Barbar Socialism

Within socialist circles, there is not much talk about what socialism would look like in terms of what is to come. If we wish to overcome the exploitative system that is capitalism, the socialist movement will likely need to come up with an emergency alternative. Should the day that barbarism triumphs over humanity, that a macro-socialism does not reach all of humanity by the time of apocalypse comes, that a period of barbar socialism will likely be a necessity in the face of human catastrophe. While the desire to maintain no interest in “predicting the future” is strong in the socialist movement, it may be necessary to forgo this in the case of catastrophic circumstances.

In hopes that this work may not be necessary I hope humanity is able to achieve a just, sustainable ecosocialist alternative before anything horrific happens.

Collapse of civilization

There is no telling how civilization would collapse in the face of ecological catastrophe. But there is plenty of historical evidence which suggests that collapse of sustainable food systems leads almost inevitably to societal collapse.

Rising CO2 in the atmosphere will cause global temperatures to rise because heat will be trapped within. The effects of rising temperatures will cause increased intensity of disasters such as floods, droughts, hurricanes, etc. This will affect food chains by making crop failure a lot more common as rising temperatures will allow for both extremes such as overfertilization and soil degradation from desertification. Diseases that affect crops will also be a lot more common as rising temperatures will create a more suitable environment for pathogens to spread and wreak havoc on agricultural systems.

Famine has been a major cause of societal breakdown throughout history. The Great Famine of Ireland has changed the demographic, political, and social life of the country of Ireland forever. In the 9th century, there was a famine in China which caused a peasant rebellion (assisted by over taxation) against the Tang Dynasty. In Czech Republic, there is a period in the 15th century called “The Hungry Years”. Colonialism caused a major uptick in famines throughout the world such as British India in the 1930s.

One of the noticeable effects on society is that the upper crust of society, the ones who often do no labor but appropriate the surplus and direct the workers, often escape famine fine because they can afford the higher prices due to lower supply. While the workers, the ones who often do the labor, starve and often go to extreme measures such as insurrection or crime. Famine can even be caused by taxation and over-appropriation of labor, not just disease or war.

In modern contexts, we produce enough food to feed 10 billion people in the world but in America, we throw out enough food to feed all of Africa where famine is common. However, with increasing temperatures, countries that are less developed have a lesser ability to be able to deal with the effects of climate change. Below is a map of countries that indicate which countries are most capable of dealing with climate change:

Notre Dame Global Adaption Index [3]

As these maps indicate, countries in the global south are more susceptible to the effects of climate change and less equipped in ability to adapt. Countries in the global south are less developed due to the historical effects of colonialism and even today through disastrous programs like structural adjustments formed by the IMF and World Bank (which have become imperialist arms of the first world).

We are already seeing the effects of climate change on these countries as refugees are now beginning to flee their homes which were ravaged by disaster. These vagabonds are often ignored by international organizations like the World Economic Forum, a rich boy platform who loves to talk as though they have people’s best interests in mind. More on them later.

The biggest contributors to climate change according to the environmental protection agency are transportation, production of electricity, and industry all of which are reliant on fossil fuel production. The biggest players in these industries are companies who will use the cheapest sources of energy to achieve maximum productivity and profitability. It makes sense why this is the case given the current economic system which is capitalism. [1]

Capitalism is a system of private accumulation which is dependent on infinite growth on a finite planet. It is based on a relationship of power between an employer (the capitalist or in Marxian terms the “bourgeois”) and the employee (the worker or in Marxian terms the “proletariat”). The latter must sell their labor to the former otherwise the latter will starve. The former has access to the means of production while the latter doesn’t, which gives the former an advantage in terms of negotiations (unless the latter engages in collective bargaining, also known as “trade unions” which evens out the field).

Capital has already become incredibly centralized around a few as is the tendency to do so. Attempts at curbing the power of capital such as anti-trust laws, the new deal, and to some extent social democracy have been eroded over the past 50 years as neoliberalism ravaged the world. These policies were generally not voted on by the populace who suffer from the negative effects of privatization. Countries like Russia, Chile, Sri Lanka, etc. have been the most prolific cases of disaster capitalism, which is often associated with neoliberalism. Fun fact: neoliberalism was developed by bitter men like Frederich Hayek, Milton Freidman, and many capitalists as an angry capitalist response to the social responses as described above.

When you have a system like capitalism whose interest is in infinite growth, you will do anything to protect that bottom line. Even if it means lying about the usage of their products which capitalists will intend to sell. Oil and gas companies like Exxon Mobile have their bottom-line interests and have been on the forefront of climate change denial. It recently came out this past year that says the company knew about climate change since the 1970s and lied about it to the public. The blame on who are at fault is solely on the capitalists who appropriate our labor. They told us that fossil fuels weren’t contributing to the biggest crisis humanity has ever seen.

The World Economic Forum came out in 2016 saying that the average person will “own nothing and be happy”. As to what this means is often subject to personal interpretation. Many commentators such as those on the political right have taken this to mean that during the COVID pandemic, the government is trying to “eliminate” private ownership. This conspiracy theory is absurd on its face because why on earth would a government, whose main lobbying interests are capitalists, ever eliminate their own power source? This conspiracy theory is known as the “Great Reset”. This essay was alluding to mean something called a “sharing economy” which is a deceptive sell to the public as most stocks are concentrated around a few people. That means we have very little real say in how our consumption is handled.

This can all only mean one thing: collapse. Societies that are based on unequal, centralized distribution of goods cannot survive. To add a cherry on top, capitalism is a system that is based on infinite growth. If capital doesn’t grow, it becomes sick. The logic of this system dictates that the people will be exploited even harder and harder at the expense of their own longevity. Be it the exhaustion of the working class, climate change, or resource exhaustion, the system leads to its own collapse. It is possible for the system to solve itself as some economists have indicated but the window to do so is closing ever more tightly. Even ambitious initiatives like the Green New Deal are piecemeal and don’t solve the problem of consumerism or planned obsolescence. Which both are environmentally destructive.

It is time for economists to break the ideological barrier which inhibits their ability to think beyond what exists. Many capitalists who fund think tanks like the Foundation for Economic Education, Heritage Foundation, or the Ludwig Von Mises Institute (a think tank that is well-known to associate with white supremacists) will influence economic thought through scholarships and push out false anti-environmentalist propaganda. When you think hard about it, they NEED to deny that climate change exists because their free-market ideology kind of depends on it. Ecological economists have been crying for years for environmental regulations because our lifestyle in the global north is ecologically unsustainable. According to the Global Footprint Network, we are consuming 1.7 earths and 80% is going to the Global North [2].

As Murray Bookchin often famously said: “The belief that what currently exists, must necessarily exist, is the acid that corrodes all visionary thinking.” Our society is too immersed in the idea that growth is the panacea for all problems. De-growth advocates like Jason Hickel will note that we can live a well lifestyle with less consumption. But it will require a switch to a new system, both politically and economically. It is time for a switch to eco-socialism.

Socialism is a system that emphasizes workers’ self-management and positive freedom. Workers self-management means the ability of workers to collectively and democratically manage their own enterprises. Positive freedom means two things; 1, the ability to have a say in decisions that affect you and 2, equal access to resources which can better your health and ability to act on freedom. There are many kinds of socialism so let’s talk about a specific one: libertarian municipalism. Libertarian municipalism is a type of libertarian socialism that emphasizes direct democracy in the municipality as well as a decentralized government. In being that the state (which is top-down) instead is replaced by a confederal type of government (no not a bunch of racist men defend their right to slaves). The power which the confederal government has is instead granted by a bottom-up direct democracy rather than a state which expands based on its own will.

Fall of the state

Rosa Luxembourg once made the statement: “its either socialism or barbarism.” In this to mean that it is either a humane eco-socialism or the ecological collapse of civilization. This statement is truer than ever before and right now, there is little evidence of the current trajectory solving the crisis of capitalism. We must start having the conversation about what might happen under barbarism. It should be noted that societal collapse doesn’t necessarily mean humans go extinct.

I can very likely see the state collapsing and society breaking off into their own communities. Historically, humanity has broken off into small enclaves be it into clans or community-wide break off from the state at large. Rojava has been a remarkable example of a society breaking off from the Syrian National Government to form their own enclave of a better society. Anarchist Catalonia was also another example of a society breaking off to form their own community during the Spanish government.

Capitalism, despite many annoying voices from the right-libertarian faction of the right, is ultimately dependent on the state for many things such as protecting property rights and providing subsidies. If the state were to collapse, capitalism would follow right along side it. Especially the centralized capital that has emerged from the accumulative forces which drive the system. There is no evidence to suggest that capitalism doesn’t need a large state. Many of the capitalists which remain might hire private armies but that won’t last long at all.

The state can only live if it can suck off the blood of others like a vampire. The state demands more and more. If it can’t be satiated, it can break down. Central planning, like the Soviet Union, is not a viable option for apocalyptic conditions even though it might try and take hold.

If famine were to happen, community mutual aid would very likely be a minority at first as the individualistic parts of humanity might take hold at first. Family clans would probably be the first ever communism to take hold in the households.

However, if anthropology and history suggest, the more cooperative humans will generally outcompete the individualistic humans because there are more people around benefiting one another. Every step we take outside in nature, we are standing on the very bones of those who were more individualistic. That whole media narrative of the man going off to live in the woods by himself is historically false. Humans have evolved to be a more social creature and because of that, we seek cooperation and mutual aid with one another. This will be even more pronounced if we create a community of cooperation and democracy within.

One of the biggest myths that capitalist realism promotes is the idea of the “laws of nature”. This idea is based on the liberal assumption that there is a set way in which humans act. Common models such as “homo economicus” exemplify the intent of realism to try and justify these uncomfortable quagmires which capitalism regularly exudes. Reality shows that this idea has no basis. One of the communities I mentioned, Rojava, has created many of the same libertarian municipalist structures of government and socialism. It created many worker cooperatives that are providing the communities with much needed resources. If people have a surrounding of democracy and cooperation, they will very likely reciprocate such behaviors. What makes humanity so special is that we are capable of ethics and that ethics can influence our own behaviors. This is called “Second Nature”. Second Nature can become even more pronounced the longer the system stays in and influences our behavior. Many observers have recognized that a culture of cooperation and mutual reciprocity has formed within a region plagued by hierarchy and authoritarianism. In Homage to Catalonia, George Orwell observed that fear of the boss disappeared, and humans began to behave more like humans cooperating, rather than cogs in a machine.

Humans respond to their current conditions. But we also need a developed second nature. This is the reason we need to develop second nature within the communities’ people live in. Community is one of the biggest factors which determines who we are as human beings. We must establish communal, democratic enterprises within the communities we live in. They can be pillars in which other enterprises within a community can work.

Common ownership of the community will likely take hold if history suggests. Property is merely an abstract idea rather than something humans somehow have. In prehistoric times, everything was owned in common and if you suggested private ownership, the other members of the community would have likely looked at you like you’re an alien. Personal property can be a good thing, but it should also be recognized that it also is second nature. We give meaning to the idea. Just like we acknowledged slavery or the divine right of the kings.

Given the conditions of barbarism, everyone would likely have to contribute to the community, or you get punished, such as banishment. Everyone needs to contribute because that is how our rights get recognized. You don’t get acknowledgement for free in such a world. However, if we establish a society based on usufruct and democratic traditions, the community might be more tolerant towards those who don’t contribute as much.

Human rights are likely to deteriorate in such conditions, so community recognition is of absolute importance. Recognition of reproductive rights, disability rights, positive freedoms, very likely racial equality also, etc. Societal progress would likely deteriorate into some traditional norms but not unless a society based on these very aspects of feminism, racial equality, LGBT rights, democracy, are established first. These norms can break down and do, but it is vital importance that if they are established as second nature even within, it may survive.

This is a stretch, but it will be important to establish indoor agriculture of some sort. With UV lighting, it is a lot more possible now than ever to grow food indoors. Technology that was produced beforehand will likely not die out and will probably improve before things really hit the fan. In which, national society really breaks down. Energy to produce such UV lighting is feasible but it would require sustainable energy which solar and wind power can produce. Massive space would be needed, and the indoor garden would likely be a community space. I would say grow outside but if the famine is so bad then it would be hard to find lots of arable space to even grow food.

Water will likely be scarce so it will have to be distributed according to need rather than want. We need a drink but very little would be reserved for anything more than required. Water will probably be needed for indoor agriculture.

I am just giving a very rough sketch of what society would likely look like based on both historical evidence and the possibilities of the future. You can’t really predict the future, but you can make some guesses about it from the past. One should look further into these conditions and how a socialist response would be carried out. These will be great subjects for future essays.

Sources:

[1] Environmental Protection Agency. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA

[2] Footprint Data Foundation. Open Data Platform (footprintnetwork.org)

[3] Swanson, Ana. “The countries most vulnerable to climate change, in 3 maps.” Washington Post. The countries most vulnerable to climate change, in 3 maps — The Washington Post