is only then that humanity will be able to break free of the hierarchical mass society form of living and begin to construct humane and ecologically sustainable socio-economic forms. Certainly, the systems internal and external contradictions, are increasing exponentially and looking ever more likely to explode in social unrest or geological disaster of one kind or another. Meanwhile, as many as possible should oppose and expose the distortions and manipulations designed to sow confusion. In this latter regard, I encourage readers to consider reading the following excelent article ‘Stalin will never be Redeemable’, by Alex Skopic.  For me its  one weakness is to only consider  the personifications involved in the hierarchical mass society structure that was  being created by the Leninists,  Stalinists and Trotsktists – and not the structure itself. The article  is  located at;

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2023/03/stalin-will-never-be-redeemable

My thanks to Randy Gould for drawing my attention to yet another important analysis.

Roy Ratcliffe (April 2023)

In the United States of America there has long been a simmering war between the the Republican Party elites and those of the Democratic Party. With the election of Donald Trump to President in 2017, the temperature between the two political wings of the USA’s ruling class, increased from simmering to boiling. The animosity between them was seen by all sides as existential – both politically and personally. Since Trumps election the elders of the Democratic Party have been out to destroy him politically and in this way ensure he can never again seriously damage or debunk their own sham pretensions to care for anything other than their own personal and class interests.

Neither Party is concerned about the welfare of the working classes and the poor, therefore they are both essentially correct when in order to garner votes they vehemently accuse each other of that fact. The primary concern for both these political wings of the US elite is the preservation of their own wealth and status and their retention of substantial control of the state system that guarantees both. Metaphorically speaking Republicans and Democrats are like the two sides of an officially minted coin. After being spun up in the hot air of debate, whichever side lands face up wins and thus the entire coin remains an essential and functional part of the electoral system.

However, during the entire Democratic Party campaign against the Republican Donald Trump, the media commentators covering this political struggle have completely misunderstood the historic nature of the current situation in the US and elsewhere. Political strife such as this animated and ill-disposed jousting between the two sides is just a surface disturbance of a system in structural meltdown. The fact that the Democratic Party has been able to mobilise the US state apparatus to assist in the disarming of Donald Trump may have temporarily assisted Democratic Party ambitions to severely restrict the activities of their elite rivals and thus maintain their own hold on political power. But it hasn’t changed the reality of 21st century economic, financial and ecological living, and reality is ultimately the determining factor.

Moreover, this particular tactic of displacing the Donald in the hope of a future Democratic victory has come at the cost of revealing the underlying economic and political forces now at play in the USA. Trumps pre-Presidential speeches about ‘draining the swamp’ has, of course, earned him the hatred of those government officials who are employed in the bloated bureaucratic state apparatuses of administration and control which all modern capitalist mass societies have found necessary to dampen down the violent social contradictions. But these non-productive bureaucracies along with the theatrical performances by politicians and the media over Trump are not solutions in the making, but symptoms of capitalism in its present crisis stage of dysfunctional control and economic over-production.

Economically and thus also financially, there is too much global productive capacity for their combined products to be profitably sold. This in turn has led to global levels of unemployment and low-paid employment, both of which over decades have reduced even further the purchasing power and tax paying ability of the masses. This reduction in the rate of economic profits and wages has led to a reduction in government income from tax revenue, and thus to a huge pressure on the political aspects of reigning in fictitious government debt. To preserve their own wealth and status, both sides of the political elite are needing to bail out the economically rich and reduce the living standards of the economically poor by reducing their incomes and the services they pay for.

With the arrest of Donald Trump, in 2023, the huge weight of the state has been thrown by the elite against a rogue member of their own class. He is now slightly suffering from what many ordinary people fear most – state persecution, dressed up as prosecution. It is also what millions of people have already experienced in one way or another. Many more ordinary people will now possibly think; ‘if they can do this to a powerful member of their own class, then what chance have we’? Thus, for many Americans the ‘establishment’ by it’s own actions, will be confirmed as being potentially if not actually seriously hostile to nearly everyone except their own current cronies. Moreover, for some US citizens, Trump will be mistakenly seen as a ‘fellow’ martyr and a determined anti-establishment activist. Indeed, his recent histrionic statement that; “they are out to get you, but I stand in their way”, shows that he anticipates that very possibility.

In actual fact, crisis or not, the US system with either elite party in power will be out to exploit and oppress anyone who lives within it, whether they seriously opposes it or not. Despite some peoples hopes, Donald Trump, will not stand in the systems way when it continues to move against ordinary working people. That perception is just the result of repeated verbal smoke and mirrors delivered by Trumps political dexterity. Didn’t he appoint reactionary judges, enthusiastically embrace dictators and make his money by exploiting working people? He is obviously a dedicated supporter of the capitalist mode of production. His only substantial difference with sections of the current US state bureaucracy and the Democratic Party faction, is over who gets what from exploiting the workforce and milking the tax payer and in how to manage the present and future crisis.

Whether Trump eventually gets knocked out of politics all together, or stages an effective come back, he knows as well as Biden and the Democrats, that the anger and disturbance at the Senate, they have now labelled the ‘6 January uprising’, is only a precursor of things to come. The recent events in Britain, France and Iran, indicate that these anti-establishment activities are not restricted to just one country – they have been globally simmering since the days of the Arab Spring. However, it will be the reluctance of the entire US elite establishment to revolutionise their inhumane mode of production, which will actually summon any future sustained uprisings by those in the US suffering from the present social and ecological disharmony. Meanwhile, the politicians and media continue to ignore the glaring fact that an alternative idiosyncratic politician, can only win an election, as Trump did, or trigger followers into a partial or full-blown uprising, if there is already a deep seated and long-simmering resentment among the masses.

It is the human aspiration not to lie down, suffer and die without a struggle which will fuel future rebellions and uprisings. It will not be the whims of a devious man with a blonde quiff and a fake tan. But of course, a criminal conviction by any consistent anti-establishment individual will not be viewed by desperate masses in the same way as the ‘respectable‘ middle classes currently view them. In the 20th century, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and Hitler, with far less power, wealth and influence than any modern politician, had criminal records and/or spent time in jail. However, they also managed to rise to power as anti-establishment figures by appealing to – heightened anti-establishment feelings – and to the desperate plight of the masses. They then easily out manoeuvred and overcame extremely sophisticated aristocratic and bourgeois political and military elites.

And the rest, as they say (including the Second World War, 1939-45) – is history! Except perhaps to add, that history often does have a habit of repeating itself, particularly now that the underlying international crisis has become essentially the same as the one in the 1920’s and 30’s. For example, increasing unemployment and deteriorating conditions. Also, Putins invasion and carpet bombing of Ukraine is looking a lot like a demented cross between World War One trench warfare and a World War Two fire-bombing from the air. Hopefully by now, however, a new generation of working people will have time to learn from history not to trust leaders who naively or mischievously promise improved futures whilst defending and retaining a class based, hierarchical form of mass society, based on capital and wage labour.

Roy Ratcliffe. (April 2023)