The dustbins of history

Popular social revolutions never keep their promises. They end up as repressive authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. These repeated failures could be blamed on the impractical reality of an egalitarian society. After all history gives no examples, except perhaps among primitive tribes. And there were ancestral common usages of heaths and woodland, which survived waves of conquerors but not the greed of capital. However, there are no signs anywhere of an egalitarian urban culture, and the whole idea seems a ridiculous fantasy. Also equality contradicts the freedom to be stronger or weaker, richer or poorer, to lead or be led.

The notion of equal rights and duties for everyone goes back to Athens, to the times of Solon and Cleisthenes. Greece was coming out of its Dark Age, cities were growing, trade was expanding and wealth was accumulating in a few hands. The people were being submerged by debt and reduced to bondage. But, at the same time, the city needed a capable and willing army to defend it, a hoplite fighting force of free and equal citizens. Sparta had instituted absolute equality governed by a gerontocracy. Athens chose to give people a say and a vote. However, this early attempt at democracy – the demos were the tribal/geographic units of citizenry – excluded women, slaves and immigrants, as did military service. And the Roman republic was equally exclusive.

The ruling, owning class always needs a lower class to defend it against foreign threats and against the rabble, the slaves or the serfs. When slaves and serfs were freed, this lower class was promoted to middle class, and the three part division of society was perpetuated. This seems to be the model for stability. But the upper class gets regularly carried away by hubris, and neglects those on whom its power and wealth relies. This provokes revolt, rebellion and occasionally revolution. It is when the intermediary class feels it is not getting its due that social upheavals occur. Then, equality trumps freedom. But it is a form of equality where the middle class feels it can replace the ruling class, not one that shows any affinity with the proles. Universal equality is used and abused, but never seriously considered.

A revolution is always a coup de force. Some degree of violence is necessary, as those with power and wealth never abdicate with a smile and a bow. To overthrow the existing hierarchy, the revolutionaries need the force of numbers. They must call on the multitude to join their side. The disfranchised and destitute masses are promised political power and a redistribution of wealth. The people flex their muscles, realise their strength and, if the leadership is determined and efficient enough, they carry the day. But the old order does not evaporate overnight. There is resistance at home and intervention from abroad. The new government must fight for its survival, and to succeed it must be ruthless. The war on foreign encroachments can galvanise the nation, whereas war against its own leaves wounds that never heal. The war-government imposes martial law and polices peoples’ minds and attitudes. Traitors are denounced and dealt with.

Supposing that revolution gives power to the people to decide their destiny does not stand up to scrutiny. Yet the idea persists. This is because ordinary people show an amazing capacity to organise and get things done, when they are left to their own devices. But modern nations are vast and multiple, and these demonstrations have always been local and short lived. The various grids that keep the nation together are extremely centralised. Breaking the top-down exercise of power disrupts the centre-outwards processes of utilities, transport, trade and communications. The people’s power can be isolated and made to fail. And the centralised functioning of just about everything recreates a centralised organisation of political power, an organisation that can change its form but not its nature.

The latter day Romans, before the empire moved east and turned Christian, considered that morality was the source of good governance. This was epitomised by the stoic emperor Marcus Aurelius. But they neglected the logic of governing for the people. A more egalitarian society has better health and education, is more productive and inventive, and is generally happier. On the other hand, inequality means the rich fear for their lives and wealth, and must hire mercenary guards and armies for protection. Meanwhile all social functions are stifled. The mechanism of robber capitalism allows wealth to accumulate in a few hands, and gives them an infinite power of corruption. That mechanism is constantly being changed by new legislation, and the legislative process is where the people can influence decisions when they choose their legislators.

Laws are about what can and cannot be done (speech is to a certain extent outside the law). They are basically oppressive as they counteract free action, but they are also protective when they prohibit harmful acts. The question is: who needs protection from whom? As societies are divided in classes, do the rich need protection from the poor, or do the poor need protection from the rich? The poor are a potential danger for the rich, inasmuch as they might try to take those riches, but the rich are constantly taking profit and interest from the poor, who must exert their muscles and minds to produce commodities. And when the class divide deepens, the protection of the law is increasingly one sided in favour of the rich. This trend could possibly be reversed by elections, where a different legislature changes the law to protect the down trodden against predatory capitalism. But the electoral circus of TV commercials and yelling crowds, of gerrymandering and devious checks and balances, is unable to make such a change. To provoke it, something more radical has to happen. It occurred in the 20^th century because of total war following a collapse of the world’s financial structures.

Total war brings a nation together. Everyone is willing to make sacrifices, large or small. And the levelling effect of a conscript war – the death toll speeds up promotions – feeds back to civilians. In wartime the governing executive has exceptional powers, but to change the law it needs strong electoral backing. A winning war can bring that support, and encourage legislation that favours a wide majority of citizens. Today’s wars cannot be total, because the nuclear option insures total mutual destruction. Instead they confront professional mercenary armies with insurgents and civilians. They do not inspire patriotism and national unity. Far away and largely ignored, they are more divisive than anything else, and remain extremely costly. The US Treasury debt passed 100% of GDP in 1945. It is back there now and still growing.

The old recipe for bringing a nation together was never justifiable and is no longer effective. However, there is a menace far greater than ragged bands in flip-flops, armed with rifles, who want to hide their women from sight. A threat to all humanity, rich and poor, developed or not, that is climate disruption and species extinction. Confronting that danger could become a unifying struggle, bringing classes and nations together in a common front. There are signs of this happening among the generations that will have to deal with a modified planetary ecosystem (their elders are mostly petrified by the unfolding consequences of their inaction). But the capitalist behemoth rumbles on, getting bigger by the day and ignoring the cliff edge ahead. And for the countless numbers who have trouble getting by from one pay check to the next, it is the end of the week or month that preoccupies them, not the end of the world.

What could stop this lemming-like rush to oblivion is a debt crunch. The years of future incomes that have been spent cannot be redeemed. They will have to be cancelled by default, inflation or decree. In either case a colossal amount of supposed wealth will just evaporate. Humanity has wasted its future, unthinkingly for most, very profitably for some, but all will suffer from the backlash. It could be an occasion for thought, and for starting again along a completely different path. Profit and interest could become concepts that are only joked about. Unfortunately the signs are not pointing in that direction. Heavily armed police patrol the streets, prisons are full to bursting point, protest is gassed, cudgelled and mutilated, and those who hold power and wealth show no inclination for letting go. The consequence will not be a gala diner, and the outcome will be messy. Today’s children will inherit a wrecked society and a broken planet. And they can thank Margaret Thatcher for convincing the world forty years ago that “there is no alternative”… to extinction?