The Necessity of Work

One of the constant criticisms of socialism is the apparent lack of incentive workers have to be productive ("if you and your family aren't in danger of starving, then why bother being productive?").  Apparently, to be a socialist is to be against human nature and the laws of history.  The problem with this criticism is that it makes the basic assumption that history, and in turn, human nature, is static.  I will concede the point that perhaps a sustainable socialist country will not exist without economic incentive only under the assumption that this country exists within a vacuum, enclosed in an ultimately materialistic, capitalist, incentive-driven world.  However, to assume that there cannot be a transformation of the way we as humans view one another and the work we do is naive and against the true laws of history.  Human history is a dynamic process, ever-changing, and certainly not static.  To think that we act now as those living in feudal societies acted several centuries ago is preposterous.  In fact, it would have been a commonly-heard argument in the days of feudalism that "capitalism can never exist within our society.  It is against human nature and the laws of history..."  While I don't think simply placing a current population into a socialist system of governance would work as intended, that doesn't mean one should give up hope on socialism or leftism.  It simply means that we as leftists carry much of the burden of launching us into the next historical epoch, one where we are driven not by selfishness and greed.

As I'm currently reading Edmund Wilson's To The Finland Station, I'll insert a few related passages that I feel are noteworthy.  Here is one referencing Marx's description of the bourgeoisie's transformation of society in The Communist Manifesto:

The bourgeoisie has ... ruthlessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound men to their 'natural superiors'; It has left no other bond between man and man but crude self-interest and callous 'cash payment'.  It has drowned pious zeal, chivalrous enthusiasm, and popular sentimentalism in the chill waters of selfish calculation.  It has degraded personal dignity to the level of exchange value.

Obviously, this deals with the current attitude of self-importance, greed, and emphasis on personal wealth and value.  However, this passage also tells us something else.  It epitomizes the capabilities of any social movement, regardless of whether it leads to the benefit or detriment of society.  It is critical to not let those unable to see the power of social change fool others into staying subservient under the mindset that they are unable to do anything.

Now, where does work lie in a transformed socialist society?  (Note: the practice of creating revolutionary social change is not the focus in this article).  Socialism, contrary to popular belief, does not necessarily have to lack the productive capabilities which capitalism supposedly offers.  On the other hand, it is not a system where millions are forced to work back-breaking jobs against their will, which occurs now through the process of wage slavery (of course, this also occurred under authoritarian systems, such as Stalinism and Maoism, which are not to be confused with true communism or libertarian socialism).  Gracchus Babeuf, one of the late French revolutionaries of the 1790's, laid out some of the key elements and tenets of socialism in his defense shortly before he was sentenced to death:

We know that every man has an equal right to the enjoyment of every benefit, and that the real purpose of society is to defend that right and to increase the common benefit.  And work, like enjoyment, should be shared by all.  Nature has decreed that we all must work; it is a crime to evade this duty.  And it is a crime to take for oneself at the expense of other people the products of industry or the earth.  In a society which was really sound, there would be neither poor nor rich.  There would be no such system of property as ours.  Our laws of heredity and inalienability are "humanicide" institutions.  The monopoly of the land by individuals, the possession of its produce in excess of their wants, is nothing more nor less than theft; and all our civil institutions, our ordinary business transactions, are the deeds of a perpetual brigandage, authorized by barbarous laws."

This vision of a socialist society, one which emphasizes the necessity of work, is what must drive us to further our goals.  No longer can work be driven by economic incentives, and as Marx put it, "selfish calculation".  This mentality has actually, in effect, created an anti-work attitude.  When the level of respect paid to a person's work is a function of said person's income, we fail to see the importance in countless professions.  The fixation our society has on income has also led to the degradation of many important jobs.  Why would one wish to be a teacher when the job is vilified and those already working in the profession are having their rights stripped away left and right?  Once one's profession is detached from the economic incentives it provides, only then will we be able to destroy the anti-work mentality which exists today in non-socialist society.


Work is necessary and has the ability to be seen by humanity as a virtue.  Unfortunately, we don't recognize that today.  When someone becomes unemployed, the solution is not to give them benefits and tell them to find a job; we must first realize why they are in their situation.  Democrats are not capable of disassociating labor with our current system of wage slavery, as they try and place band-aids on festering sores.  The disenfranchisement of humans around the world is at an all-time high and it is thanks to our warped view of community, work, and cooperation.  It is the duty of a socialist to do their part in changing that view.

Until we achieve our vision, let us be inspired by this. 


---------------------------------------------------------------
Chomsky discusses the virtue of work in detail here.
Marx passage: Edmund Wilson, To The Finland Station, pg. 158
Babeuf passage: Edmund Wilson, To The Finland Station, pg. 76

The Drawbacks of Religion

Earlier this Easter Sunday, I made a comment online concerning the ridiculousness of the holiday and the fact that so many billions of people subscribe to the belief that a man managed to rise from the dead. This was met with a question posed to me, “How do other people’s beliefs affect you?” To respond to this question, I will be analyzing closely one of Marx’s earlier pieces, the unfinished introduction to the Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. While I will be using my Marx-Engels Reader for reference, you can find a copy of the essay online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm. I will also be using personal observations concerning religion to answer this question.

I: Religion as an obstacle to human progress

“The basis of irreligious criticism is this: man makes religion; religion does not make man. Religion is indeed man’s self-consciousness and self-awareness so long as he has not found himself or has lost himself again. But man is not an abstract being, squatting outside the world. Man is the human world, the state, society. The state, this society, produces religion which is an inverted world consciousness, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, its general basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human being inasmuch as the human being possesses no true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly a struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

Of course, the final phrase is one of Marx’s most widely known quotes and, as Christopher Hitchens puts it in God Is Not Great, one of the most misunderstood. No one will deny that religion is extremely important to many different people. Marx certainly knew society’s need for religion, considering he was a German-Jew with many rabbis going up the family tree. This is perhaps why people are so quick to defend religion when attacked by non-believers. They will say that “it helps people” or that “people should be allowed to believe what they want; how dare you”, and that without religion, “society would fall apart”. However, while right now billions use religion to deal with their daily struggles, it ultimately is an obstacle to a better future. Marx is much more eloquent than I in describing how it is vital that religious belief be ultimately destroyed:

“The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men is a demand for real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, the embryonic criticism of this vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain, not in order that man shall bear the chain without caprice or consolidation but so that he shall cast off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man so that he will think, act and fashion his reality as a man who has lost his illusions and regained his reason; so that he will revolve about himself as his own true sun. Religion is only the illusory sun about which man revolves so long as he does not revolve about himself.”

Marx did not wish upon others that they give up their only source of happiness in life (religion) so that they could not be happy; he wished that they would give up religion in order to realize the true nature of the world so they can improve it. This is often where people get offended or simply stop listening, as they disregard this as a disrespectful dismissal of beliefs they hold dearly. The implication that their religious belief is ignorant is an incredibly offensive insult to their intellect, and, while I honestly do try to respect the intellect of my religious comrades, I cannot say that I find the belief in god (when I say god, it tends to refer to the monotheistic god) an incredibly intelligent one. While this in itself deserves a full post, I do not find it completely necessary for it to be a component of the argument that religion is an obstructive force in society. To reiterate, the criticism of religion is not necessarily the criticism of man, but the criticism of the current circumstances man lives in which forces him to use religion as a crutch.

While Hitchens often says that religion will be around so long as people still have their “silly fear of death”, I believe that it is a much deeper-rooted problem. Religion not only comforts people when it comes to death, but when it comes to reality as well. It prevents us from recognizing the serious issues in our lives, whether they are societal or personal issues. We are told to deal with these issues by recognizing that it is all part of “god’s plan”, and that, if we follow all of his ridiculous rules, we will be rewarded in the end. How are people supposed to be motivated to enact societal changes if we are tempted to believe that a splendorous afterlife is waiting for us, so long as we conform? This leads me to my next point…

II. Religion cheapens life

This is something we have seen from the beginning of the feudal systems where religions reigned supreme. Serfs were tricked into living subservient and dismal lives with the promise of a glorious afterlife, which is not entirely different from today, except our system right now is global capitalism. The very idea of a better afterlife takes away from us the motivation to make our current world a better place (tying into Marx’s metaphor of the illusory flower on the chain). Instead of recognizing the beauty of the world, our lives today are seen as a testing ground, the preliminary phase. And when we finally do recognize the beauty in our lives, we thank god for it and talk about how blessed we are. Why must we thank this person? Why do we need to be gracious to some man in the sky for our own achievements? If everything that happens is thanks to god (whether it’s good or bad), our actions lose any semblance of value. A world without religion is a world where we are able to recognize the beauties of the Earth, which is the only true reality we know of.

III. Religion is not necessary

People often say that without religion, we would have no moral values. Aside from the fact that man created religion and the moral values which come with it, I reject the idea that it is necessary to have religion to have a moral world. In fact, a more moral world can be created by abolishing religious belief.

When religious apologists talk about the lines in the bible that we like to forget, they say that the bible was written during a different time; obviously, not everything is applicable now. Well, if we are able to discern what is applicable now and what isn’t, then why do we need a bible in the first place? Of course, the commandment that says murder is wrong is going to be one that we hold onto because we know murder is wrong, but when we are told to not eat shellfish, it is incredibly easy to say that that rule is silly, because we know that there is nothing wrong with eating shellfish. It is my belief that basic moral values stem from the Golden Rule: don’t do unto others what you wouldn’t want done to yourself. So long as humans are capable of empathy, they will naturally cling to this moral value, which, in turn, creates a long line of values which creates a person moral code (as usual, this is deserving of a full post, which may or may not come in the future).

So yes, there are some commendable moral values that religions espouse, but they are values that are natural to human beings and are values that are recognized by irreligious people. In addition, the outdated values seen in various religions (just read Leviticus) which are held by the backwards fundamentalists are a bigger drag on society than the “good” values, which, as stated earlier, don’t need religious institutions to be recognized.

IV. Belief in the monotheistic god is a fascistic one

Now this idea is a bit different from the ideas expressed earlier (as well as slightly contradictory), but I want to throw all my ideas into this piece

Christopher Hitchens often compared the idea of the monotheistic religions to a North Korea of which there is no chance of escaping, not even in death. You are to become a servant to your lord, following all the ridiculous rules laid out in a book written thousands of years prior. If you do not recognize his great power, if you do not follow his rules, or if you rebel, you will be sentenced to an eternity of suffering. This differs somewhat from what Marx said; religion is not just the illusory flower on the chain, but it is the chain itself. If you do not conform, you are not rewarded. Only because of the grace of your benevolent lord are you allowed to live (on a slightly off-topic note, the very word “lord” bothers me; do people realize how it just feeds into the hierarchical structure?). The idea of a totalitarian ruler who lashes out extreme punishment is not the only thing that the monotheistic religions have in common with dystopian regimes; even the intricacies such as the all-knowing “big brother” are present in religion, as god is constantly watching your actions, whether you want him to or not. This idea disturbs me to no end, and quite frankly, I do not know how billions of people actually buy into it and claim that it helps them.

To conclude, religion chains down man (whether it is the chain itself or the “illusory flower on the chain” as Marx described is up to debate). It feeds into our ignorance of reality; not only does it give people a lack of motivation to change their surroundings, but it prevents them from recognizing the very problems of the systems which need to be changed. The values which apparently stem from religion are in fact parts of human nature or have been discovered through rational thought (the Enlightenment). It is not a necessary aspect of human life which we need to recognize, and I refuse to respect religious belief as an intelligent one.

Letting people believe what they want may sound like a nice thing to say, but it is very dangerous for people to be expected to respect every nonsensical belief. I do not believe in letting fascists believe what they want, nor do I believe in letting racists believe what they want. While I don’t necessarily believe in physically putting down certain movements, I believe that certain beliefs that are weighing down society should be attacked, and certainly should not be respected. Religious criticism, to me, is absolutely essential if we ever want to make a better world.

A Libertarian Socialist (Labeling Myself And What I Take From Marx)

After a brief flirtation with vanguard-centric communism focused heavily on the state (mainly due to my infatuation with Lenin and Trotsky), I have finally settled upon a label which gives me both flexibility and a sense of political identity: libertarian socialist. While there is an obvious distinction between libertarian and state socialism which differentiates me from Stalin sympathizers, the broad base of libertarian socialism allows for me to continue exploring my ideology without fear of seeming unprincipled.

While at Left Forum, I was introduced to the Revolutionary Communist Party. I attended a panel titled “Horizontalism Vs Revolutionary State Power As The Path To Social Transformation”, in which an RCP member went on for twenty minutes talking about how their great leader (Bob Avakian) would lead the ignorant masses through revolution, all while defending the atrocities seen under Mao and Stalin. I came to the realization that a vanguard-led state is a wonderful idea, for the vanguard leaders. Everyone assumes that a vanguard would be fantastic, because when people envision a vanguard, they assume that they are to be the great leader who would make social change a reality. However, while I sat there listening to the ridiculous, dogmatic ramblings of the RCPer, I felt the support for a communist state wash out of me, despite my continued love for Lenin.

And now onto the path of reasoning which led me to libertarian socialism:

I have come to realize that some of the greatest evils in this world are tyranny and totalitarianism. Any system which places the mode of production in the hands of the few gives the privileged elite not just economic power, but social, political, and cultural power as well. This type of system, in my view (and hopefully in the view of anyone who finds the ideals of the Enlightenment admirable), is inherently unjust and morally wrong (specifics on why systems like this, such as capitalism, are unjust and morally wrong deserve another full post). In order to have a just, egalitarian society, it is absolutely necessary to hand power back to the people, with the exception of any power which allows for the exploitation of any individual or group of individuals. This means that in such a system, private property would not exist, or would at least be severely curtailed. While I divide with Marx when it comes to the dictatorship of the proletariat and parts of the class dialectic, I think it is essential that if we are to take one thing away from Marx, it is the materialist conception of history. Unless the people have direct control over not just the political sphere, but the economic sphere as well, freedom will not prosper. The idea that it is the political consciousness which controls the economy is to be flipped upside down. Marx makes the case for this much more eloquently than I have in the preface to “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”, where he describes the history of his opinions:

“In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines the consciousness.”

However, while I place it on the top of my list of contributions Marx has made to the world, the materialist conception of history is not the only thing we should remember Marx for. Another noteworthy theme throughout Marx's works is that of critique. Marx illustrates the need for revolutions to not look to the past, but to adapt revolutionary theory to their current situation in “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”:

“The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot draw its poetry from the past, but only from the future. It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped off all superstition in regard to the past....In order to arrive at its content, the revolution of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury their dead. There the phrase went beyond the content, here the content goes beyond the phrase.”

Criticism was the very basis for Marxism, as he had become disgusted by the complacency with which students of the Hegelian School so readily accepted the teachings of Hegel. In his doctoral dissertation, he describes his feelings towards immediate realization of a philosophy:

“Also in relation to Hegel it is mere ignorance on the part of his pupils, when they explain one or the other determination of his system by his desire for accommodation and the like, hence, in one word, explain it in terms of morality. They forget that only a short time ago they were enthusiastic about all his idiosyncrasies, as can be clearly demonstrated from their writings.

If they were really so affected by the ready-made science they acquired that they gave themselves up to it in naïve uncritical trust, then how unscrupulous is their attempt to reproach the Master for a hidden intention behind his insight! The Master, to whom the science was not something received, but something in the process of becoming, to whose uttermost periphery his own intellectual heart's blood was pulsating! On the contrary, they rendered themselves suspect of not having been serious before. And now they oppose their own former condition, and ascribe it to Hegel, forgetting however that his relation to his system was immediate, substantial, while theirs is only a reflected one.”

In Marx's article “For a Ruthless Criticism of Everything Existing”, he states that one cannot be fully conscious without constantly critiquing absolutely everything. Only then does a person become philosophical. It is for this reason that I feel the need to criticize any system, regardless of whether there are any other options (which there most certainly are). If asked what I would substitute our current mode of production with, I would refer the questioner to Emma Goldman:

“Anarchism is not, as some may suppose, a theory of the future to be realized through divine inspiration. It is a living force in the affairs of our life, constantly creating new conditions. The methods of Anarchism therefore do not comprise an iron-clad program to be carried out under all circumstances. Methods must grow out of the economic needs of each place and clime, and of the intellectual and temperamental requirements of the individual. The serene, calm character of a Tolstoy will wish different methods for social reconstruction than the intense, overflowing personality of a Michael Bakunin or a Peter Kropotkin. Equally so it must be apparent that the economic and political needs of Russia will dictate more drastic measures than would England or America. Anarchism does not stand for military drill and uniformity; it does, however, stand for the spirit of revolt, in whatever form, against everything that hinders human growth. All Anarchists agree in that, as they also agree in their opposition to the political machinery as a means of bringing about the great social change.” (Anarchism: What It Really Stands For)

While the above refers to anarchism alone, I believe that it can be attributed to any system which falls under libertarian socialism. Without recognizing the current situation and constantly revolutionizing and critiquing leftist theory, it is impossible to achieve anything near the society which we as leftists strive for. I cannot give a concrete vision of a future society because I cannot predict the future and the circumstances which will arise from future events. What will always be true, though, is that our current mode of production is unjust and will continue to exploit countless populations of people unless we decide to change it, whether it be through a cultural or violent revolution (or both).

Whichever method we take to change the mode of production, it is absolutely vital that it does not remove power from the people. However, a vanguard alone is not something which should be taken off the table, as an intellectual vanguard with no legal control over the people can help ferment a revolution through which fundamental cultural changes can be made. While there is still much to be explored, it is rather conclusive that a communist state (which has almost exclusively been state capitalism in disguise) is simply not the right way of achieving social justice and creating a free, egalitarian society built on solidarity.

Keeping in tune with solidarity, I will leave you with a quote etched on a bag which the generous Germans of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation so kindly gave out:

“Freedom without equality is exploitation; equality without freedom is oppression. Solidarity is the common root of freedom and equality.”

Entering Leftism

Over the past year or so, I had always described myself to others as having two different political philosophies: my pragmatic philosophy which tended to fall in line with the Democratic Party, and a much more extreme philosophy, one which has lurked in my mind throughout high school as I continued to develop a sense of who I truly am. This radical ideology could best be described as romantic communism, where I held the vision of a surreal society which upheld, to steal from Yugoslavia, "brotherhood and unity". While I never acted on the Marxist principles locked away in my mind, it had always served as a source of hope; a hope for a better tomorrow and a hope that one day the great potential in humanity could be realized.

It has become increasingly difficult to keep these two, often conflicting philosophies. Only when I decided to embrace my principles did I feel a true sense of personal identity. The shallow political culture in this county, dominated by trivial stories concerning out-of-touch influence peddlers, began to sweep me away. Too often I found myself refreshing the page of the Huffington Post, looking for a cheap headline that would feed my sense of righteousness I believed existed in supporting the centrists who call themselves the Democratic Party. I know now that there is nothing righteous about calling yourself a Democrat.

Unfortunately, I am not very well-read, especially in comparison to some of my politically active peers. It is crucial now more than ever that I delve straight into the different philosophies of the far-left, for I will be placed under an intense scrutiny not just by my conservative peers, but by my liberal ones as well. This page will hopefully serve as not just a document of my thoughts and experiences, but of my progression as I continue to educate myself. The following notes may consist of interesting things I have read, commentary on current events or personal experiences, or general observations.

I hope that this is the beginning of a journey that will last until my dying days. While I certainly recognize the ease at which a sixteen year old can stay principled, I reject the notion that as I grow up, I will be forced into a state of hopelessness and conformity. Whenever an adult attempts to lecture me about this future conformity (often through the overused, out of context, Winston Churchill quote concerning liberalism and conservatism), I become even more strengthened in my resolve to fight the good fight. I have been exposed to a war which I cannot walk away from. Once one has gone into the light, receding back into the shadows is not an option. Such an action would only lead to lifelong regrets and misery. In the end, the only option I have left is to fight.