Letter from Hastings
Dear comrades
Congratulations on the article 'Green Communism' in Subversion 21. It is good to see
the small anti-state communist milieu in this country turning it's attention to matters
ecological as is also shown in recent articles in Organise and Wildcats' critique
of Marxist 'progressivism' and engagement with 'primitivism' ideas. As is clearly recognised
by your article continued capitalist expansion (otherwise known as 'Development'
or 'Progress') can only lead to increased degradation of the biosphere and human
immiseration.
People holding anarchist and communist positions have always been involved in protest
movements against the destruction of nature, harmful technologies, abuse of animals
etc etc. And this is right - at it's most basic level it is right simply because
the world which capital is creating - a world dominated by concrete, plastic, machines,
pollution and stress - is not the world we want.
But in terms of theory, analysis, what can we offer to an understanding of the dire
situation we find ourselves in and a strategy for getting out of it?
So far the only recognisably anti-capitalist line to emerge has been the so-called
'primitivism movement' which you mention. Now, I agree in general with most of your
criticism of it but it is as well to remember that as ideas develop quite often a
healthy corrective to past errors will go too far and then have to be corrected itself. When
these ideas first emerged I was quite attracted to them (ie Perlman, Bradford, Fifth
Estate etc etc ) because they were a refreshing, exhilarating challenge to the technology worship so prevalent not only in the Left but also amongst genuine anti-capitalists.
The problem as I see it with these ideas, at least in their more extreme form, is
that it is just as ridiculous to say that you are anti-technology as it is to worship it. A bow and arrow is technology, a digging stick is technology, to gather and
prepare herbs to cure a sickness is a technological procedure. Humanity is a technological
species, it is our ability to understand and manipulate the natural world which makes us human.
To me those who maintain that they are against all technology are like a mirror image
of those reformists in the Green movement who are incapable of going beyond environmentalism
:- both see technology as being the problem rather than the social relations which give rise to it, one lot advocate lead-free petrol and windmills while the other
lot appear to demand a return to the stone-age.
Technology is not neutral, it is produced by society and hence it serves the perceived
interests of the dominant forces in society. This is not the same as saying that
all technology is bad and should be abolished. Certainly after thousands of years
of class-society and centuries of capitalist expansion there is very much which must be
got rid-of but we would be mad not to see that much of what has been learned over
the centuries will be useful in creating the sort of sustainable, pleasurable world
that we as communists want to see. Just because we want to abandon the private motor car it
doesn't mean we have to abandon the wheel. Communists have always been, rightly,
wary of drawing up blueprints of the future but if we are going to engage in a critique
of capitalist technology, of the way in which capital organises production and social
life then it is very unconvincing to simply say that once the social relations of
capitalism are overthrown everything will come right inevitably. People want to know
a bit more than that.
As you pointed out in your article one strand of the emerging Green ideology tends
toward trying to get people to accept a self imposed austerity out of misplaced guilt
at capitalisms' environmental destruction. Communists on the other hand envisage
a future society of abundance ; not only is hunger and crude physical deprivation to be
abolished but life is to be richer, more pleasurable, more creative and fulfilling
than anything conceivable under capitalism. Since late twentieth century capitalism
poses itself as the society of abundance and its' expansion as the road to ever greater abundance
we are really obliged to point out the difference between our concept of abundance
and capitals' and how it would be brought about.
Although it is true it is not enough to point out that on a global scale capitalism
does not produce abundance. Capitals' ideological apparatus (advertising, media,
education etc etc ) is very powerful and if it can convince enough people to want
its' vision of abundance (cars, videos, jet airliners, Rolex watches, Barbie dolls blah blah
blah) then it has achieved a significant victory against the tendency towards communism
which undoubtedly exists within our species. So if we want communist ideas to be
taken seriously by those engaged in actions against environmental destruction we should
be willing to at least be prepared to discuss how a communist society would function
in a material as well as an organisational sense.
To return for a moment to the advocates of 'primitivism', although for the most part
they are reluctant to 'get down to the nuts and bolts' it seems that, despite the
extremism of someone like Zerzan, most of them advocate the abolition of all technology
developed since the industrial revolution. Although they might talk about being 'anti-civilisation'
mostly I think they want to see people living in small agricultural communities with
a technology roughly equivalent to that which existed in mediaeval Europe and trading through barter systems with their immediate neighbours. There are still
a few parts of the world where people could exist in the hunter - gatherer mode and
presumably they would envisage that that is what would happen.
Assuming that this were to be achieved I see no reason why after a few generations
had passed and there were no one around who had had direct experience of the horrors
of capitalist society the whole process of commodity exchange and wage labour shouldn't
start up again.
As communists we should argue that far from wanting to see people living in small
isolated communities we want to see our species genuinely united on a global scale
in a world human community. I would say that this presupposes the maintenance of
some technology - as a minimum sailing craft but also probably airships telecommunication of
some sort, radar and radio to make travel safer and so on. This in turn presupposes
that there would be a need for some mining, fabrication of metal, production of some
source of power etc etc. Although the junk left over from the capitalist era could probably
be creatively recycled for quite a while !! As well as transportation and communication
there are also other areas where fairly 'advanced' technology might be maintained eg medical and entertainments. Do we want to give up recorded music and the cinema
for example? I also imagine that some people would still be interested in pursuing
'scientific' interests eg astronomy, geology, natural history etc, tools would be
required which, as above, would require a certain minimum 'industrial' infrastructure.
I must say again that it is quite right for communists to refrain from 'Utopianism'
in its' negative sense - dotting the i's and crossing the t's on some dream of perfection
- but I would say that the above outline is pretty reasonable; people will not want overnight to abandon every aspect of the technology which exists nor is it possible
to do so and communism must be created and maintained on a conscious, global level
if it is to have any chance of surviving.
So we must take what is useful from the existing technology and scrap what isn't as
well as using all our imagination and creativity to invent new, more human ways of
living. Although it is reasonable to assume that a communist society would keep some
aspects of 'advanced' technology it would be on such a radically reduced scale that the
negative effects of mass capitalist industrialism would disappear. As you point out
in your article expansion is one of capitalisms' most basic features, if something
can be produced the logic of capitalist economics is to produce it in ever increasing quantities,
to build in obsolescence so that even more can be produced etc etc. In a communist
society where production was genuinely geared to peoples needs and desires it goes without saying that this would not be the case. So I would envisage that communist
society would develop a sort of 'two level system of production' (for want of a less
ugly phrase).
Mostly people would be living in communities small enough to allow the convivial,
face to face organisation of activities. Most of the necessities of daily living
(food, shelter, clothing, basic medical care, furniture, tools etc) would be produced
locally in ways in harmony with the local ecosystem and based on organic gardening, permaculture
(intelligent design of buildings, living systems, elimination of 'waste' etc), traditional
woodland management and crafts and craft production of all kinds using natural materials. Although I feel uncomfortable as a long standing vegan to be saying
this, it is also probable that as reforestation progresses ( as is vital from an
ecological point of view) and rivers and seas recover from industrial and agricultural
pollution, hunting and fishing will provide significant food resources for many communities.
I would not envisage that animal farming would continue on any but the most tiny
scale as it is inefficient, cruel and uses up too much human time.
On top of this basic level of production would be a smaller sector of more 'advanced'
technology ensuring that people around the world could keep in touch with each other
(to exchange information, ideas, maintain friendships etc), that anything that needed to be planned on a regional or global level could be, that people were free to travel
around the world if they so wished, that medical emergencies could be dealt with,
that people could produce and enjoy sophisticated entertainments from time to time.
The question that we as communists have to ask (and answer) is this: would it be possible
for a free society to maintain this minimal infrastructure of 'advanced' technology
without recourse to compulsion, to alienated labour or something equivalent?
As far as what I have described as the 'basic' level of production is concerned I
see no problem at all, as you say "people will freely associate together to produce
and will freely take from the common store according to their needs." People will
engage in activities which both please them and which go toward producing the necessities
of life and making life pleasurable, there will be no compulsion or alienation.
But what about mining, building wind generators, maintaining a railway system, producing
steel and all the other 'industrial' processes that might have to be undertaken to
maintain the sort of infrastructure I have described? Could this be done without
wrecking the natural world and imposing alienated labour on people? I would say yes.
Let's take as an example steel production. A very limited amount might be needed
for such tasks as maintaining railways, producing tools, perhaps building some large
structures etc. It is quite possible that one steel plant could produce all that was needed
in an area the size of the British Isles in say 2 or 3 weeks each year. It might
only take 100 or so people to do it. The plant would obviously have been designed
to make its' operation as pleasant., safe and non-polluting as possible. Surely volunteers
would be found to do the work in shifts in a situation where they could meet with
new people and have fun. In fact the whole thing could take on the air of a festival
with work being interspersed with performance, games, dancing, whatever people wanted. Even
today under capitalism people go off to do grape picking, for example, and regard
it more or less as a holiday.
The same would apply to all production involving 'advanced' technology; the amounts
needed would be so small that their production would not have to be a burden to anyone,
the small scale ought also to ensure that no significant pollution or destruction
of nature should take place.
What about tasks in the 'advanced' technology sector which would have to be performed
on a more permanent basis such as communications and transport? Again I don't see
why it should be a problem. Although the reduction would not be as great as in production it is likely that much less time and effort would have to be put in as compared
to now owing to pace of life. If some people like to garden or make clothes why shouldn't
some people like to drive a train, fly an airship or help to organise a telephone
system? Obviously in a communist society no one can be compelled to do anything and
no one would sacrifice themselves to any of these tasks, they would only get done
if people did find them enjoyable as well as of use to society. Sharing the tasks
out fairly would mean that no one had to do more than they wanted, in fact you might have the
opposite problem with everyone wanting to have a go at flying the airship!
What about the energy requirements of such a society? Day to day heating and cooking
needs could hopefully be met by the use of efficient minimum pollution wood burners
using locally produced wood form vastly expanded managed woodlands. Electricity production would be sharply curtailed, electricity being used for the things it is most suitable
for, ie not heating and cooking which is ridiculously inefficient, but for things
like communications systems, audio-visual entertainments, computers etc. Wind and
small-scale hydroelectric systems should suffice. With massive reforestation countering
the 'greenhouse effect' it should be possible to make use of the remaining fossil
fuels in those 'advanced' technology processes where necessary. Needless to say the
extraction and use of fossil fuels will be on a minute scale compared to today and people
would only undertake it if it could be done without damage to the biosphere.
So when we as communists talk about a society of abundance we mean one in which peoples'
material needs are met easily and pleasurably, where people have every opportunity
to travel, learn about the world and create, where people are surrounded by the beauty and abundance of the world and feel at home in it. Capitalisms' 'abundance' on
the other hand is a mirage based on the buying and selling of commodities and activity
carried out under duress.
We firmly believe that the society of abundance and freedom we advocate is possible
and that in order to repair the damage of industrial capitalism, it is not necessary
to retreat into some self-denying Green austerity where only our most basic biological
needs can be met. But we are not woolly headed idealists dreaming of some impossible
Utopia; hopefully the very short and rough sketch I have presented above shows that
our vision is a practical and realisable vision. I would hope that it might also
stimulate the debate in this area.
For example:
If capitalisms' 'development of the productive forces' has led to a situation where
ecological catastrophe threatens the existence of our species, does this have implications
for our view of class struggle as absolutely central to the social transformation we desire? If we stand for the dismantling of mass capitalist industrialism, does
this effect our intervention in industrial disputes?
Much could be said about my rough outline of a possible future society by people with
a greater practical understanding of industrial processes than I have; which technologies
might be of use and which would have to go because some of their implications are unacceptable on any scale?
Anti-capitalist revolutionaries often sneer at the formation of communes and pooh
pooh advocates of 'small is beautiful' and self-sufficiency etc - and often they
are right to because such ventures can be, and often are, an attempt to escape reality,
to live in a bubble isolated from the struggle against capitalism. But if we wish to see
the way that people produce their needs and fulfil their desires change, then surely
experiments in collective living, organic gardening, permaculture, woodland management
etc need to be carried out now so that people can develop and spread the skills which
will be necessary in the future we envisage. Nor should such experiments be divorced
from the struggle against capitalism - the recent Wandsworth land occupation shows
the sort of direction in which these things could develop.
And I think that's quite enough to be going on with!
In solidarity
S. Hastings
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page