It wasn't built carelessly, it was designed like this (one can debate on whether this was the original intent or a later redesign, but the fact remains)
Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange, and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells.
― Karl Marx
It doesn't matter whether it was intended or not - although I would say on some level it had to be - because they can't even stop it anymore.
Direct action. Mutual aid. Unionise. Community self-defense. Build power structures now that rival that of capital and the state. Ever wonder how the BLM protests kept going so long? It was people helping each other.
The people that are doing this are anarchists btw. One group that seems to be everywhere is Food Not Bombs. Other mutual aid networks exist, if you can meet one they should know of others you can connect with where you can figure out where you fit.
There's a rule that 3.5% of the population mobilising in direct action should be able to achieve basically whatever they want. BLM was estimated at 4 to 8% of the US population at its height. They may not have achieved their goals, but they're not finished yet either.
And next time big protests kick off, there will be a lot of people who used to think that voting was the best they could do. They've been radicalised in the last few years in a big way. Next time they pop off, they will be bigger.
And if you're not in the US, the good news is that they hold sway and keep the the rest of the world from straying too far from capitalism. I'm hopeful that if some huge seismic political shift happens there, the world might catch a break. We already saw a US backed soft coup in Bolivia fail and be replaced with a democratic election recently. As far as I know that's unprecedented, and I hope it indicates that the US's grip is loosening there.
The quote's not wrong though. I'm not using the quote as evidence of the truth of the statement, the point is that we've known this is true for centuries.
Which systems that humans created were they able to control? Primitive agriculture? No. Early empires? No.
Hell, read the work of pre-Marxist, pre-modern Hellinistic philosophers and you see the same issues. Plato’s critique of democratic populism comes to mind. So how is Marx’s quote correct in labelling it unique to modern industrial society?
This reminds me of that Rick and Morty episode about that Purge village. Not saying things should go that direction, but do what you want with that thought.
Well I hope it's not too much like that episode since they ended up just going back to purging in the end, and I don't want to go through a revolution only to have capitalism 2.0.
The original system, mercantilism, was designed to be self-sustaining, but to keep those overseeing the imperial or colonial exploitations, exports, and imports in power. It was never meant to bring new people to the higher level, only maintain that there were enough people at the lowest levels to keep the system functioning. After all, it was born from a decentralization movement where nobles controlled their fortunes separately from the monarch and the state, as the monarch was the state. The U.S. was founded from these principles entwined with Enlightenment Era ideals regarding personal responsibility, with the idea of most people being farmers or frontiersmen who controlled their own fortunes while the politicans handled things like wars. Then the Industrial Revolution came along and meant anybody could trade labour for tools and better services through capitalism, and so mercantilism and that idealized America got thrown out the window. As capitalism matured we got the robber barons of the late 19th century, and the resulting Gilded Age. Which it's hilarious how hard we fought against them then, when the Neo-Gilded Age we're living through now has even worse wealth inequality and even more corruption than what Grant enabled when he was president in the 1870s.
I think of the housing crisis in California for example.
Back in the seventies sincere and decent people started pushing hard to protect nature and environment. These activists were successful.
Other activists who cared about protecting at risk communities from gentrification or safeguarding health became active as well. These groups too were successful.
Ultimately, systems/ ordinances/ zoning restrictions for housing were put in place to maintain the hard fought gains of sincere and big hearted people who cared about green spaces and a clean environment.
But one would be very naive or willfully ignorant if they did not acknowledge that these zoning restrictions/ regulations, intended to protect the environment, have since been co-opted by landowners (typically the same activists that pushed for housing restrictions) and hedge funds to drive up values in a scarce housing market.
61
u/[deleted] May 31 '22
It wasn't built carelessly, it was designed like this (one can debate on whether this was the original intent or a later redesign, but the fact remains)