Solidarity, The Only Ally on the Road to an Ideal Society
| |
by Yiannis Vovos
The idea of transitioning to an Ideal Society, in which productive resources are distributed equally, corporate ownership is eliminated, the system of governance based on rulers and the ruled is rejected, and concepts such as equality, equality before the law, and self-determination prevail, appears today more like a necessity than a beautiful idea. In these difficult times our country is going through, and in light of the hardships endured by the majority of the population, the need for a change in the political system—not in name, but in the way it operates—is being expressed every day by an increasing number of people around us.
We are in the midst of a crisis of values that steadily erodes the social fabric and fuels the, for now silent, indignation of our fellow citizens. The current crisis has arisen from an inherent pathology of the capitalist system, which, in its attempt to restructure itself through the redistribution of wealth, relies primarily on authoritarian practices legitimized by distorted democratic rules. When this proves insufficient, the system resorts to the repressive mechanisms of the state. Looking back, we can see that the economic and political systems of different eras displayed the same characteristics, and that similar practices were followed to address the problems of the ruling class.
Today, living in the twenty-first century and having reached a point where technological advances have made the means of production more than sufficient to meet all human needs, we are easily tempted to consider the need to transition to a society free from the existing system and, consequently, from the corruption of state power that sustains it. In the context of Greek reality, the mere need to meet basic humanitarian needs is enough to lead us to this line of thought.
The overwhelming majority of the population believes that a self-governing society cannot exist without police officers, punitive laws, and rulers to govern it. In practice, this belief seems to be ingrained in human DNA. It is clear that, in this respect, the state has always operated methodically and effectively. If we look deeper, we will observe that all attempts around the world to establish a self-regulating political system free from the stranglehold of the state, which safeguards the interests of the oligarchy, have simply disappeared. We do not need to resort to specific examples; it is enough to observe that perhaps nowhere in the so-called “Western” world does such a society exist today.
If, however, we try to determine whether such attempts have ever been made and how they disappeared, we will find that some were suppressed by states wielding power or by occupying forces, while others collapsed from within because they were unable to function under the prevailing economic and political conditions.
For centuries, efforts have been made to overturn this situation. Of course, the small—or, more accurately, tiny—number of people who perceive the situation in the way I have described means that the groups they form, in which they discuss, reach agreement, and eventually decide to take action, are small, lack a substantial economic foundation, and aim to dismantle the bourgeois state. Within this framework, the proposed solutions include not only attention-grabbing acts of direct action, but also threats of violence, the use of violence, and, at the final stage, urban guerrilla warfare, often involving conventional military-style operations and armed clashes. The rationale is to shock the public and trigger awareness, vigilance, and, ideally, a mass uprising, enabling these groups to achieve their goal using the meagre resources at their disposal compared with state budgets.
So far, this approach to the problem has produced no positive results in this direction. Violence as a method of action has not, to date, been shown, either in practice or in theory, to be the right way to bring about a change in the prevailing system. Practices that rely primarily on violence tend to legitimize the countervailing violence of the state, giving a callous and ruthless system an excuse to respond with harsh methods and, in effect, helping it implement measures that make it even stronger.
Furthermore, these practices produce results opposite to those intended in terms of gaining public acceptance. The way public opinion is shaped by the mass media also plays an important role in this. This is an issue that any attempt to solve the problem must take seriously and see to manage effectively.
Several proposals have been put forward in response to the question that arises: how can we transition to an Ideal Society without attempting to overthrow the state by force?
We will set aside the false solution of developing enclaves of non-state structures, closed communities, and fraternities that operate somewhat like associations, religious organizations, or movements engaged in collective activities. In essence, this approach does not overthrow the state; it merely keeps it out of the lives of the members of the movement in question. The movement’s leaders act as intermediaries between the two sides, usually securing corresponding financial benefits for themselves, and their activities come to an end when the tax authorities become involved.
One proposal is to reject the authority of the state and pursue a “peaceful” popular uprising, something comparable to what is happening today in Mexico’s Chiapas region, with the involvement of the Zapatistas. This approach is characterized by resistance without the use of violence, rejection of state authority and judicial decisions, abstention from the processes that sustain the bourgeois system—for example, elections—and avoidance of social obligations such as military service. This proposal is easy to understand (at least to me, and I imagine to others as well, though not everyone would agree). It can produce relatively rapid results, but it also activates the system’s mechanisms for dealing with it very easily. It requires a people, or a large group of individuals, who are mature and, for the most part, willing to endure the system’s violent reactions in choosing this course of action. If this method fails, the damage inflicted on the collective psyche of the people is irreparable, and it will probably be difficult, if not impossible, to initiate another attempt of any kind.
Solidarity. Could solidarity be the vehicle that people board to reach the Ideal Society?
The objective is to develop structures capable of managing public life without state involvement, so that they can gradually replace the state, while avoiding the neoliberal approach of privatizing these functions. These areas could include education, healthcare, culture, security, sanitation, recycling, information and media, sports, funding, barter-based trade, and any new fields that may emerge from combining these activities.
It must be made clear here that solidarity does not mean charity. Charity is considered by many, and in many circumstances, humiliating for those who receive it, and it does not foster the kind of people who will support radical social change. By solidarity, we mean an act of unity among allies who each strive, with their own strengths, toward the same goals. Their tools are mutual aid, assistance, support, the two-way exchange of information, and education, all aimed at developing collective consciousness and genuine social cohesion.
Who should provide solidarity? Unfortunately, human beings have an inherent tendency to take without giving. This is what we must fight against. Solidarity must concern us all, and we must offer it to everyone.
In any case, the state must be excluded from directly providing the material resources needed to support this effort. State involvement usually introduces restrictions on the ability to provide assistance to certain groups and thus creates inequalities that run counter to the objective. Nevertheless, every effort should be made to acquire, through lawful means, any resources that can be obtained and made available to society as a whole. Throughout the transition toward this transformation, the laws of the state will continue to apply. However, it is up to the determination and activism of these groups to exert pressure so that the laws enacted interfere as little as possible with individual freedom.
When asked whether this model can work, the answer is that we will never know unless we try. In any case, all the other models either fail or operate under severe constraints. For this model to work, its principles must be promoted, and the idea of solidarity must be disentangled from the idea of charity. The power of collective achievement must be highlighted in every instance, however small in scale. Only in this way will the individuals who form the initial core become involved, communicate the principles, demonstrate the steps to be taken, and make the intermediate destinations visible. Subsequently, through practical initiatives, broader groups of the population will become involved, focusing on these intermediate destinations and the methods required to reach them. The remarkable thing about this approach is that, while working toward a major goal, the people involved can see achievable objectives that they are capable of attaining.
The difference between this model and the others is that we can separate the achievement of the ultimate goal from the time required to achieve it. In any event, the Ideal Society will emerge sooner through this approach than any society that might arise through the maturation of capitalism—if such a society ever emerges at all.
For the time being, the capitalist system remains dominant and powerful. Perhaps, in a certain sense, it needs to be this way. If the factor of greed were absent, and if we were to interpret the matter more liberally, we might imagine that, were capitalism to evolve to a higher level, it could provide all those subject to it with the benefits of private initiative directed toward creating a better world for everyone. Examples close at hand can be found in the environments that affluent groups create for their own way of life. Before accepting, however, that there is a possibility of reaching such a point, we have a duty, as rational beings, to try those practices which may not guarantee our transition to an Ideal Society today, but which certainly make the journey toward the future more humane.