What Happens Next? — An Argument of Inevitable Doom

What happens next? For years this question has been asked from a multitude of voices on the radical fringe and in any number of variations. The difficulty or lack of mass system-transcendence thus far is not a failure of theory or intelligence; it is largely a lack of motivation from the bulk of the construct-inhabiting populace. Currently the life-circumstances are not bad enough to warrant enough concern in order to make the shift; the concern now is that by the time it is bad enough, we may already be too far gone; the free-fall may, by then, be already irreversible.

The middle classes are still largely concerned and distracted with the diminishing returns of the capitalist paradigm; they are hoping that the recent downturns will balance out over time, that everything will go back to how it was. They are mostly unwilling to consider the full ramifications of climate change, rampant income inequality, stratification, poverty, peak-oil and military and structural violence, not to mention the failing mechanism of neoliberal capitalism.

They are notoriously difficult to mobilize at the best of times, even more so while the system still appears to deliver at least some of their middle-class comforts and stability. And while some would suggest they are starting to recognise that the current system will never recover, that there’ll never be a return to the peak of middle-class consumer luxury, many think otherwise. There are voices on every side of the debate; unanswerable questions plague the mind of those who seek a mass social change.

The question I would ask is: do we even know what to do next? It is a difficult and terrifying thought; that perhaps we don’t really know what we’re doing, that perhaps we’ve never really known. It seems unthinkable that it might finally come down to a combination of guess work and blind luck. After everything that’s happened, we had hoped for more than just the unfathomable whims of mistress fortune.

In regards this question there have been some recent interesting and enlightening articles and books — Paul Mason’s picture of a post-capitalist sharing economy and Margret Atwood’s revisiting of peak-oil and ‘everything change’ both enjoyed a huge number of views and fierce debate; economist Thomas Piketty had a surprise bestseller with ‘Capital in the Twenty-First Century’, laying out a decade of overwhelming data on wealth concentration, inequality and the need for a global ‘rich tax’ to ensure some overdue wealth redistribution. Paradigm defining/shattering books like that from anthropologist David Graeber (the main theorist behind Occupy) provided a new generation with some well-needed intellectual ammunition against the dominating structures of capitalism and its questionable selfish and oppressive base-beliefs.

And if we include the last 15 years of ground-swell, some exciting and vital collective movements have sprung up from the undergrowth; like the Venus Project influenced Zeitgeist Movement — whose founder, Peter Joseph, had a surprising and defining underground success with the three Zeitgeist films; and the direct action of “N30” then Occupy Wall Street who briefly and brightly redefined mass-protest and sparked a new look at activism as a powerful and direct force of momentum and healthy-rage. Then of course there’s Anonymous — the hacktivist organisation who famously squared off against the KKK — who have recently been targeting ISIS members and police brutality and racism in the US. Black lives Matter deserves a mention too — a vital and long overdue movement highlighting the racism inherent in American social, professional and legal structures.

Of most interest — at least to some — has been the renewal of interest in the many forms and variations of anarchism, with the major works of Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Michael Bakunin (among others) being revisited and frequently mentioned by the young, angry and politically disenfranchised. This may partly be attributed to the influence of Occupy theory, which helped to fan a flame lit with the Battle in Seattle.

We have seen the increase of left-wing radical political parties and movements all over the world, most notably Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain; and there are currently two high-profile self-proclaimed socialists upon the super-power world stage with Bernie Sanders in the US and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. These latter can be seen as aberrations, reactions or mere flirtations, depending on your personal views; though what must be acknowledged, even grudgingly, is their validity — regardless of how ineffective they may prove to be (we of course know how Syriza have fared at politicking against the neoliberal bully-boys of Europe).

Some of the more positive members of the wider political fringe have suggested that the mainstream ‘conversation’ has changed considerably in recent years, that there is something stirring in the deep of our collective consciousness. This is hard to prove in any meaningful way; we want it to be true, but who can say for sure? And then there are those of us who still fear the worst and must be forgiven for falling into periods of exaggerated despair — after all, it’s only natural when facing mass biosphere and species extinction.

Perhaps the biggest area of dispute among the many factions concerns time. Do we have enough time before the end to generate serious change? When will it all come apart? At what point is it too far gone to bother? Will the masses wake up in time? Etc, etc. These unanswerable questions are overwhelmingly large and unwieldly. No one knows any more than anyone else what will happen (though granted, some have a better idea); all we can do is guess and hope

One of the problems for the radical fringe — many of whom have been vocal for years about the approaching storm — is that it’s difficult to stay primed and ready for revolution over extended periods of time without losing enthusiasm; like how the string of a bow inevitably weakens when the arrow is held back too long without letting fly. As was seen with Occupy, when the revolution doesn’t come, it’s a serious anti-climax. There is the inevitable feeling of ‘So is that it then?’ What do revolutionaries do when the revolution is ‘postponed to a later date’?

Some would say that part of the problem for the radical elements has been a lack of unifiable vision, an inability to agree upon a course of action; some would say this is so, though there aren’t many radicals who would agree. The redundant idea of political or social ‘universality’, or the need for some ‘universal truth’ is surprisingly easy to get around; mainly because it dissolves all by itself in the face of actual active-cooperative democracy. In fact, the obsession with easily understandable ‘one or the other’ truths is mostly the preoccupation of conservatives, the generally ignorant and political moderates.

While it is probably natural to want one defining and complete solution — think Stephen Hawking’s ‘theory of everything’ — there is a danger of becoming disillusioned when it doesn’t come. To some people’s way of thinking, Anarchism is seen as a great example of this — so many theoretical differences that become impossible to reconcile during times of social calm and stability. Syndicalism and communism, capitalism and primitivism; all too fundamentally different to band together, all too disparate to be a cohesive solution. It is ironic in a way — being too radical to compromise on theory starts to look like the exact flipside of the same coin as rigid conservatism.

At least, this is how many of the middle-class, moderates, politicians and conservatives perceive such radical elements. In reality, the differences aren’t really that significant and, when it is essential for mass change, most anarchists are able to cooperate despite their conflicts in ideology. To restate the point — it is not the radical elements who find cooperation and unified purpose so difficult, despite what many conservatives and moderates might say. This is largely a fault of the average ‘construct-inhabiting’ citizen; as a general rule they struggle to even imagine this, let alone achieve it.

There are many reasons for this; an ability to look forward with sufficient vision, a tendency towards herd-mentality, a lack of education outside of construct-accepted knowledge, a preconditioning to hierarchical authority; pick any combination or add your own. What most people fail to understand is how easily (or at least effectively) we could all work together towards similar goals without significant conflict; as a collective we are so conditioned to accept the oppression of stratification and inequality that we fail to see how fundamentally similar we are. David Graeber’s accurate observation of how communistic our relations are at the core points the way — but the question is, are we now ready and able to devolve in order to then truly evolve?

In times of great collective crisis, the apparent differences between us become insignificant and irrelevant — providing we are all more or less equally effected and involved. To who’s immediate advantage are debates on theoretical sticking-points when faced with starvation and disease? Do the finer details matter when there is no fresh water or necessary shelter? No, of course not; these illusionary luxury concerns and differences are easily put aside in favour of cooperation when there is sufficient necessity.

It is somewhat perversely comical — or tragic — that the people who are most resistant to the ideas of human liberty and freedom (from authority and state) — let’s say anarchism as a general term — are also the most likely to abuse power when given the chance and be the most shocked by the misuse of power by others. They are bought-in to the construct of hierarchy to such a degree, with such complete acceptance of a conditioned mindset, that they are unable to use intelligent analysis. When they say they fear the lawlessness or violence of anarchy, what they are really saying is they fear themselves; for if people need hierarchical restraint in order to behave well then there is no such thing as true freedom in any sense of the word.

It starts to sound like the argument of people of faith that without religion and ‘God’ there is no meaningfully understood idea of morality; this tired and often repeated argument seeks to reduce humans to the level of a-moral beasts or demonic children, totally unable to moderate themselves without the restricting and domineering influence of hierarchical authoritarian structures. This self-corrupting idea of ‘original sin’ has perpetuated untold suffering among our species for centuries. As a concept it is absurd; to turn the argument around — if one needs religion, God, the state, bosses or any other hierarchical construct in order to have sufficient motivation to treat others and yourself well then it is yourself, not others that you are afraid of. The rest of us (very broadly speaking) are fully capable or regulating our own behaviour without such influence.

To bring our thoughts to the fundamental anarchist ideals, could not ‘Liberty, Equality and Solidarity’ be seen as common aims that almost everyone could agree upon? We have lived under a variety of regimes and political ideologies that have — while offering some of the positive fruits of democracy and socialism — largely failed to deliver any kind of universal human freedom — liberty. Despite years of reform and policy, we are still stuck in a paradigm of inequality and wage-slavery; our apparent comfort and standard of living — so enjoyed in the first world — is still out of reach for much of the planet. As David Graeber so succinctly pointed out, there is an opportunity for us to reassess and rethink our foundational ideas of what is possible for our societies; perhaps it is time to fully test out some, as yet, untried methods?

One could suggest that our inability to truly defeat inequality, racism (including structural racism), sexism, wealth disparity, poverty, parasitic corporate greed, war, torture and starvation, to name a few, is intrinsically linked to the persistence of hierarchical and stratifying authority structures. While it is now becoming widely accepted that neoliberal capitalism has not only failed to deliver but has, in fact, just further ensured our descent into economic and biosphere destruction, this is far from the complete picture; more damaging than this — yes, even more than capitalism — is our inability to fully trust ourselves and each other to exist and thrive outside of the perceived ‘safety’ of an exploitative and hierarchical system.

And so we find ourselves here; with all the recent positive trends towards mass-change, enlightenment or a ‘change of consciousness’, we find ourselves teasingly on the cusp of revolution and not, both at the same time. For years the radical fringe have been waiting — hoping? — for the rest of our species to ‘wake up’ and join in the inevitable mass revolution; should we now dare to consider that this may be beyond the reach of most people due to the accumulated effects of conditioning and oppression?

When viewed as a whole and from a suitable distance, there is nothing that we are missing from our understanding; there is no shortage of innovation or knowledge standing in the way for our mass-change. We are not waiting for new information or diagnostics. The data is already in; we have everything we need at our disposal; we have the capacity to arrest and reverse climate change, there are resources and industry enough to provide for everyone; there is an abundant wealth of intellectual and conceptual knowledge — for all intents and purposes, our lexicon is as complete as it needs to be.

So when we — the collective — act as though we are waiting for some new universal theory of change, we are effectively ‘Waiting for Godot’. When it comes to the ‘everything change’ that Margaret Atwood spoke of, we are either ready or we are not. Time will dictate the urgency of this more than anything else — the time for uncertainty has long passed.

So it is that we find ourselves in our great dilemma; will the coming crises generate sufficient desperation and motivation within whatever short amount of time we have left available to us?

To answer by suitably flogging a dead horse — time will tell. Truly.