theangryanarchocommunist-blog

[theangryanarchocommunist-blog]

More detailed analysis of capitalisms decline into fascism (the middle class)

We already know that capitalism by its nature of being essentially cancerous – it requires constant growth, will inevitably attempt to try and achieve fascism. This is simply because the fascist state is the most powerful, and as the aim of the capitalist is to gain power this connection is unsurprising. However It is not very helpful, capitalism in its final stages is an incredibly complex beast, after what is typically around 400 years of constant mystification it has acquired many layers, but it gives it certain real life characteristics which make the descent of capital into fascism more understandable.

Take for example the middle class. The middle class always becomes larger just before fascism emerges, that is true of both Rome and of Nazi Germany (the 2 clearest example of fascism). But what do we mean by the middle class? By this I’m not referring to the middle classes of feudalism, which would become what is more commonly referred to as the bourgeoise. Instead I am refereeing to a section of the proletariat, which is indulged more by the oppressing class, in return of keeping those below them in line. This particular class emerges as the managers, which happens when capitalism starts to go through its disciplinary stage. Afterall, how can you convince members of the proletariat to break solidarity and aid in the oppression of their fellow man – if you’re not going to give them something nice in return, for example a greater wage. However this breakdown of basic humanity in the middle classes is something that is best highlighted in the Nazi oppression of the Jews. In return for certain privileges some members of the soon to be genocided Jewish people, actually aided the organisation and extermination of the Jews. This is a properly horrific phenomena and it detailed in depth in Ardent’s “Eichmann on trial”. I can’t speak for you, but to me this demands an explanation. How can this happen? Perhaps its merely because out of a population of several thousand people you only need one person who is willing to break ranks – but how can this one person do that?

To answer this question we must delve further into the understanding of the middle class, Afterall in many less conditioned communities the idea of betraying the collective for personal gain is not typical behaviour. The Chinese did not sell each other out to the Japanese in the Sino Japanese war, the Native Americans did not in the face of European imperialism. Furthermore, there can be no doubt this is not some hatred based on nationalities or boarders – as Germans in Nazi Germany regularly reported each other to the Gestapo.

Therefore so far we can gather, that the middle class behaves as such that is makes no distinction based on categories in which in is own oppression it is defined (The Kulak oppressed by nature of being a peasant, cares not of the person he in turn is oppressing is considered a peasant), that is breaks away from its humanity and willingly betrays its less privileged class factions in return for privileges – to the extent of aiding genocide. But we are also stating to see that societies which have not travelled as far down the road of capitalisms development are less likely to partake in this oppression. Although that does not mean they are not capable of being part of an oppressive machinery, for example although parts of both the French and Russian army deserted in their respective revolutions – they had no qualms in eliminating slave uprisings on the part of the French several years earlier or the Cossacks on the behalf of the Russians. It is admittedly possible that at the moment of revolution class consciousness had increased and that merely returned after the state had been re-established, however I am unconvinced by this idea – as it was these soldiers who helped re-establish the state, something they wouldn’t of done if they were fully class conscious. Perhaps it would be more realistic to say that there was elements of class consciousness, but as a rule this was not the case – instead the level of conditioning in the armed forces had not yet reached a point similar to that of Nazi Germany (although in both cases that point would be reached shortly with the crackdowns of the new state). But instead of meaningfully answering the question, this just raises more – the soldiers in the aforementioned examples were hardly what we considered to be privileged, and thus the insights they can give us are not specific to the middle class, but to any faction of the oppressed which is able to oppress other parts.

So something that must develop with the physic of the middle class is a mindset which transcends typical class barriers unto what is a hatred of humanity, allowing them to oppress anyone if so instructed. What the middle class seems to become is an instrument of the oppressing class.

Here our question must become more general, because our question has boiled down too – how are people willing to hurt others? And this question is relevant not just to the middle class (which as we will shortly find, are in effect an imitation of the oppressing class) but the oppressing class too.

Essentially what happens is that these people find themselves in a morally distasteful situation and as such, being unwilling to fully acknowledge their utter freedom and responsibility for the suffering they caused – they choose to deny themselves and attempt to sink into nothing but exist as being in-itself as defined by Satre – in essence they attempt to deny what makes them a conscious being as to be authentic and lay claim to everything they have done is too painful for them. As there physically role is one of being oppressive, they therefore thrown themselves into that in their entirety acting in affect as a drone. Weirdly these classes will tend to have an ideal of ruthless individualism in them, but such ruthless individualism wont be the desire of the individual – but collectively conditioned onto them. A modern day example of this in the middle classes is the utter refusal to speak about anything sad, or if it is mentioned to make a joke about it – this is its inability to accept what it has done and as such it merely goes further down the rabbit hole.

Of course there are people who break away from the middle class, who are able to accept the harm they caused and try and right it – Kropotkin being a good example of this. However, this breakaway is becomes increasingly uncommon in some forms of capitalism, particularly spectacular whereas the mental capacities required to think logically and meaningfully examine your existence are themselves being challenged. Furthermore the isolation caused by the specular society, particularly its consumerist elements, this being because emotional appeal to not hurt your fellow humans is numbed considerably if you never have a connection with another person.

So there we have a brief description of the motivating forces behind the middle class. And this does accumulate over time, the denial of self hits a bump every time a major moral decision is made as it forces the person in question to make a choice, if the choice is significantly large then they may break away from their conditioning. However, as you are growing up you do things less consciously than as an adult, so if you grew up with servants, then it would seem less outrageous to have serfs and if you grew up with serfs it would be less outrageous to mistreat them and so on and so on. Hence each new generation of the middle class gets further away from solidarity with the rest of the oppressed, eventually reaching a point where they are fine with genocide.

So what can we usefully take from this? That we must challenge the middle class on a existential basis (perhaps in our propaganda) if we are to shake them of their loyalty to the oppressors, furthermore we must attempt to mock the illogical sense of the modern media so that we can actually make meaningful arguments on a existential level, else we will just be adding to the constant drum of the spectacle. This must be done by attempting to start from scratch – perhaps with periodicals setting out the basis of thought  and encouraging argument in public meetings if we get that far, so that it can be relearnt more naturally.

[theangryanarchocommunist-blog]

The school system in the UK

There is something wrong with our school system, all the students know, all the teachers know and I think deep down most of us are starting to realise it. We have reached a point where our “education” system by no means educates, in fact it does the opposite. The reluctance this system creates to learning in general for a considerable amount of the populace is truly a tragedy. So if the purpose of this system isn’t to help people to learn – what is it?

Lets start with an analysis of what it is currently. At this particular moment of time the majority of schools in the UK are academies - which in turn are part of a learning trust, there are 2 main types of school – primary and secondary, the progress of a student and there ability to progress to higher levels is determined entirely by exams , there is a rigid hierarchical system – within which students are placed at the bottom (though this is again stratified by age), there is a complex disciplinary system in place and finally there is a atmosphere of all this being a necessity.

There is quite a lot here to unwrap, but lets look at this from a first glance. Do any of these criteria shout to you “good learning environment”? I know they don’t for me!

A more recent issue is that which I mentioned first, that of the academy system. Now don’t get me wrong, this in particular isn’t a ingrained part of a institution which is fundamentally evil. But its still not good. This is because what has essentially happened, is that the state has sold of the schools to private companies. In place of councils trying to keep schools afloat there are now academy chains in principle owned by a private company or corp which is supposedly meant to keep these schools ticking over. Now this is an issue, because private companies tend not to have the best interests of pupils at heart – instead profits are more appealing. As such this move has in no way alleviated the incredibly hardship facing schools – many of which are asking parents to fund things like mental health counselling and school books. There is also of course the issue of corruption, seem as these sponsors often have control over the higher echelons of the academy chain, its not unheard of for schools to be buying commodities only from the sponsoring company at uncompetitive prices.

Next is the 2 tier structure, this is perhaps the least interesting part of the modern school. It simply means that students once they reach their 7th year in education have to switch school. However, it does raise the significant question of year groups. Every student is placed in a year group, which they will remain a part of until they leave. Why is this? Well the proposed argument is that people in the same year should have similar capacity to learn so they are able to be taught the same stuff at the same time. Something which increases efficiency when the capacity of learning in this system is made only possible when a figure of authority is able to decree it. But, as I’m sure you can see, this is very obviously not the best way to do this – surely if it was about putting people into groups of similar ability – this should be based on ability not age! And they can’t argue that this is unfeasible because they are conducting tests every week to check which set the students should be in. So having eliminated the possibility of this being for the benefit of the student, what else could it be? Well, one thing that is important to mention here, is that discipline increases when people are grouped by similar characteristics, why this is the case is likely due to it depersonalising the person in their own eyes. So much like the waiter who when in work is merely a waiter even in their own mind, the year 7 becomes just that. Well now we can see the true aim of this age divide – not education, but discipline.

The exam system, this is a part of this system particularly close to my heart. I cant tell you how many friends I’ve seen start self-harming or becoming depressive from the stress these things place on them. I know people who have lost any social contact for the best part of the year doing nothing but revising, I know people who have starved themselves, It goes on and on. And I can see unequivocally that exams are one of the worst things this system subjects its students too. It spends 15 years stressing how important GCSEs are, every week testing students in exams, and every week they think more and more that all that’s matters is GCSE’s. I would say “only part of them that matters”, because that’s how it seems to them – but in truth its that mindset which just reinforces this shit cycle, the idea that the grades you get relate any way to you is a falsity which we must eradicate. Because at the age where a person is supposed to working out who they are they, are spending all their time being told they are just this grade, just this uniform and just a pupil. And don’t say its only 8 hours a day, because we all know full well that once these students leave school it doesn’t stop there - hours upon hours of homework, all directed at getting better grades is added to their burden, on punishment of being sent to the punishment system ever present in every school. But that is not the only issue, because even once these grades have been realised students are treated based on their grades – many 6th forms lay close to empty because they were too spiteful to let in students with insufficient grades. Furthermore, these exams have no reference upon actual ability they reference only how good someone is at exams. Its like some a comedian that is so “funny” that he merely needs to speak to make someone laugh – his humour so removed from reality that anyone who encounters it thinks the whole spectacle absurd. And this spectacle of exams is 10 fold more absurd. Take philosophy, the premise of which is to make people able to think for themselves. How can free thinking be measured in a exam where students are forced to do exactly the same thing to get good marks, new ideas in fact will get you no marks, unless your regurgitating the shite from the text book – U. Same with maths and science, a mathematician or a scientist are not better at coming up with new concepts from remembering only formulas and how to apply them, not why they are or how to make new ones – completely undermining the point of science and maths. Thus I suggest that once again the purpose is not education – the purpose is to make the student a drone in his own mind. To humiliate him until he thinks himself nothing more, for there are few things more humiliating then being forced to do work that serves no purpose. But this is not the only component of control in exams, they also act as a buffer so that no one who can critically think can ever enter the establishment and challenge it. So that all our knowledge continues to reinforce white supremacy the patriarchy and the powerful.

Next we must approach the hierarchal system in school – this is closely intertwined with the punishment system, hence we will address both concurrently. It is a hierarchy so rigid it would not appear out of place in a feudal society. At the bottom we have the students (which can be further divided based on seniority with the youngest at the bottom), then bog standard teachers, then head of houses, then the senior leadership then the head teacher. This system is made very clear from the get go – with the oldest students in most institutions being given very visual privileges. The hierarchy is perhaps most visibly revealed through the punishment system, whereas the greater the transgression the greater the authority of the person disciplining you is. Now anyone who supports this system is likely to be thinking “but we have to force kids to learn, else the world would be awful!”. That’s just not true, what this system does, is take children who are eager to learn about the world, shoves them in a classroom, expects them to lick the boots of anyone who’s shoved Infront of them forces them to learn random stuff they have no interest in and in doing so makes it so no one wants to learn.  “Every kid starts out as a natural born scientist, and we beat it out of them”. Afterall learning is one of the most enjoyable experiences there is – hence why it takes a system so awful to beat it out. Another glaring issue with hierarchies in particular is the innate cruelty that they inspire. Because hierarchies always fosters dehumanisation, no one respects someone that they have complete control over. And every child encountered in this system teachers have complete control over (we will examine how in a moment), because a fundamental part of being human is free will, and this strips it from those not in power. And as such there are no moral qualms with shoving children in isolation blocks for refusing to take off there coats when its cold, or for talking – or any random act which isn’t complete submission to authority. And the way is forces people to obey is as follows, a system whereas the person in question must submit or be faced with a worse punishment. There is of course the initial threat of being screamed at (which in itself highlights the lack of respect held for students – if I viewed someone as an equal I would not shout at them for not doing what I tell them to do) combined with the being raised from birth to think following authority is the right thing to do – but that is more of a side note, as in essence this system gets everyone to publicly submit. Because if you don’t submit to the current punishment, they make the next one worse. And of course, there are people who refuse this all together, people who refuse to be broken (likely because their parents haven’t conditioned them) but these people will quickly be expelled, and their parents fined for their spirit.

The final component to address is the one I’ve just briefly mentioned, the atmosphere of obeying. There are people who have been so institutionalised into this system whether that be by parents or school or whatever, who if they see disobedience will feel physically disgusted. That is how bad it has got, when teachers require submission from every member of the class before continuing, or conduct group punishments for refusal of submission from one member they are fostering this mindset of hatred towards disobedience (and unfortunately these children lack the critical skills to see it is really the teacher who is inflicting this misfortune not the student, because the entire system is based on being taught rather than learning). Furthermore there is this mind set in many teachers that its ok for them to enforce rules e.g. skirt length (The amount of times I have seen children crying at the front gates because some 40 year old man has objectified them into nothing more than a skirt length and has started them onto this forced submission pathway is far too many times) because our society relies on rules and would be worse without them, is without a doubt one of the most fascistic things in our society at the moment. I have nothing against teachers, they are as oppressed as any other worker and I acknowledge that most hate this system and want it to change. But the excuse by some to alleviate there conscious that it is somehow just to enforce unjust rules because they are rules is incredibly unjust.

So having analysed the main components of the modern school system, what do we find? We find a system that increases discipline at the expensive of learning, as system that increases identity lose at the expensive of learning and a system which increases submission at the expensive of learning. And yet people claim that this is the best system and that there are no thinkable alternatives? That is laughable. Now perhaps we can see clearly why so many people hate school and why mental health is becoming a increasingly great crisis among the youth and perhaps contributes to the growing loneliness in the UK after all miserable people do not make for good friends – especially in a society where solidarity has been all but gone for over 30 years.

What are the effects of this system? Well in its totality it is not dissimilar from the domestication of a pet, the pet confuses us and infuriates us because its not in our image of a pet. So we break it (domestication is merely a nice way of saying destroying its will) we make it so it follows any arbitrary rules we put in place and the result is a animal that does what we want it to do, perhaps it will sit when you command it too, or whatever other random fancy takes you. An adult is not fundamentally dissimilar: its identity, capacity to think for itself, its hopes and dreams are all shattered in the furnace of school. And what comes out is a bitter husk ready to attack anyone for whatever reason, its lost its humanity. There are adults who don’t want to make things easier for children, because they had to suffer the same things. But fortunately for the capitalist these drones make good workers, because they lack the capacity to disobey (for a policeman is now in their heads) the capacity to think of a better world. The product of the modern school system is a fascist. In the sense that a fascism is a state of mind.

It has gotten so bad, that when the planet is burning, and these adults see the pictures of dying people every day. They might if they are particularly brave go and peacefully protest. The most extreme might even sit in a road and let themselves get arrested! It is absurd, the people have been so institutionalised that when they are being sent to the abattoir by the farmer, they are appealing to the farmers better nature! And that’s only half, a significant amount are having ago at them for complaining!

Of course this is not the case with everyone, in fact as any expert in fascism will tell you – it emerges on the back of the middle class. And this fascist manufactorum is no different, the middle classes tend to raise more obedient children, children who thrive in this system and as such progress through it. Fortunately, not everyone is middle class and many people are able to escape without complete conditionment. And even within the system there are people who still refuse to broken up as far as universities! Which is thoroughly impressive – though I suspect this is the exception not the rule. And it is the same with teachers, although many full heartedly partake in this system, there are those who dispute all of this risk there career everyday to treat their pupils as equals.

So what should our schools look like?

We must abolish all discipline in schools and make it a place where people can discover themselves and how to act as a decent human being – without someone constantly watching over their shoulder. We must remove all exams and syllabuses, and let people learn what they want to learn and become what they want to become without the burden of exams, so that learning may be a enjoyable and personal experience. Abolish hierarchies and discipline so that people are able to learn instead of being taught and so that when injustices are committed people actually do things about them, but also so the world has more meaning than a colourless wave of drone like people – instead authentic individuals. Systems like this have already been put into practise in revolutionary countries like the free territories in the Ukraine or the Zapatista in southern Mexico. This change will not come over night and many other parts of society will have to change with it – but we owe it to the children to treat them as people not animals.

[theangryanarchocommunist-blog]

Essay on anarcho communist and capitalism

Why anarcho – communism?

Introduction

Many people seem to have many misconceptions surrounding not only anarchism and communism but with capitalism itself. This is an issue, as to make our society as good as possible we must be able to objectively look at society now, something which is incredibly difficult to do if people have been mystified to how society functions. Furthermore, it is important to be knowledgeable of the alternatives so that judgements can be formed about the worth of out current society.

So what is capitalism?

Capitalism is a society based around the gaining of capital. But what is capital? Capital is the value gained by business owners, when they hire people to work. This generates value because the employee is treated as a component of the commodity rather than the creator of a commodity, in that the employee is selling his time instead of the commodity. So instead of the worker making the commodity in question and selling it, the business owner (or capitalist) sells its and gains the extra value. But how does this generate value?

Well, to begin with cost is based on time put into an object, for example if I was a chair maker, the value of the chair would be based on how long it took me to build the chair and the cost of the components of the chair. So if I could make 10 chairs in a day, and the components of each chair cost me £5, and if I needed to make about £50 to live relatively comfortably, then the cost of an individual chair would be £50/10 or £5 plus the cost of the components (which incidental can be worked out in the same way by applying the same idea to the lumberjack) so the cost of the chair would be £10. But then what happens if someone comes along and builds a chair making machine which can make 100 chairs a day? Well then the cost of a chair from this particular person would fall to £5.50, and in this way this machine when it becomes more widespread, the chairmaker without the machine would be forced to sell his chairs for £5.50 too if he wishes to make any money at all, so he then only has £10 a day to live off of, which he just simply wont be able to do. From here, the rich with there reserves of money are able to invest in these new machines and come back with more value then they put in, this is done by him turning the chairmaker into a just a component in the chair in the same way the wood is. He pays the chairmaker just enough for him to survive but in return the capitalist ruthlessly exploits him to the greatest extent he can – so that he can make as much money as he can – afterall his intent in this project is only gaining more wealth out of his original investment (which would be in the machines which undercut the original chairmaker), the capitalist in question cares not for the squalid living conditions and hunger the chairmaker will be subjugated too. So let’s say the capitalist now has his chairmaking factory and this factory can make 600 chairs a day, the wood still costs £5, but we have to also add the cost of the worker, for sake of easiness there is 1 worker in his factory who can survive off of £30, so that per chair the workman will be given 5p, so each chair will cost the capitalist £5.05, he will then sell the chair for as much as he can, and this will be higher than £5.05 in the same way the £50 to live comfortably will be more than the £30 to barely scrape by, it is that difference between those 2 different amounts in which capital is found, in which value is generated for the capitalist. Who by virtue of being rich in the first place has paid the workers to build his factory has paid workers to make his commodities, and who ends up with all the comfort.

So at the very heart of capitalism there is oppression, but our modern capitalism is not as simple as this. I have previously mentioned how the workers are given just enough to survive under capitalism, but this is often not the case, as often employment is kept below the maximum capacity so that the workers are willing to accept wages that will make them destitute, as the unemployed starving man will be willing to work for even less. Here we see one of the great difficulties with the capitalist – how ruthless he is. You and I would never be able to bring ourselves to force another person into misery in the name of wealth. So, what makes the capitalist different from ourselves? We must remember first and foremost that the capitalist is still human, despite all the terrible things he has done. But to what can we attribute this deviation from us in this ruthlessness? One of the primary reasons for this ability to force people to starve is present, is due to the hierarchical nature of society, this gives him the capacity to be cruel, as when in a position of power people start to stop seeing the people below them as human this occurs because they are able to control them, by the very nature of the hierarchy as such they start to become objects in the mind of the capitalist instead of people. Furthermore, the Capitalist will have been raised to believe that those below him are lesser which will reinforce this capacity for cruelness. But this then raises the question, why should the capitalist desire more money? Afterall he would not be cruel for the sake of being cruel unless he was sadistic. This desire for money which is verging on nihilistic in its destruction of everything in the name of money (as we are seeing with the ecocide occurring in front of us) occurs due to the capitalist’s resignation in the hierarchy he finds himself in. He chooses not to pursue an authentic life and help others become free and instead gives up and pursues money, money acts as a sort of obsession through which he can hid the existential dread, and it is money he chooses because he is surrounded constantly by people who have told him to do so. But this becomes self-fulfilling, it is likely he has already started to participate in exploitation of the workers (if only in enjoying a lavish lifestyle) before he starts to become aware of his freedom to choose not to be the oppressor, but by this time to decide to stop contributing to hurting those people whom he has helped exploit it will be too painful for him to acknowledge what he has done, he may try to find excuses for his behaviour in the form of bourgeoise philosophy or not care, but either way he will be totally consumed by money from this point onwards. The capitalist is a man who has spent his entire childhood being groomed for making money, who then finds his freedom which reveals the sufferings he has helped inflicted which are too painful for him and who now denies them by consuming himself in the acquisition of wealth – this then continues itself as his children will now be raised to continue his business ventures.

Now we have uncovered the mentality of the capitalist we can begin to explore and more importantly explain the development of this relatively simple system of exploitation into all the institutions and states we see today.

The first thing that happens when capitalism takes hold is that the reigns of the state changes hands so that the capitalists become controllers instead of the feudal lords. This can occur due to the capitalists becoming increasingly rich, money with which they will raise armies (as they did in the English civil war) or to spread ideas of “representative” democracy and discontent towards the nobility (like in the French revolution). Once this war has been won the capitalists will quickly implement a representative democracy. This allows them to stay in power very easily to begin with, as they will put in brackets of certain amounts of wealth for people to be allowed to stand and vote, then they will have a group of capitalists making all the national decisions which will undoubtably benefit the capitalists, however the people will quickly become discontent that they are unable to vote and stand. In this way we will begin to see a pattern of mystification occurring which will allow the capitalists to stay in power. For example, they will allow everyone to vote and stand for election – but no one among the working class will be able to afford too.

In modern capitalism this constant mystification all the time has made an incredibly complex system which to demystify will take some time, as each previous stage remains when the new ones come in. However, we have 5 main sections: the disciplinary stage, the monopoly stage, the nationalistic stage the consumerist stage and finally the fascist stage. Interestingly we can see similar patterns occurring throughout history, even if we put our scope further out than just the emergence of capitalism, for example take the romans, they stared off as a collection of 7 tribes, which then became a kingdom, which then became a republic (a representative democracy which too constantly mystified itself with things like everyone being able to stand for office) and finally a fascist imperium. This would suggest that statists societies tend to emerge in a similar way, something which we can use to try and better understand the capitalist state. So how does the state start? The state starts by the coalition of the warrior and the priest, who try to seize power – likely because they think they have a better capacity to control society than society itself. These 2 are able to seize control, because the priest is able to trick people into thinking that if they do not do what he and the soldiers say they will burn for eternity and the soldiers can send any who dislike the new regime there. This then becomes increasingly militaristic as the state within the tribe becomes more powerful and seeks to conquer other tribes. Why does the state become more powerful? Because like the capitalists the statist find themselves in a position of power which they have been raised to hold they cannot justify this position and thus blindly seek power.  So here we see that the state causes cruelness in the same way as capitalism (which just so happens to be a type of statist society), the tribal leaders seek to conquer other tribes, the medieval lords seek to conquer other kingdoms and the modern capitalist seeks power in the form of money. Therefore, we can see that at the end of it all capital is just a form of power. Which the people at the top of the hierarchy will always try to maintain – as it is their only aim in life, however, this can only be done if the people they are exercising power over are not organised and fighting back hence why mystification constantly occurs – as you can’t fight against what you don’t know is there.

So, what is meant by the disciplinary stage? The disciplinary stage is the stage in which the state switches from attacking the body of its subjects to attacking their minds. Discipline is an important thing for the state, as it means its subjects are made less likely to rebel – to an even greater extent than just mystification by itself, but it also means the religion becomes less significant and the capitalists can stop sharing power with the priests. So how does the capitalist increase discipline in this phase? It does this in several ways, it will increase the amount of schools and compulsory education, it will introduce the overseers into the work place, it will introduce prisons and finally their increasing financial control will serve to render the media (at this point normally just newspapers) in their control. To show how these things increased discipline we must find work out what increases discipline, discipline is increased via putting people in the groups where they will not stand out and share characteristics with everyone else, it will increase when timetables distant everything, it will increase when the individual in question is subjugated from birth to hierarchies, when any traces of individuality are punished. Schools will do this by putting everyone in groups based on ages, by putting a strict timetable into place, by placing the teacher above them as an authority figure who can punish pupils for deviating from their wishes and by strict enforcement of uniform (interestingly the exact same things are done in training for armies in this time period and in the modern army). Overseers increase discipline by punishing any deviations from the capitalists demands in the factory, however perhaps more importantly between this and schools the individuals entire time is spent in a disciplinary environment which will cause the person in question to start to view obedience as the nature law, in addition to this it will create a managerial class which will decrease resistance to the state by giving it a human face. Prisons will serve to increase discipline by once again removing all individualistic qualities, by making everyone do the same activities, by having a strict hierarchy, by placing the convicts in uniform – furthermore this is a massive change and really highlights the disciplinary stage as previously deviants were killed instead of broken. Finally, the media will never focus on actions of rebellion, in this way this idea of this discipline and obedience will be reinforced as it will be all they know.

The disciplinary stage will start to occur as soon as the capitalists have taken over the state apparatus. However the next stage takes longer to occur -  the disciplinary stage had reached its fullest extent by about 1860 in western capitalist countries, while the imperialist stage would take till 1890. The imperialist stage is effectively when monopolies have come to dominate the countries. Monopolies are in the best interests of the capitalists as they mean that they can charge higher prices due to the removal of all competition. This monopolisation can occur due the emergence of banks, which are essentially a group of metacapitalists, in that they invest in capitalist enterprises and get a return. This works by the metacapitalists buying huge amounts of shares in a business, to the extent they basically control it, they then lower the market prices of their goods to undercut all their competitors, they can do this at a loss because they have huge reserves of money they can dig into to keep the business in question afloat or they can simply buy out all the competition – so like the capitalist invests in the means of production, the metacapitalist invests in capitalists. This has the effect of decreasing the size of the capitalistic class considerably – until previously they were merely a relatively large group with coinciding interests, however they will now reach a point whereas they can exercise huge amounts of control personally. For example, bribes, at this point it is now safe for the capitalists to open their parliaments to everyone because the individuals that are put in charge can be brought off – even if that is only in the form of comfy job offers. We still see this trend of wealth being centralised in increasingly few hands with the recent stat coming out that just the top 27 richest have as much wealth as the bottom 3.8 billion.

The next stage is the nationalism stage, whereas the scape goats in society e.g. foreigners which although always blamed for the misfortunes in society have the blame stepped up to a terrifying extent. This is perpetrated by the media which by now is safely in the hands of the metacapitalists. This will be used in one main way – war. The capitalists are always looking for new ways to increase their wealth whether that be by the colonies or by trade. However, conquest of tribal societies by rifleman requires few soldiers, while for Britain to conquer Germany would require the populace to be fighting too. So once the world has been divided up into colonies and puppets the capitalists countries (which are little more than groups of capitalists and their subjects) will start trying to conquer each other as after all their only purpose is the acquisition of more power/wealth. To do so will require the entire populations support, so the media will demonise not only the enemy nations people but also members of the nation itself who do not wish to go and mindlessly murder the working class of another nation. This leads to enormous wars like world war 1.

Now we reach a cross roads, at this point the capitalists will introduce consumerism or become fascist. The likelihood of either occurring is determined by solidarity among the working class. The capitalists will likely invest some effort into generating a fascist party (afterall was it not krupps and thyrsil which benefited off of the third Reich) which if beaten by the working class (for example at cable street) will lead to nothing and it will continue into consumerism, however if the working class has been devastated by years of extreme poverty, conditioning and failed revolutions like the Weimar republic the fascists are more likely to take over. Though that being said consumerism considerably decreases solidarity so will lead to fascism eventually. Consumerism comes about in a similar way to nationalism, however this time it is not in the name of the conquest of other major capitalist blocks but rather in the creation of whole new completely meaningless industries. As I have just showed, the capitalists will introduce consumerism if the working class has a lot of unity, which at the same time will mean that the capitalists are likely moving production overseas to there not unionised workers in china or India. Therefore consumerism is needed to create pseudo needs so that these pseudo needs can be fulfilled by new industries so that an unemployed mass doesn’t fight back, but also so that the capitalists have no industries to exploit. Consumerism was given a massive boost by the radio becoming wide spread as it meant that pointless tat would be marketed to people 24/7 telling them that this object instead of that object will fulfil their desires. This has the self fulfilling effect of making the people desire objects increasingly due to objects failure to fulfil them -  by which I mean as members of the populace they will be working in jobs to survive so their work will likely not feel meaningful, they will then be marketed stuff on the basis it will fill this void, this will fail to fill the void and instead will make it deeper as they start searching for more stuff to buy instead of living authentically. In turn the purpose of their lives will become working so they can gain stuff in a vain attempt to fill this void, which will in turn isolate the individual as all their relationships will gradually become throughout this phase just means of acquiring more stuff, for example the point of Christmas would switch from a gathering, to a gift exchanging session. Consumerism in this way devastates the unity of the working class, because they all become disassociated individuals all seeking empty objects instead of meaningful relationships.

This will then lead to fascism as with the working class unity devastated the gates will be left open to the fascists. The nationalist stage has readied the people for the hatred that will be directed towards whatever minority is vulnerable at that point in time and will be used almost as a trigger word to gain the fascists support, the monopoly stage will cause all the politicians to provide no resistance in return for certain things, and the disciplinary stage will make the even stronger hierarchies and strengthened state apparatus seem acceptable. Fascism is the perfect society for the capitalist, as the fullest extent of the states power can be used as working class unity while damaged before this will now be rendered almost non existent. People who form unions will disappear, and not only will the disassociated individual not care, even if they did they would likely be too disciplined to do anything. The deathcamps allowed by nationalism will allow the capitalists to exploit labour for free. And this society is geared towards war allowing acquisition of more power. The middle class created by the discipline stage will  Though that is not to say that resistance in a fascist society is completely futile – afterall discipline is only maintained if no one sees anyone resisting – however it would be the hardest society to resist once it establishes itself.

In modern capitalist we are now entering the fascist stage, this can be shown by several indicators, for example the complete carelessness to which people regard the deportation camps, deaths of refugees and starvation of hundreds of millions. However in history societies have stress points, these occur around the times when mystification occurs. These occur because over time if the state fails to do class consciousness starts to increase, the state responds by mystifying itself, however just before and after it is possible to have a genuine revolution.

Anarchism and Communism

Now that we have established what capitalism is, it is undoubtably bad – but what alternative is there. I would suggest anarcho-communism, this as an idea is likely to cause quite a lot of confusing as its 2 constituents’ anarchism and communism are not very well understood. Anarchism is generally meant to mean a society without a government and communism a society without a state. However, semantics aside, the society I am subjecting is about abolishing hierarchies, coercion, suffering and about increasing freedom and happiness.

However to first determine eutopia we must first look at the people in it. What is human? For this there are 2 important parts of being human – first the desire to rebel against what we feel is unjust and secondly the desire to help other people. But how can I make such a assertion? Well the desire to rebel against what we feel is wrong is more of a logical construct we can make about conscious beings, what people feel is wrong is what they do not desire, rebellion is action to change something. Therefore, it makes sense to say that it is human to desire to change what we do no like. However, to say that we all innately desire to help people is harder to justify, of only because the state has mystified people to the extent that human nature is hidden. However, we can look at the direction of the state influence to try and work out human nature by negation. The state for example increases discipline, discipline changes people so that they will not help people when they see people being hurt of told not too furthermore, disassociation of the individual also makes people less emphatic as does the very nature of hierarchies – as such we can see the direction of the state is to decrease empathy, therefore it makes sense that naturally empathy would be much higher. Furthermore if we examine this from a biological perspective, it is in the best interest of the gene to try encourage protection of bodies which also contain it, so that the gene propagates itself – hence empathy. Furthermore we can suggest that it is in human nature because if we look at the closest species to us -  bonobos (unlike chimpanzees bonobos have empathy bits of the brain more similar to ours) that rarely fight, which work together and resolve their issues by having sex.

Furthermore even with all the states influences on our empathy does it not fill you with indignation or terrible sadness when you see people hurt? In this way I think we can conclude that it is peoples best interests for everyone to be happy and free if only because it makes them happy and free. And as such a society which attempts to maximise these things would be in the best interests of humans!

So how do we make people happy and free? To make people happy, undoubtably everyone must have enough food, everyone must have places to live, meaningful relationships, ways in which they can feel they are meaningfully do things furthermore the best person to know how to make themselves happy is themselves. And to be free we must free people of economic obligations and the oppression of the state.

Providing for everyone

How will we provide for everyone? Unlike capitalism the anarchist communes will produce what is needed by people. The fields will be taken over by those who live near them, for example the fields surrounding a town will be taken over to sustain that town. In this way decentralised food production will remove all the issues with a bureaucracy, but will also mean that the people farming it will have enough to eat – also as they will be restored to their nature human situation by the removal of state influences they will desire for no one else to go hungry so they will provide for others who are hungry – take for example how the free territories in the Ukraine continued to feed the Russian peasants for nothing in return. Furthermore, the farming techniques used will not be in the name of some blind march towards more money but towards feeding people, so intense farming techniques which could have a harmful effect would not be used, but machines which could make it easier to farm would be given to communities whereas before they would not of been because communities were too poor. The farms will become as efficient as they can be without damaging the land. How is this food then to be effectively distributed? The food will then be shared among the community. This will be done in the process of mutual aid whereas the everyone voluntarily works towards the community and everyone can take what they need from the community, this would work well if everything was put in depots and then people take what they need from these depots(however each community will decide itself how best to organise this) – that same thing would happen with everything produced by the community whenever it be produced in the factories of the fields.

Homes for all

The homes should be taken over by the community – of course on a voluntary basis (although only up to the extent they are using it, the spare rooms in Buckingham palace would be placed under communal ownership regardless of any nobles objections, but the family which just wants to be left alone in the flat would be left alone), the community will then try to share the houses best so that people are most positively affected. However, the idea of ownership would change, it is likely living would become far more communal.

Meaningful relationships

With the breakdown of the mother/father/children unit into the community as a whole, people will get to know each other better and perhaps more importantly with the absence of the monetary motivation in relations the relationships will become meaningful. This is also important as it will act as the means of prevent people doing shitty things, as desire to be shitty caused mainly be alienation and lack of empathy will no longer be fostered instead the opposite will be true, furthermore if things do go wrong the community will be able to effectively understand what caused it to go wrong and address those issues. Furthermore, the desire of everyone to be happy requires the individual to choose how to make themselves happy, which will mean that individuality will flourish.

Voluntary work

Can anything be enjoyable when you have to do it? Afterall you may love skiing but if your being to forced to ski at gun point its not going to be a particularly fun experience. When something is not a choice it becomes unenjoyable. So in this society with no economic coercion, work should become enjoyable in a way of feeling useful even if the task itself isn’t particularly great. And people would continue to work because they desire of others to be happy, and work acts as a way of helping others because work will contribute towards helping others, for example if I got and work in the field growing potatoes it makes me feel better because I am helping people to get food, and if I paint pictures it makes me happy because it makes others happy. So even if the desire to help others is entirely based on the desire to make yourself happy or not makes little difference. Furthermore with the increased amount of machinery which will be made available by the factories coming under community ownership, the amount of work needed to sustain society will dramatically decrease, furthermore with the labour freed up the removal of all the meaningless jobs which have come about under consumerism and previously in the maintenance of the state, the amount of time needed from each individual to maintain society will dramatically decrease

Economic obligations

Money will no longer exist with people contributing what they can and taking what they need, in this way people will no longer be coerced into work.

State oppression

The state will no longer exist all its prisons, politicians, armies, bureaucrats will be gone. Furthermore, as this society can only occur from a ground up movement, the process of creating this new society and rejecting all the old societies oppressive values, such as marriage or sexual repression will lead to make more open and supportive communities. Furthermore, the desire of everyone to dismantle things like the power of the old over the young and men over women will lead to such things becoming a thing of a past particularly quickly when those ideas are no longer being dogmatically reinforced.

So as you can see the people in this society will be considerably more happy and freer. However how will the details be organised? How will the society make decisions? The society will practise decentralised democracy as that is the system of decision making which makes most sense for this system as everyone wants everyone to live as they wish, and decision making based on who it effects is a good way of fulfilling this. However, for just meetings and general discussion there would likely be a confederation of councils based on streets and villages which for bigger discussions would make larger group votes. Effectively this society will be organised by the people.

How would this society deal with crime? Well to assess this we must first work out what causes’ crime, these are financial necessity – which would no longer be an issue, and lack of willpower. Unsurprisingly both of these things are caused by the state with its unequal distribution and its disciplinary institutes - which decrease will power. As such after a period of time in this new society crime should disappear altogether, but how do we stop in the time being? Well this would be done by a supportive community helping the individuals in question from reoffending by helping them get past what went wrong, and by not ostracising the individuals in question they will be more willing to accept help.

So how do we make this Eutopia occur? As I have already pointed out we are currently on a stress point from consumerism to fascism, and as such we have a good chance now to try and make a better society – but more importantly we have to too try and counter the impending ecological genocide. To do this we must attempt to form local proto councils which will become the councils during and after the revolution. We must attempt to subvert and destroy symbols of authority. We must act as decent human beings and show solidarity with everyone. But most importantly we must not to make the mistakes of past revolutions – we must make sure our revolution resembles the society we wish to form. The revolution must be a decentralised directly democratic all-inclusive revolution if we wish to have a society with these things.