Intellectual servility a curse of mankind

“The earth has enough for everyone’s need, but not for everyone’s greed.”

Is it true that the State is an institution which was developed for the very purpose of establishing monopolies in favour of the slave and serf owners, the landed proprietors, canonic and laic, the merchant guilds and the moneylenders, the kings, the military commanders, the “noble-men,” and finally, in the nineteenth century, the industrial capitalists, whom the State supplied with “hands” driven away from the land?

Today we may see that people are become more enslaved and instead of going forwards we start retarding, going back to worse situations than the ‘Golden Sixties’.

The Trade Unions are not any-more what they were installed for. The ones in charge take care that their position is secured and that the money in the till brings in enough revenue. Ho far do they want to go to protect the employee today? How far do they want to go to protect the liberty of the ordinary people?

Today lots of people do think they live in a free democratic country, but how much are they not terrorised by the fear of loosing a job or losing opportunities to develop healthy and secure? Today the individual is not so free any more because that freedom of his or her is limited by fear: by the fear of a social or a mystical punishment, or by obedience, either to other men reputed to be his superiors, or to mystical and metaphysical entities — which leads in both cases to intellectual servility (one of the greatest curses of mankind) and to the lowering of the moral level of men.

English: Peter Kropotkin (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Robert Graham writes in his blog Kropotkin: The Anarchist Revolution about one of the  exponents of anarchist communism or anarcho-communism, free communism, libertarian communism, as this movement is known. One of the men who advocated the abolition of the state, capitalism, wages and private property (while retaining respect for personal property). And that last one is very important to have, because people do have to have some incentive for the good work they do and have to be remunerated for the extra works they do. When there is no reward for the better work than an other person doing the same job, people would lose interest to give more of themselves for the job.

A logo for the branch of Anarchy named Anarcho-Communism or Anarchic Communism. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The world has to be aware that there is always a form of egoism in each individual and a form of self-pride and a demand of self-respect and requirement of recognition and respect. Some forms of anarchist communism such as insurrectionary anarchism are strongly influenced by egoism and radical individualism, believing anarcho-communism is the best social system for the realization of individual freedom. {Christopher Gray, Leaving the Twentieth Century, p. 88}

Bob Black (Robert Charles Black, Jr.) at the Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed” table, attending the 2011 Bay Area Anarchist Bookfair. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Post-left anarcho-communist Bob Black after analysing insurrectionary anarcho-communist Luigi Galleani‘s view on anarcho-communism went as far as saying that “communism is the final fulfillment of individualism…The apparent contradiction between individualism and communism rests on a misunderstanding of both…Subjectivity is also objective: the individual really is subjective. It is nonsense to speak of “emphatically prioritizing the social over the individual,”…You may as well speak of prioritizing the chicken over the egg. Anarchy is a “method of individualization.” It aims to combine the greatest individual development with the greatest communal unity.” {Bob Black. Nightmares of Reason.}

Inside Utrecht Giveaway shop. The banner reads “The earth has enough for everyone’s need, but not for everyone’s greed.”

Each person has to have something of his own and has to have the free choice to do what he or she wants to do with the own capital. Also people should be allowed to share ideas with others for free but also to receive gifts for the given things. Gift economy (or gift culture) is a mode of exchange where valuable goods and services are regularly given without any explicit agreement for immediate or future rewards (i.e. no formal quid pro quo exists). In societies where there was some economical problem we could see such gift economies brought some solutions for people to stay a life. Traditional societies dominated by gift exchange were small in scale and geographically remote from each other. As states formed to regulate trade and commerce within their boundaries, market exchange came to dominate. Nonetheless, the practice of gift exchange continues to play an important role in modern society. More and more we also see the ‘Split’, ‘Re-use’ or ‘Giveaway’ shops bringing products from one consumer to an other for a very law price, the giver receiving no funds, but the person who wants the goods contributing something, so that the shop can stay in existing (having to pay for the premisses, people who restore broken products etc.)

A lovely evolution today is the expansion of the Internet which has witnessed a resurgence of the gift economy, especially in the technology sector. Engineers, scientists and software developers create open-source software projects, and many bloggers write unpaid but can share their ideas and knowledge with others. Everybody can use their own knowledge to enrich others and learn again from others who know more about other matters and offer their knowledge for free on the international web.

We should all know that we may be blessed if we have certain gifts. We should be happy when we got the opportunity of a certain education or when we have the ability either to use our brains or our hands to do a certain work, which others are not so sufficient in doing so. The love for the other should give that we are willing to share that what we have with others. Working together and sharing with each other we can enrich each other and help each other to live in a better world.
Human nature is created by God and organized society should respect that and not try to fight it.  We all have received the free will, because the Creator is not a tyrant or dictator, but some spirit who demands that every individual makes their own choice, and as such is responsible for their own choices. According to the Holy Scriptures man can not claim that he did something because of an other being or so called devil. The Bible is clear that the devil or Satan is the adversary of God, the one (any person on this earth) who goes in against the Laws of God.

Anarcho-communists advocate a gift economy as an ideal, with neither money, nor markets, nor central planning. This view traces back at least to Peter Kropotkin, who saw in the hunter-gatherer tribes he had visited the paradigm of “mutual aid“.

Robert Graham writes:

The Anarchists conceive a society in which all the mutual relations of its members are regulated, not by laws, not by authorities, whether self-imposed or elected, but by mutual agreements between the members of that society and by a sum of social customs and habits — not petrified by law, routine, or superstition, but continually developing and continually readjusted, in accordance with the ever-growing requirements of a free life, stimulated by the progress of science, invention, and the steady growth of higher ideals.

No ruling authorities, then. No government of man by man; no crystallization and immobility, but a continual evolution — such as we see in Nature. Free play for the individual, for the full development of his individual gifts — for his individualization. In other words, no actions are imposed upon the individual by a fear of punishment; none is required from him by society, but those which receive his free acceptance. In a society of equals this would be quite sufficient for preventing those unsociable actions that might be harmful to other individuals and to society itself, and for favouring the steady moral growth of that society…

Religious colonizer Johann Georg Rapp (George Rapp) 1757–1847

In the past many people who believe in the Divine Creator were conscious about our task in this world and how we should love our fellow brethren and sisters, people living around us on the same globe. The Dutch Mennonites in the 17th and 18th century tried to establish such communities where everybody tried to be a valuable asset to the community. Some German Pietists followed their example and George Rapp founded the Harmony in Pennsylvania and Harmony in Indiana.

Many people, especially North Americans and Canadians, today are still so much afraid of something that smells as something they would consider communist. Cooperatives seem for them something to be afraid of. Though Robert Owen in 1825 was not afraid to found New Harmony, when he purchased Harmony from the Rappites. It sponsored the first kindergarten in the United States, the first trade school, the first free library, and the first community-supported public school in America. It has done so much good to the American population of which they still bear the benefits today.

Many may think it is impossible to get a working society based on communal associations of producers, but I do still believe in it.

In case more people would be willing to share their crafts with others we can grow. When more people would not mind to share their efforts, taking care that there is a cooperative agricultural community bearing responsibility for the social welfare of the individual, and a technological organisation providing the necessary tools to make labour much easier, we should be able to make a more comfortable world.

The system of capitalism can only survive when people consume enough. Today we see that the consumers are so much afraid of the future that they do not dare to buy many products or have not enough cash to afford much expenditure. So the system gets smoked.

Instead of creating individual small self-existent communities people, not satisfied with home grown vegetables, wanted their products coming from far away countries, not taking into account the footprint for the ecological system.

For too long, the rules of Wall Street have been written by the bankers themselves. In many countries it our the banks who govern and the politicians are just the puppets on a string. In the States as well as in Europe we see the consequences of the greed of those in charge of the economical market and in charge of the government and state institutions. The ordinary man in the street was fooled by constructive plans of the banks and the result was the financial crisis that cost millions of jobs, along with billions in taxpayer-funded bailouts, and trillions of dollars/euros in pension funds, home values, and retirement savings.

Perhaps it is getting time people would take up again the writings of Alexander Hearken, Peter Larva, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Prince Kropotkin, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. Others like Karl Marx and Frederick Engels accused Fourier of being “utopian” and attempted to develop a more scientific theory of socialism. I still consider some of their and mine ideas very utopian, but we may never loose sight nor hope and those who believe in such systems should continue to strive for it.

French philosopher and Utopian socialist François Marie Charles Fourier (1772-1837)

+

Preceding: Angry at the greedy state

Daniel Guérin: Three Problems of the Revolution (1958)

++

Anarchist Communism Flag (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Please do read:

1. About one of my preferred theorists, Charles Fourier (born April 7, 1772, Besançon, Fr.—died Oct. 10, 1837, Paris), son of a cloth merchant, who after serving the French Army worked as a clerk in Lyon: in the Encyclopaedia Britannica + in Spartacus Educational + Charles Fourier facts
2. Charles Fourier and Fourierism
3. The Utopian Socialists: Charles Fourier
   Romantics were liberals, conservatives, rationalists, idealists, Catholics, atheists, revolutionaries and reactionaries. Their essential message, however, was that the imagination of the individual should determine the form and content of all art. Such an attitude ran counter to the judgments of the Enlightenment.
   The Romantics attacked the philosophes because they had turned man into a soulless thinking machine, a robot. Christianity had formed a matrix into which medieval man found understanding. The Enlightenment replaced the medieval matrix with the matrix of Newtonian physics. For the Romantics, the result of all this was the demotion of the individual. Imagination, sensitivity, feeling, spontaneity and freedom were stifled, choked to death. Man must liberate himself. Like Rousseau, one of their spiritual fathers, the individual must rediscover true freedom. Habits, rules, traditions and standards imposed by rational society must be lifted. Man must be liberated.
4. The New World of Communal Activity (1829)
5. The False Division of Labour (1835)

+++

Related articles

• The Role of the Anarchists in the Russian Revolution and Civil War, 1917-1921: A Case Study in Conspiratorial Party Behavior during Revolution. John W. Copp. Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1992. (gulaganarchists.wordpress.com)
  There is strong evidence that anarchism was popular among the working class and some evidence that it appealed to the peasantry.
  +
  One of Copp’s most interesting points is about how anarchists came to cooperate with the Bolsheviks: ‘The key philosophical element which made it possible for many anarchists to alter their perception of the Bolsheviks seems to have been the centrality of the concept of revolution in the anarchist belief system.
• Defending Anarcho-Capitalism: A response to the comments of ‘Voice of Treason’ (politiker.co.uk)
  In this piece, I will attempt to answer some of the points raised by ‘Voice of Treason’ in his rebuttal of Olly Neville’s recent article for The Backbencher: ‘The Idiocy of Minarchy’. The arguments expounded are interesting in that they highlight some common misconceptions regarding anarcho-capitalism and those who ascribe to this political philosophy. ‘Voice of Treason’ begins by stating that:“Certain goods are public goods. Explain how you build an effective road or railway network only through voluntary transactions between individuals? They require large-scale collective action and everyone benefits from the result – so everyone should pay. More to the point, how does one provide comprehensive care for the disabled, the old or orphaned? It’s not enough just to say “leave it to the kind and generous to make provision”, because that rewards selfishness. Mind you, anarcho-capitalists see no problem with selfishness (or am I being unfair?). As far as I can see, that will result in a society in which a feckless and selfish group leeches off the efforts of a generous and industrious group – i.e. exactly the society we have now.”+I would certainly dispute anyone who holds the “to hell with laws” sentiment if that law they were lampooning happened to be natural rights-based Rothbardian property rights and its derivatives. I worry that ‘Voice of Treason’ is once again equating moral individualism (Ayn Rand’s misanthropic nonsense) with the just application of property rights, which forms the cornerstone of anarcho-capitalist political philosophy.
  +
  Voice of Treason (@InsaneGibberish) writes: There are a lot of disciples of Ayn Rand out there who call themselves ‘anarcho-capitalists’ and who would disagree vehemently with you on this.
  +
  One of the greatest capitalists of all time, J. D. Rockefeller, declared “Competition is a sin.” As a businessman, he was right. What you’re advocating is simply anarchism; nothing capitalist about it, unless you think that anarchism doesn’t recognise property rights? This is a common misconception from the right.
• ‘Disarm the Republican Anarchists’ (lewrockwell.com)
  Let me note that most anarcho-capitalists are not involved in politics, which is a government scam, after all. But it is interesting to see the propagandists for the State using the word anarchist more and more. They realize that Rothbardians are their most effective opponents.
• Green Anarchy (refuzrezist.wordpress.com)
  This primer is not meant to be the “defining principles” for a green anarchist “movement,” nor an anti-civilization manifesto. It is a look at some of the basic ideas and concepts which collective members share with each other, and with others who identify as green anarchists. We understand and celebrate the need to keep our visions and strategies open, and always welcome discussion. We feel that every aspect of what we think and who we are constantly needs to be challenged and remain flexible if we are to grow. We are not interested in developing a new ideology, nor perpetuating a singular world-view.
  We also understand that not all green anarchists are specifically anti-civilization (but we do have a hard time understanding how one can be against all domination without getting to its roots: civilization itself). At this point, however, most who use the term “green anarchist” do indict civilization and all that comes along with it (domestication, patriarchy, division of labor, technology, production, representation, alienation, objectification, control, the destruction of life, etc.). While some would like to speak in terms of direct democracy and urban gardening, we feel it is impossible and undesirable to “green up” civilization and/or make it more “fair.”
  We feel that it is important to move towards a radically decentralized world, to challenge the logic and mindset of the death-culture, to end all mediation in our lives, and to destroy all the institutions and physical manifestations of this nightmare. We want to become uncivilized. In more general terms, this is the trajectory of green anarchy in thought and practice.
• Anarcho-Capitalism: So Crazy, It Just Might Work! (reason.com)
  George Mason University economist, and advocate of anarcho-capitalism, Bryan Caplan explains why details of the ideological history of human attitudes toward methods and techniques of government show that ideas that almost everyone dismisses offhand as nutty and impossible can and in fact have come to dominate our political culture.
  +
  A thousand years ago, everyone was used to despotism.   No one expected a defeated incumbent to voluntarily hand over power.  As a result, refusing to hand over power didn’t seem crazy.  Since it didn’t seem crazy, incumbents who refused to hand over power after losing an election probably would have managed to retain power.
• Spain protesters accuse EU of servility to markets (politicalcrazyness.tumblr.com)
  Thousands of protesters marched Saturday in Madrid and other cities in Spain against European Union leaders’ handling of the financial crisis, condemning “an EU that belongs to the markets”.
• Zero-hours Britain: A return to the nineteenth century (condercum.wordpress.com)
  We hear much from all three political parties about the need ‘for work to pay’, yet hundreds of thousands of workers are being exploited in this way. Unable to budget, unable to forecast, unable to plan family and social time off work, and unable to complain or speak out for genuine fear of being sacked with no right to seek redress at an Employment Tribunal. Those who can, will rely on the state to top-up their incomes, but for most state assistance will be out of reach. Yet at the same time governments can report lower unemployment and higher employment, while ignoring the plight of these zero-hour workers who are fast becoming akin to the Victorian underclass.
• A Microeconomic Defence of Trade Unions (barelysifted.wordpress.com)
  We all know that monopolies are a bad thing. In a market, both buyers and sellers will trade on terms within the zone of possible agreement. The “point” in that zone that they decide to trade at though, is heavily influenced by market concentration. If there are fewer buyers than sellers, then the buyers will be able to demand a better price than if there were more buyers than sellers. This can happen even without active collusion between them.
• CITU meet underscores continued unity of TUs (thehindu.com)
  The refrain of the trade union leaders who addressed the inaugural session of the five-day conference, which began at the ‘Comrade M.K. Pandhe Nagar’ at the Police Maidan, was the need of continued unity among fraternal trade union organisations at a time when the democratic rights of the working class were under attack.
  +
  Stressing the need of the unity to defend the workers’ right to collective bargaining now being taken away, the CITU president said the trade unions had decided to write to the Prime Minister to urge upon him to respond to the demands of the working class and take the initiative to have a serious discussion with the trade unions on issues such as minimum wage, ‘contractisation’ of labour and job security, among others.“The fruit of growth has not reached the ordinary worker as it has been taken away by the upper crust,” he said adding that the united struggle had made multinational corporations to come to terms with the demands of the working class.
• Anarchist Ancestors: Anarchism in Mexico
  Pre-conquest, some of the indigenous peoples of what is today Mexico had decisionmaking structures based on participation, discussion, and consensus, hallmarks of modern anarchism.
  +
  In 1824, the utopian socialist Robert Owen unsuccessfully tried to acquire a district of fifty leaguesto develop a colony in the Mexican provinces of Coahuila and Texas along the same principles set forth in New Harmony.
  +
  In 1861 the Greek Plotino Rhodakanaty tried to implement the ideas of Fourier and Proudhonduring the administration of President Comonfort. He published Cartilla Socialista a manual explaining the ideas of Fourier. Some of his adepts like Francisco Zalacosta, Santiago Villanueva, and Hermenegildo Villavicencio, became the first worker’s rights activists in Mexico. Other students of Rhodakanaty founded a school called “La Social, Sección Internacionalista” followingBakunin. These activists organized one of the first mutualist societies in Mexico. Mutualism is the preferred term for anarchism by the Mexican authorities.