💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › thompson-socialrevolution-anarchism-7.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:24:03. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Social Revolution and Anarchism Author: Kalin Thompson Date: 5/25/18 Language: en Topics: Anarchism, Socialism, Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Collectivism, Revolutionary Socialism, Revolutionary Anarchism, Anarcha-Feminism, Democratic Confederalism, Class Struggle
The reason I am writing this today is to merely explain my take on
vertical organization, the history and nature of such organization, and
the history and nature of competition, and how vertical organization and
competition are connected, as well as propose an alternative. To
understand where I’m coming from with this, you need to understand where
my position comes from. It will be kind of humorous, it might make some
of you think “how can anybody take this man seriously?” trust me I
question that myself. But this is how it happened.
What drove me to start writing this was a long history of questions,
stemmed from at least an early age. I remember my pretend stories at the
age of four having a more revolutionary nature, where people overcome an
oppressive foe. Where these ideas and stories derive from is unknown,
but I don’t remember a time when I found myself unquestioning of
authority. In later years, my family would be subject to the 2008
Recession. Us being incredibly poor prior to the recession only made our
situation during the recession dire.
The nature of our suffering preceding and even more so during the
recession made me question why such an event could ever be allowed to
happen. In many cases were almost evicted, which led me to question why
anybody would evict others from their homes because they were too poor
to afford it. This led me to conclude that there were people in this
world with a lack of heart. At the time, considering my conclusions now,
it may seem childish conclusion but not very far from the truth. Over
the years I would understand power relations through a self-driven
effort to understand different forms of government and administration.
As a child born and raised slightly above the poverty line and used to a
life of rationing, I dreamed of a world where no one needed to ration.
If you think the childish dreams are over, think again. What drove me in
the political position I am today is but one line in Star Trek: First
Contact said by Captain Picard: “money doesn’t exist in the 24^(th)
century.” Being but an 8-year-old child impoverished child in the middle
of one of the most terrible market failures in history, a world without
money would mean a world without poverty, as money and wealth inequality
was the direct root cause of poverty. My mind would teem with ideals
such as free distribution of wants and goods, and the production of
these goods being solely for making others happy. Of course, as time
went on, my childish fantasies would fade, but the goal wouldn’t. The
goal for a world without the inequality of wealth, without the
accumulation, investment, and exchange of monetary items would continue,
but the reasoning behind it would mature from an argument for personal
desire to a moral cause.
This led me to research the different forms government and organization
could take. The idea of a confederation of communities stuck out to me
most. Being a thirteen-year-old who knew a lot of history and beginning
to grasp the power of hierarchies and the monetary economy saw a
confederation as a freer alternative than the consolidating nature of a
unitary state and the division and layered powers of a federation. My
plight was what predominated my political drive, but as I entered my
teens, the plight of others would drive me even further. Ferguson, the
Occupy movement, Treyvon Martin, party politics, job crises, the Syrian
civil war, occupation of Crimea, all these events opened my eyes to the
System and its nature. Black Lives Matter, Feminism, and my introduction
to Socialism and the worker’s movement solidified my path to the
Libertarian Left.
My introduction to Socialism wasn’t picking up the Communist Manifesto,
but in fact it came from reading online forums, and many of my early
ideas regarding Socialism was in fact not really Socialism but on par
with Social Democracy. I would soon learn my error and understand the
flaws with a centralized economy as a fully adopted a confederal
alternative. I would also understand that I couldn’t have a market
without money and monetary exchange and accumulation, so it was quick
after my discovery of the word “Socialism” I would find myself believing
in real, worker-ownership, seize the means of production Socialism
without even touching a book by a Socialist.
Now, I believed in Socialism, but what I lacked was an idea on how to
get to Socialism. When I was fifteen, upon hearing Bernie Sander’s
campaign on “Democratic Socialism”, and researching Democratic
Socialism, two things happened: I realized Bernie wasn’t a Democratic
Socialist and that Democratic Socialism was essentially reforming
society into Socialism. I became a Democratic Socialist. I would write
ideas of my confederal Socialist alternative, including one that
resembled Syndicalism, and even a confederation of independent worker’s
units that would parallel the confederation of communities. How they
became Socialist was usually something including building a community
movement that would grow into a powerful political alternative. Let me
remind you, even at this point, sixteen-year-old me still hadn’t touched
a book by a Socialist, not even the Manifesto.
My pursuit into Feminism was even more troublesome. I still have trouble
remembering, but I know from an early age I said to my dad “boys and
girls should be equal.” That would later drive a wedge between me and
other young boys and girls, each believing they were better than the
other sex. I at first believed in that jargon, but the recession somehow
pressed a special button in me that made me more respectful and took
away that discriminating filter. Something clicked, and at some point, I
was talking to everybody the same way I did when I was three-years-old
and unaware of sexual difference. I wouldn’t have any desire to spend my
time with just boys or just girls, I was ok with spending my time with
anybody, and thought the whole idea of specific roles assigned to me
without my consent being utter shit. What was wrong with me crying when
I’m sad? What was wrong with girls having short hair? These questions
would evolve in maturity and only create more questions with few
answers.
I learned about the term “Feminism” when I was thirteen years old and
was immediately drawn in to the ideology’s goals of achieving gender
equality. I carefully ignored anti-feminist forums, because they always
lack basic knowledge on what real Feminism is and learned about Feminism
from actual Feminists. I became disillusioned with the Feminist movement
I was aware of when I took the title of “Socialist”. Most Feminists I
had lived around were Liberal Feminists and supported Capitalism. I
would somewhat succumb to the anti-Feminist jargon preached by the
Amazing Atheist and other online anti-Feminists, but what dragged me
away from that intellectual hole was an off-kind of feeling I felt, I
felt what I was succumbing to was wrong. This would make me further
research Feminism again and find Marxist Feminism and Anarchist
Feminism. However, finding these gems took a lot of digging through
jargon right-wing forums and Liberal Feminist websites.
The first piece of Socialist literature I would read would be Democratic
Confederalism by Abdullah Ă–calan. Confederalism, Socialism, Feminism,
all in one. Democratic Confederalism also featured a bit of geopolitics
and historical materialism to back it as a viable alternative. I became
a Democratic Confederalist and left the Democratic Socialist sphere in
favor of Revolutionary Socialism, which was more in-tune with my
revolutionist roots.
I soon read Mutual Aid, the Fascist Manifesto, the Communist Manifesto,
the Ego and its Own, and attempted to read Das Kapital but lost the time
to finish it (still need to). I read more in time, but my readings
wouldn’t be determining where I stood, they would simply push me. Today,
I am an Anarchist.
The Social Revolution is the social upheaval of institutions and
systems. The masses themselves taking to the streets, seizing the
workplaces, and dismantling state and corporate institutions, replacing
them with institutions that directly reflect them and their interests.
The Social Revolution is one with a civil objective, launched by the
masses themselves. The whole of society is overturned and changed, the
culture and power relations are completely obliterated and new power
relations, if any were to arise, are completely different in nature and
institution from the previous one. One could argue that the American
Revolution was a Social Revolution, with the institutions of the
monarchy completely obliterated and the ones of a Republic were formed
to replace them and the power relations between State and people
changed.
The Political Revolution is a revolution within the state. It’s a
revolution launched by a political unit for a political objective that
leaves the power and property relations intact or slightly distorted.
These revolutions are merely a change in regime but not society. The
French Revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were political Revolutions.
Vertical organization is a method organization in which decision-making
power and command is consolidated into an elite few, with a chain of
command that eventually leads to the bottom being a powerless people.
The purpose for this form of organization is to make swift and efficient
decisions, and push society forward at ever increasing speeds. Another
word for this system is hierarchy. The point of today’s essay is to
critique it, but if we are going to critique hierarchy as a system, we
need to understand where is comes from.
For thousands of years, Humanity has been under the system of hierarchy.
Forms of authority have existed since the dawn of Humanity, however for
most of our history we lived in tribal democracies. The tribes would
collectively make decisions for the good of the communities. As time
progressed and communities became larger and more frequently ran into
other communities, the rise of inter-community relationships would form.
Soon, communities would merge, this is where the first systems of
vertical organization, aka social hierarchy, would emerge as a force
that would make decisions against the common collective. City-states saw
the emergence of powerful militant hierarchies, competing with other
hierarchies and utilizing mass propaganda to cull support from its
populace.
Hierarchies are the result of growing relationships between Human
communities, as the Human population grew from the millions to the tens
of millions, struggle for resources and supplies caused competition
between communities. Soon, this competitive relationship between Humans
would require the consolidation of power for a swifter decision-making
process. In times of struggle, quick decision-making was required.
Control would be handed to an elite. The early hierarchies would persist
as city-states rose. To consolidate power and command over the masses to
forward competition and war over the hierarchy’s enemies.
Hierarchies would use various arguments to justify their regimes over
the years from divine rule to social contract to even as far as
perverting democratic revolutions and claiming they defend and uphold
“democracy” and “freedom”. The great city states of Ur, the massive
monuments of Egypt, and the architecture of Greek hierarchies, the
vastness of the Roman empire and its monuments, to the written
propaganda and massive structures built by monarchies and hierarchies
today symbolize the power of those hierarchies to direct its collective
masses.
Hierarchies have evolved to adapt into controlling every aspect of life
and interaction, from civic to economic to religious. Decisions of the
people to freely choose their beliefs, laws, and exchange have been
uprooted and consolidated into the power of the elites. This uprooting
of the people’s basic freedoms has come in the form of militant seizure,
as has been done under Fascism, and propaganda to willingly hand it away
to a new ruling class, as was done in the American Revolution, French
Revolution, and Bolshevik Revolution.
In the last several hundred years, more forms of hierarchies emerging
from new sectors of life have been forged from new modes of interaction.
Complex forms of trade and economy emerged after the fall of the Roman
empire, which led to the rise of Feudalism, and as new modes of exchange
emerged came the flexible Capitalism. As people began turning to faith
for a driving and moral pull in life, hierarchies emerged to syphon off
belief and distort it in the benefit of the religious elite. States were
the first forms of hierarchy, and have thus taken the most faces,
including that of the liberal democracy, oligarchies, and autocracies.
The Educational Industrial Complex has seen the rise of an educational
elite and the subjugation of an entire caste of students and the
perversion of Human learning.
Capitalism is a system by which there is private ownership of the
institutions of production for the purpose of the investment,
accumulation, and exchange of profit, i.e. Capital. This gives
Capitalism its very name: a system oriented for the production of
Capital, or Capitalism. The production of Capital is oriented towards
the benefit of the Capital Class, or the Ruling Class/Private Elite.
These are the owners of the institutions of production, the guiders of
what is done with them.
Capitalism requires a strict structure and division of power to maintain
its own survival. The owners being at the top of this chain, the
laborers at the bottom. In between is a unique class in on it’s own that
has emerged as Capitalism developed: the coordinators. These people act
accordingly with the will of the owners, enforce the policies of the
elites, and direct the laborers in the actions for profit.
Socialism is a system by which the laborers own and direct the
institutions of production. These institutions include factories,
railways, offices, stores, vehicles, tools, warehouses, and any other
item used for the sake of the production of profit. Socialism can be
characterized as a system by which the workers themselves own and
coordinate the institutions of production, with the purpose of those
institutions being oriented towards the production of social benefits.
The goods and services produced are produced for the purpose of
benefiting the communities or society as a whole. This gives Socialism
its name: a system in oriented towards the production of goods and
services for civil benefit.
Anarchism is a system by which administration, coordination, and the
policy of society is done by the people. Anarchism is a society by which
power relations cease to exist and power rests equally among all people.
Anarchism is a critique of unjustified hierarchy, or the unjust
inequality of power division. What makes hierarchy just is if it is 1) a
natural occurrence that only forms from Human biological natural
(parent-child relationship) or 2) for a coordinative purpose that
reflects the direct will of the masses (a revocable and temporary
coordinative council). Essentially, hierarchies with a purpose are
justified, hierarchies without a purpose are not.
Hierarchies with a purpose are temporary and coordinative, with a
purpose that benefits all. The crucial parent-child relationship
benefits the child’s social and individual development into Human
society as well as pass down key knowledge from generation to
generation. This type of development is unavoidable and cannot be
abolished with severe social and developmental consequences. Therefore,
this type of hierarchy is necessary.
Hundreds of millions of people suffer at the hands of wealth inequality
and power inequality. Problems such as world hunger could easily be
solved if the resources used to cultivate and produce edible goods were
directed towards the benefit of all. The nature of Capitalism prevents
this, as the nature of Capitalism is profit. How much profit do you
think an owner of a food processing company can squeeze out of
processing food for half a billion impoverished Africans? Many people
argue in favor of helping the starving, however the elites argue against
it because of the fact the profits would be minimal at best. This is why
we need to change the fabric of society and economics to bend according
to new rules and new methods.
The case of the starving impoverished is but one example of dozens
throughout Capitalism’s 200 years of existence and Feudalism’s thousand
years in which if the nature of exchange was tweaked for social benefit
instead of profit then the countless people who died of hunger, disease,
and war would still be alive today.
Socialism is naturally a system oriented towards social benefit. The
workers and communities own the institutions of production, needs within
these communities need to be met, so naturally the purpose of production
will be towards goods and services that benefits the many instead of
profit for the few. Socialism is the alternative, if applied on an
international scale, can abolish war, as war is not socially beneficial,
can eradicate disease, since medicine and advanced medical procedures
are socially beneficial, and build a foundation for a better Humanity.
On top of that, the Capitalist wage system is but another issue. Workers
are forced to work for menial wages, or else perish to the markets.
Workers are told to “sell their labor”. The problem is, labor isn’t a
physical object, so what can represent your labor? You can sell your
car, that’s a physical object. You can sell your television, that’s a
physical object. But your labor is you, you are selling yourself like a
slave-seller sold slaves to slave owners in 1800s America. The wage
system exists as a means of culling workers from the masses, and to
ensure the institutions of production are still used and that profit is
accumulated, invested, and exchanged.
Anarchism is the body by which this Socialism should take it’s form.
Historically, State Socialism has made great strides in social benefit,
but is still linked to the will of the partisan elites. State Socialism
has historically built a new elite. While these elites may have had the
people’s interest in mind, the individual interests of the elite were
still pursued.
This is but apparent in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union’s methods of
collectivization of agriculture saw them turn the peasantry into wage
workers. This is the natural objective of Capitalism, to build wage
workers for the purpose of producing Capital. Private property existed
but under the term “State property”. It’s goals were the same as
Capitalism: to produce in the interests of the elite. A class of wage
workers still operated these means of production. The Bolsheviks
achieved Capitalistic ends, not proletarian ones. Even Lenin himself
admitting that the Bolshevik’s objectives were State Capitalism. The Red
Bureaucracy was a dictatorship of the party, not a dictatorship of the
proletariat.
Anarchism is a means of the keys of control resting with the masses, and
naturally the masses would push for social benefits. Socialism and
Anarchism are a perfect pair, in fact the first form of Anarchism,
Mutualism, in its end form was essentially Socialist. True worker
control over the institutions of production and the purpose of
production for social benefit can only happen if the workers and
communities were free of all elites because then the use of these
institutions would directly reflect the needs and desires of the many
and not the interests of the few, as is such with Capitalism and
historically with the failed experiments of State Socialism.
The State is a form of hierarchical organization that gives legal and
administrative authority to an elite few. The State has taken many faces
and forms throughout history, from the Monarchy to the Republic. While
the State can be a driver for social order and peace, the State, it
being the first hierarchy, has only the sole purpose of competing with
other States. This includes the acquisition of territory, the
subjugation of its masses, the formation of a military, and the
organization of legal units within its territory. These units all acting
in the purpose of competition and power.
In the early days of hierarchy, early States were competitive in
obtaining resources by commanding the populace to participate in tribal
wars and organizing cultivating efforts. The original purpose of the
State was to simply be an organizer, but it was soon corrupted into
competing against other States. The elites, realizing the only way the
people naturally won’t hand over their freedom, employed a vast arsenal
of propaganda, some States using defense and god as their
justifications. This pacified the masses.
The State consolidates legal power, and often uses laws to direct its
populace into doing things that benefit it and ensure control. Some laws
were made to keep order among the masses, for example laws against
murder and rape, but some were blatantly made for control and to justify
State action, a modern example being the Patriot Act and the Communist
Control Act.
This begs the question; do we really need the State? For hundreds of
thousands of years, Humans lived in tribalistic societies with no formal
State. Stateless societies such as the Paris Commune and several
near-stateless examples including the Free Territory and Revolutionary
Catalonia saw many social benefits and increase in positive lifestyle.
While separate units organized the Anarchist revolutions in the Free
Territory, and the Socialist revolution in Revolutionary Catalonia, the
institutions built by these organizations and the masses as well as
collectivization saw an increase in production output. Feminism was a
major player in Revolutionary Catalonia, even playing a key role in
building educational centers and women actively fighting in the fronts.
Today, we are seeing yet another Libertarian Socialist experiment take
place in the Rojava. This experiment is making modern truimphs in
Socialism and Feminism. This experiment is known as Democratic
Confederalism, which in itself is a revolutionary theory pursuing
Communalism. Communalism seeks a stateless society. The Rojava, or known
more formally as the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, is
building a community government, in which localized entities such as
councils. This grassroots approach isn’t necessarily fully horizontal,
but definately stateless, since most governing power isn’t rested with a
central elite. economically, it is a blend of co-operatives and small
private enterprises. A plan pursued by Democratic Union Party (PYD),
which allows for three major property concepts to dominate the economy:
common property, private property by use, and worker-administrated
businesses. The definition of “private property” in this context being
that of “personal property” as described by many Socialists, which falls
under “ownership by use”, in which if it isn’t used, it falls under
“common property”.
In conclusion to that question, do we really need a State? The answer is
not necessarily. The people are fully capable of building their own
institutions and assemblies.
Anarchism and Socialism, in the sense that they are together, are
completely different systems in which the purpose of their institutions
are radically different than today’s Capitalism. Capitalism’s very
nature has built a set of conducts that can only exist under a market
economy. Profit investment, exchange, and accumulation are the results
of the market, and Capitalism can only exist in the market. The market
is ultimately the driving force behind Capitalism’s power, and the fact
that world starvation and disease are widespread problems that may never
be dealt with unless profitable. In order for a society oriented around
the will and interests of the masses to arise, it must arise through a
means that uproots the fabric of economics as we know them: market
economics and consumerism. The fabric of a Socialist economy would be
centered around production instead of consumption. The goods or services
produced would be produced for the sake of social benefit, need, and
interest.
The nature of us as Humans is to better our current condition. This is
why we eat when we are hungry, why we sleep when we are tired, why we
talk when we are in need of each other. The nature of us Humans will be
the driving factor behind a Libertarian Socialist society, in which
society reflects our interests instead of our interests reflecting our
society. This requires a whole new set of conducts and natural rules
that a Socialist Anarchist society and economy live by, these changes
are so radical they must result in the masses upheaval of society
itself. They require a Social Revolution.
The culture, the institutions, and the relations within society must be
uprooted for these changes to occur. The common argument of the Right is
that these are simply “unrealistic” and base their criticisms of
Anarchist Socialism around the idea it will be a system born out of the
current society and its rules. No, Socialist Anarchism is a completely
different model that is not born out of Capitalism’s rules by by the
total upheaval of these rules. The criticisms of Socialist Anarchism
that involve the Human “drive” for market exchange are completely
baseless in this sense. That somehow people are “greedy” and will form a
quiet black market and secret monetary exchange. Why would anyone need
or even want to do this if the fabric of society has been completely
changed to where needs and interests are met for the sake of meeting
needs and interests? These strawmans, therefore, do not apply to
Socialist Anarchism.
What makes these arguments even more baseless is the fact that Human
nature is very much flexible. While we are indeed capable of great greed
and competition, we are capable of great cooperation. Currently,
Capitalism promotes greed in order to survive. Our desire is to better
our current condition, that is Human nature. If greed is the way to do
this, greed will prevail. In a society that requires greed for Humans to
better their own condition, greed will prevail. Several studies by
various universities, plus the fact that Human survival for hundreds of
thousands of years can be attributed to our ability to form cohesive and
coordinative groups, have proven we are in fact capable of cooperation
if the situation needs us to cooperate. Therefore, if the rules of how
the system works is oriented towards cooperation and teamwork in order
for us to better our current condition, then we will surely cooperate.
In this case, in order to build such a society that reflects our
interests and nature to cooperate, then we must dissolve the
institutions and “greed culture” that promotes greed to survive and
better our condition. This requires a Social Revolution.
Like any action led by the masses themselves, it requires a class
conscious. It requires the masses to be conscious of the system, that
system being vertical organization (hierarchy, which includes
Capitalism) and its nature. The masses also need to be aware of the
Libertarian Socialist alternatives. A Social Revolution can only begin
with a recognition of the problems and a solution to them. This calls
for agitators. Class conscious isn’t something that happens all at once,
as history has shown, few people manage to realize their own condition
and understand viable solutions to it. These people shall be the
agitators for class conscious, the outlets for knowledge and solutions.
Agitation is only half the battle, introducing these solutions as
real-world alternatives is another. Agitating the masses to organize
themselves, such as pushing for locality meetings and community mutual
aid, can go a long way when the masses become conscious, and even help
them to become conscious.
On top of this, agitators must not spew out dogma, but push for
dialogue. Ask questions, but offer no answers. The people themselves
must be able to find answers to their questions. Offer solutions to
issues, open dialogue with others about their applications. Open
dialogue with Liberals, who usually have their heart in the right place,
and help them understand the flaws of the market and Capitalism.
The unity of class conscious individuals, who must have originated from
the oppressed masses themselves, is dire for the achievement of class
conscious. The Coalition of agitators must not come in the form of a
party or trade union, but a grouping of people whose sole purpose is
dialogue, questioning, and pushing for the initial applications of
social alternatives. They must be from the oppressed classes and act as
a voice of understanding in the collective struggle.
During which the Social Revolution takes place, there will be a need for
coordinative elements. The Coalition of agitators must push for the
formation of such institutions, but must not partake in them themselves.
Militias and armed units are bound to take rise from the people’s Social
Revolution, they need to be unified against the resisting Capitalist
forces. This calls for several revocable and temporary coordinative
councils to lead a militant federation in the revolutionary struggle.
Militant struggle will arise shortly after the initial insurrection,
given the Capitalists and State authorities will likely still have a
hold on military assets and forces. Guaranteed some of these forces and
assets will find their way into the hands of the masses, one must also
not forget that modern revolutions will likely result or be the result
of a civil conflict with multiple sides. A Social Revolution is the
initial stage of the class struggle with it being the initial
deconstruction of Capitalist and State institutions and culture within a
given region, the armed struggle will surely follow.
Other institutions will also need to be formed, such as localized
assemblies and workplace assemblies, with allow for laborers and
community members to meet and discuss issues as we as coordinate their
efforts in production and self-administration. This calls for the
establishment of a Direct Participatory Democracy, which divides
administering power between all people. Individual policies can be made
through Consensus, which is a compromise between comparing viewpoints
and ultimately takes all voices in community into consideration. The
alternative following the Social Revolution following the principles of
Socialist Anarchism must have the least amount of consolidation of
administrative power as possible, to avoid a flawed bureaucracy from
taking form.
The first objective of the masses during and after should be the
abolition of class. Class is a social division that can build the
ingredients for hierarchy (vertical organization) in later years. Class
builds a supremacy complex within the higher classes, and subjugation
over those in the lower ones. The first objective should be to abolish
this.
EQUALIZATION OF LABOR: all jobs and positions must hold equal standing
and power, no preference over one-and-other. This is a hard concept to
grasp, but it’s a necessary one. One shouldn’t be scrutinized or praised
for taking on a certain position, the desire to be of that position
should be genuine. To equalize labor, salaries and wage labor must be
abolished. This means, at the very least needs are free. Labor
Vouchers/Credit could be a good place to start, utilizing the labor
theory of value instead of the subjective theory of value. Instead,
relative to the job, the amount someone earns is based on the time and
resources used. Vouchers also act as incentives for people to perform
labor. With needs free, non-need goods can still cost vouchers. So of
someone chooses not to work, no harmful repercussions are a result.
The eventual goal should be a gift economy. To do this, we must abolish
the cultural desire for incentives. In our culture today, most people
will not perform deeds without getting something in return. This is an
element of Capitalist and market culture. Instead, over time, the youth
should be taught in the values of reciprocity and a step-by-step plan be
taken by communities to abolish labor vouchers and any form of a direct
exchange economy.
ABOLITION OF COORDINATIVE POSITIONS: it is no joke to say that today’s
Capitalism has more economic classes than that of 1800s Capitalism. The
positions of the coordinative class must be abolished, such as managers
or directors, in order for class to be abolished. The only coordinative
element should be the laborers themselves. The Social Revolution and the
immediate formation of a Socialist economy will bring about the end of
the capitalist class, the coordinative class, those who are not owners
nor laborers, but coordinative elements within the capitalist paradigm,
is one that can become the next capitalist class, since administrative
power over the means of production will fall opon them. The coordinative
class can be abolished peacefully, by setting up worker’s cooperatives
in the place of companies and employed workplaces.
The case for a horizontal society is a tricky one. The abolition of
Capitalism, and to a broader extent, unjustified hierarchy, in the
21^(st) century will be more difficult than abolishing Capitalism in the
time of Marx. Capitalism is now a global parasite that has a firm hand
across all corners of the globe. Capitalism and the State, in many parts
of the west, have successfully dulled the minds of the masses into easy
sumbition. Today, it is not the police nor the coordinators who enforce
the laws of Capitalism, the market, and the State, but the masses
themselves who have been propagated to believe in elite’s lies of
“freedom”, “democracy”, and “security”. Will Capitalism, the State, and
other unjustified hierarchial institutions be successfully dismantled?
This is an instance where only time and the success of agitation can
tell.