Response to “Liberalism Poses Severe Challenge to Sinhala Nationalism at 2010 Presidential Election”

Response to “Liberalism Poses Severe Challenge to Sinhala Nationalism at 2010 Presidential Election” by Kathika study circle

It is indeed refreshing to see a political mediation that transcends the immediate political wish to support the “victorious camp,” and insist on discussing the crucial political implications of what SF and MR represent as presidential candidates. The article titled “Liberalism Poses Severe Challenge to Sinhala Nationalism at 2010 Presidential Election” by Kathika marks the dichotomous relationship between nationalism and liberalism and show that the two presidential candidates represent these “two different ways of organizing our collective life.”

Our response comes in the recognition that this dialogue merits serious investigation, and that its crucial implications extend far beyond the immediate question of who wins the elections. As the author(s) of the article rightly point out, it concerns the choices we make, as “it is we who determine our existence. We can organise the world in which we live in a different manner” (Kathika). We take such hope as a positive sign of a new social space for democratic dialogue and engage with it in this spirit. Moreover, the response from Kathika to our blogpost titled “Politics Elsewhere . .. .” has helped us to reconsider our political position seriously, and helped us to clarify where we stand. We believe such democratic engagement should be the norm rather than the exception.

We take three major ideas from the essay:

  • That liberalism and nationalism represent two political desires of the Sri Lankan people and that the two main candidates, MR and SF represent these two political trends. They argue that nationalism centers on the organization of collective life that has been undermined by consumerism and the economic liberalization policies of 1977. Liberalism, on the other hand, centers upon individual freedom.

  • That elections are important and that we must take the people’s engagement with them seriously.

  • That a democratic politics based on citizen dialogue which excludes, neither individual freedom(s) associated with liberalism, nor the desire for community associated with nationalism. Such democratic participation should replace the desire for a top-down power model to establish law and discipline represented by an autocratic leader.

We will begin with the third proposition. Citizen participation is a salient feature of any democratic endeavor. Such engagement, where it does exist, ensures that all people participate in the decision-making process, and would, ideally allow all citizens a voice. The election of representative leaders is only one aspect of many other possible avenues within which such democratic engagement can take place. That the people are still interested in elections is indeed a healthy sign, embodying their need to feel that they do have a say in the election process.

It is equally encouraging that at least a few civil organizations such as trade unions have come forth, not simply to bargain with the people on behalf of candidates, but to bargain with political candidates who will potentially be the leaders of the country and demand social welfare and social accountability from them. While it is disheartening that several veteran political activists have gone back to defending two allegedly fairly equally corrupt candidates, that does not mean that the election should not become a venue to discuss the political choices we make as a people. Thus, we agree that democratic participation at the level of citizen is indispensable for the more equitable society that we envision.

The opposition drawn between nationalism and liberalism, as represented by the two candidates according to Kathika, is less clear. While it is a reasonable assumption that nationalist ideas represent a desire for community and the emphasis on the liberal (historically associated with the U.N.P.) signals interest in personal freedom and personal wealth, it is unclear whether these  two candidates represent these independent of the 2007-2009 ethnic war. Both manipulate their image as war heroes. Mahinda Rajapakse seems to sport the idea of national gratitude. Both candidates have extreme liberalist and extreme nationalist politicians and political parties around them. A far less nationalist and far more liberalist leader than Sarath Fonseka, Ranil Wickramasinghe must have, we suspect, had a reason to step down from candidacy. Whether any Sinhalese leader who was not a part of the recent military victory against the L.T.T.E would have posed any serious challenge to the “natonalism” of Mahnda Rajapakse is doubtful.

We argue that nationalism and liberalism have coexisted and are not always mutually exclusive. Setting them as oppositions (as contradictory desires that drive the support for the two different candidates) is not entirely convincing. Although successive governments have espoused the rhetoric of both, more often than not, their thrust has been to articulate the two in non-exclusive ways.

The policy-level differences between the different governments of post-independence Sri Lanka must not blind us to the truth that even in its most “liberal” moments (for example, JRJ) the state is still an extremely powerful force centered upon what only seems like individual freedom. A careful examination of the history of the 1980s in Sri Lanka belies the idea that the liberalist government represented freedom of all individuals. Political freedom was brutally curtailed (from the militarization of the north-east to the 1980 strike break, the 1983 pogrom of the Tamil people etc. the list may go on), while the cutbacks on social welfare and privatization of national corporations and national assets led to the massive proletarianizaton of rural populations.

The spectacular freedom associated with the 1980s spring, instead, from the liberal media culture that sprang with the introduction of television, video, cassettes etc., and of course, the economic liberalization policies. These policies were not as deregulatory as they were thought to be. Instead, what they did do was change (but not dispense with) the earlier system of state-patronization that existed in both public and private industry, commerce, and the job market. Moreover, these policies did not originate with J.R. Jayawardene, who is the easy effigy that must take the fire for the larger global structural adjustment taking place at the time. The state acted definitively, not in the interest of individual freedom (or even the benefits of the commercial/industrial classes at the time), but in the interests of the IMF and World-Bank sponsored global Structural Adjustments that led to economic globalization. This is not to suggest (with the JVP) that this is a global conspiracy against the Sri Lankan people. Instead, our argument is that the 1977 economic liberalization policies need to be situated within the larger global context to understand how it has led to the greater proletarianization of people across the globe. Moreover, by gradually commodifying many social spaces, many areas in the public and private spheres that sustained democratic social organization, both individual and collective freedom was gradually compromised.

We may return to the idea that citizenship action plays a key role in democratic engagement. What becomes apparent since the 1980s is the gradual erosion of the space for such democratic practices. The public spaces that were once the platform for democratic participation were either suppressed or politicized. A case in point is the suppression of the uprising of the Tamil people in the north, which was crushed with unparalleled brutality. Had the state provided early avenues to the democratic participation of the Tamil people, the tragic decimation of a large Tamil population (who are, and must be recognized in unequivocal terms as citizens of our country) would not have occurred. Instead, both JRJ, and subsequent presidents of all hues and colors repeatedly engaged in a constant attack upon the rights of democratic Tamil political participation. The emergence of the L.T.T.E. as the most vocal Tamil liberatory group did not happen until nearly after a decade of the origin of the war.

Although this is not the place to rehearse this history, our point is that citizenship was denied to a vast majority of people; the racially marginalized, the poor, particularly working women who were forced into near-slavery in Free Trade Zones and n the Middle-East. The state played a significant role in all of this. Thus, the “individual freedom” associated with apparently liberalist economic policies have, at best failed to deliver what they promised, and at best, worked consistently to disrupt the democratic participation of all citizens of our country. To equate liberalism with a centering on individual freedom does not bear out in reality. While agreeing with Kathika that we must indeed engage with and promote the participation of citizens in matters of government, we also argue that citizenship must be conceived as a way of holding the state accountable.

We may now return to the idea that nationalism represents a desire for collective life. When we argued in an earlier post that the emergence of nationalism in Sri Lanka in 2004 signaled social anxieties about the material breakdown of social structures stemming from the economic neoliberalism of the 1980s, we were not using the term “anxiety” as a value laden i.e. negative or positive, term. Instead, anxieties can lead to both positive and negative social action.

In the case of the emergence of nationalist ideas around 2004, propelled largely by the urban popular Buddhism (signified by the victory of the Jathka Hela Urumaya at the parliamentary election of 2004), we identified such anxieties as a potential force that may induce a desire for an authoritarian leader. What we recognized was directly relevant to the relation that Kathika builds between collective life and nationalism. Not to belabor the point, we will rephrase it more clearly than we perhaps did before: the economic liberalization policies of 1977 specifically, but modernization of society in general has led to the restructuring of various social and economic institutions that afforded relative stability and collective engagement to people. Below are a few examples:

–The culture of consumerism, the commodification of social and cultural spaces.

–The massive migration of women to urban centers and to the Middle East as new proletariat workers led to the restructuring of rural families. The resultant changes in gender roles are yet to be fully assessed. The increasing participation of women in the industrial workforce and the service sector, the gradual decline of communal agricultural work which once functioned in set gendered terms, were all a part of the larger assault on the earlier organization of the family structure. In addition, the military recruited large numbers of young men, and this had significant cultural implications particularly in rural areas.

–The privatization of essential social services such as health and education has led to widespread irresponsibility and lack of accountability on the part of their practitioners (the establishment of private hospitals that are not subjected to public scrutiny, widespread tuition and international universities etc. We are not opposed to these institutions. Instead, our point is that they destabilized existing social norms about health and education because they were commodified with no public responsibility).

–The dissipation of the strong trade-union movement. Along with this, one sees the monumental emergence of non-wage labor in the informal sector, the state-sanctioned politicization of major trade unions, the prohibition of trade union activities in the Free Trade Zones where the most brutal exploitation occurs. The structures that once existed to seek redress for the grievances of working people were suppressed outright, or replaced by non-functional institutions.

–The civil war and the 1987-89 JVP uprising left most democratic social engagement crippled. The state, the JVP, the LTTE, and several of the smaller political groups that were caught in the conflict contributed to breed violence and hatred, and terrorist attacks and fear became more effective political weapons than democratic social engagement. Several potential democratic minded leaders were either outright murdered, expelled, or exiled (particularly at the grassroots level). The cost of such terrible political brutality is yet to be assessed in any definitive way. No doubt, many of you remember the way we held our breath when the first burning corpses appeared in street corners, and how during the 2007-2009 Eelam war, the unidentified bodies discovered in mass graves were easily forgotten. Such changes in collective psychic life—where the death of thousands of civilians ejects the cynical statement “they asked for it”—signal a deep crisis in collective values that make us human beings above everything else. No national leader, no candidate has yet come forward to admit their complicity in the brutal repression directed against racial minorities, political dissenters, and unarmed civilians of all ethno-religious groups in our country. The consequences are indeed a general restructuring of the “structure of feeling” that is deeply psychological but also intensely political.

These are a few among many other social and institutional crises that we had in mind when we argued that social anxieties may lead to the desire for the re-establishment of stability through a “strong” militaristic leader. Our own personal experience in a political cult-like organization alerted us to the way people identify with leaders that purport “law and order.” For us, the idea of transposing collectivity onto a leader or leaders of groups/parties who will perform our rights on our behalf spells political disaster. What we saw with the emergence of ethno-religious chauvinism in 2004 that mobilized the Sinhalese against our Tamil brothers and sisters was not any true sense of collectivity, inasmuch as the JVP or the LTTE never represented participatory democratic politics that should be the hallmark of true people’s movements.At best, it was a way to imagine “the Sinhalese” nation by opposing it to religious and racial Others (Tamils, Christians, Muslims etc.). It did not entail any political engagement to make social spaces more democratic. It systematically closed off democratic   dialogue, and continued a repressive path towards anyone who opposed it.

However, to argue that the reemergence of Sinhala nationalism in 2004 did not necessarily entail collective social life, is not to disagree with Kathika, that it had the potential to do so.  Kathika does not, we assume, see MR as a representative of collective social life although he may represent the desire for community in the popular imagination. We are thus only clarifying our point, when we say that people identify with chauvinistic leaders when they feel social stability slipping from beneath their feet, and that such identification is symptomatic of far deeper, socio-cultural and economic phenomena that structure our social/cultural experience.

We agree with Kathika that people’s interest in elections alone is a sign that there is space for the creation of new democratic spaces. What we would like to add is that we believe in long-term and sustained attempts to regenerate social institutions and structures that facilitate the propagation of democratic ideals and restabilize society. If, as Kathika points out, the support for MR comes from desire for collective social existence (and not chauvinist gratitude for “ending the war”) we may still be hopeful. We also argue that individual freedom is not the opposite of collective social existence, but the fundamental principle of democratic social life. The individual is not the opposite of society, but its necessary precondition.We believe that the move by Kathika to identify and work in potentially democratic spaces reflects the kind of engagement that can trigger democratic change.

Democracy requires changes at the most fundamental levels of society that begin, not as a rhetorical device of presidential candidates, but as direct collective practice on the part of individual citizens. To this end, we argue that we must negotiate with all candidates to bring back, not the militaristic establishment of “law and order” but the strengthening of democracy; we ask that they return to more humane values that respect human life and dignity of all races and religions; that they help level the economic playing field by protecting jobs, businesses, and labor rights (and not write the whole country away to multinational corporations as Free Trade Zones that exploit the labor of our men and women in harrowing ways); and finally, that they reestablish high quality public health and education for all people in the country. However, these changes will never merely come from the top. They begin with each individual, each equitable practice and organization, and the active participation of people from below.

By Buddhika Bandara and Prabha Manuratne

3 responses to “Response to “Liberalism Poses Severe Challenge to Sinhala Nationalism at 2010 Presidential Election”

  1. THE INDIVIDUAL, SOCIETY AND THE STATE
    EMMA GOLDMAN

    The minds of men are in confusion, for the very foundations of our civilization seem to be tottering. People are losing faith in the existing institutions, and the more intelligent realize that capitalist industrialism is defeating the very purpose it is supposed to serve.
    The world is at a loss for a way out. Parliamentarism and democracy are on the decline. Salvation is being sought in Fascism and other forms of “strong” government.
    The struggle of opposing ideas now going on in the world involves social problems urgently demanding a solution. The welfare of the individual and the fate of human society depend on the right answer to those questions The crisis, unemployment, war, disarmament, international relations, etc., are among those problems.
    The State, government with its functions and powers, is now the subject of vital interest to every thinking man. Political developments in all civilized countries have brought the questions home. Shall we have a strong government? Are democracy and parliamentary government to be preferred, or is Fascism of one kind or another, dictatorship – monarchical, bourgeois or proletarian – the solution of the ills and difficulties that beset society today?
    In other words, shall we cure the evils of democracy by more democracy, or shall we cut the Gordian knot of popular government with the sword of dictatorship?
    My answer is neither the one nor the other. I am against dictatorship and Fascism as I am opposed to parliamentary regimes and so-called political democracy.
    Nazism has been justly called an attack on civilization. This characterization applies with equal force to every form of dictatorship; indeed, to every kind of suppression and coercive authority. For what is civilization in the true sense? All progress has been essentially an enlargement of the liberties of the individual with a corresponding decrease of the authority wielded over him by external forces. This holds good in the realm of physical as well as of political and economic existence. In the physical world man has progressed to the extent in which he has subdued the forces of nature and made them useful to himself. Primitive man made a step on the road to progress when he first produced fire and thus triumphed over darkness, when he chained the wind or harnessed water.
    What role did authority or government play in human endeavor for betterment, in invention and discovery? None whatever, or at least none that was helpful. It has always been the indivitual that has accomplished every miracle in that sphere, usually in spite of the prohibition, persecution and interference by authority, human and divine.
    Similarly, in the political sphere, the road of progress lay in getting away more and more from the authority of the tribal chief or of the clan, of prince and king, of government, of the State. Economically, progress has meant greater well-being of ever larger numbers. Culturally, it has signified the result of all the other achievements – greater independence, political, mental and psychic.
    Regarded from this angle, the problems of man’s relation to the State assumes an entirely different significance. It is no more a question of whether dictatorship is preferable to democracy, or Italian Fascism superior to Hitlerism. A larger and far more vital question poses itself: Is political goverment, is the State beneficial to mankind, and how does it affect the individual in the social scheme of things?
    The individual is the true reality in life. A cosmos in himself, he does not exist for the State, nor for that abstraction called “society,” or the “nation,” which is only a collection of individuals. Man, the individual, has always been and, necessarily is the sole source and motive power of evolution and progress. Civilization has been a continuous struggle of the individual or of groups of individuals against the State and even against “society,” that is, against the majority subdued and hypnotized by the State and State worship. Man’s greatest battles have been waged against man-made obstacles and artificial handicaps imposed upon him to paralyze his growth and development. Human thought has always been falsified by tradition and custom, and perverted false education in the interests of those who held power and enjoyed privileges. In other words, by the State and the ruling classes. This constant incessant conflict has been the history of mankind.
    Individuality may be described as the consciousness of the individual as to what he is and how he lives. It is inherent in every human being and is a thing of growth. The State and social institutions come and go, but individuality remains and persists. The very essence of individuality is expression; the sense of dignity and independence is the soil wherein it thrives. Individuality is not the impersonal and mechanistic thing that the State treats as an “individual”. The individual is not merely the result of heredity and environment, of cause and effect. He is that and a great deal more, a great deal else. The living man cannot be defined; he is the fountain-head of all life and all values; he is not a part of this or of that; he is a whole, an individual whole, a growing, changing, yet always constant whole.
    Individuality is not to be confused with the various ideas and concepts of Individualism; much less with that “rugged individualism” which is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality So-called Individualism is the social and economic laissez faire: the exploitation of the masses by the classes by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit, which process is known as “education.” That corrupt and perverse “individualism” is the strait-jacket of individuality. It has converted life into a degrading race for externals, for possession, for social prestige and supremacy. Its highest wisdom is “the devil take the hindmost.”
    This “rugged individualism” has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class distinctions, driving millions to the breadline. “Rugged individualism” has meant all the “individualism” for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking “supermen.” America is perhaps the best representative of this kind of individualism, in whose name political tyranny and social oppression are defended and held up as virtues; while every aspiration and attempt of man to gain freedom and social opportunity to live is denounced as “unAmerican” and evil in the name of that same individualism.
    There was a time when the State was unknown. In his natural condition man existed without any State or organized government. People lived as families in small communities; They tilled the soil and practiced the arts and crafts. The individual, and later the family, was the unit of social life where each was free and the equal of his neighbor. Human society then was not a State but an association; a voluntary association for mutual protection and benefit. The elders and more experienced members were the guides and advisers of the people. They helped to manage the affairs of life, not to rule and dominate the individual.
    Political government and the State were a much later development, growing out of the desire of the stronger to take advantage of the weaker, of the few against the many. The State, ecclesiastical and secular, served to give an appearance of legality and right to the wrong done by the few to the many. That appearance of right was necessary the easier to rule the people, because no government can exist without the consent of the people, consent open, tacit or assumed. Constitutionalism and democracy are the modern forms of that alleged consent; the concent being inoculated and indoctrinated by what is called “education,” at home, in the church, and in every other phase of life.
    That consent is the belief in authority, in the necessity for it. At its base is the doctrine that man is evil, vicious, and too incompetent to know what is good for him. On this all government and oppression is built. God and the State exist and are supported by this dogma.
    Yet the State is nothing but a name. It is an abstraction. Like other similar conceptions – nation, race, humanity – it has no organic reality. To call the State an organism shows a diseased tendency to make a fetish of words.
    The State is a term for the legislative and administrative machinery whereby certain business of the people is transacted, and badly so. There is nothing sacred, holy or mysterious about it. The State has no more conscience or moral mission than a commercial company for working a coal mine or running a railroad.
    The State has no more existence than gods and devils have. They are equally the reflex and creation of man, for man, the individual, is the only reality. The State is but the shadow of man, the shadow of his opaqueness of his ignorance and fear.
    Life begins and ends with man, the individual. Without him there is no race, no humanity, no State. No, not even “society” is possible without man. It is the individual who lives, breathes and suffers. His development, his advance, has been a continuous struggle against the fetishes of his own creation and particularly so against the “State.”
    In former days religious authority fashioned political life in the image of the Church. The authority of the State, the “rights” of rulers came from on high; power, like faith, was divine. Philosophers have written thick volumes to prove the sanctity of the State; some have even clad it with infallibility and with god-like attributes Some have talked themselves into the insane notion that the State is “superhuman,” the supreme reality, “the absolute.”
    Enquiry was condemned as blasphemy. Servitude was the highest virtue. By such precepts and training certain things came to be regarded as self-evident, as sacred of their truth ,but [sic] because of constant and persistent repetition.
    All progress has been essentially an unmasking of “divinity” and “mystery,” of alleged sacred, eternal “truth”; it has been a gradual elimination of the abstract and the substitution in its place of the real, the concrete. In short, of facts against fancy, of knowledge against ignorance, of light against darkness.
    That slow and arduous liberation of the individual was not accomplished by the aid of the State. On the contrary, it was by continuous conflict, by a life-and death struggle with the State, that even the smallest vestige of independence and freedom has been won. It has cost mankind much time and blood to secure what little it has gained so far from kings, tsars and governments
    The great heroic figure of that long Golgotha has been Man. It has always been the individual, often alone and singly, at other times in unity and co-operation with others of his kind, who has fought and bled in the age-long battle against suppression and oppression, against the powers that enslave and degrade him.
    More than that and more significant: It was man, the individual, whose soul first rebelled against injustice and degradation; it was the individual who first conceived the idea of resistance to the conditions under which he chafed. In short, it is always the individual who is the parent of the liberating thought as well as of the deed.
    This refers not only to political struggles, but to the entire gamut of human life and effort, in all ages and climes. It has always been the individual, the man of strong mind and will to liberty, who paved the way for every human advance, for every step toward a freer and better world; in science, philosophy and art, as well as in industry, whose genius rose to the heights, conceiving the “impossible,” visualizing its realization and imbuing others with his enthusiasm to work and strive for it. Socially speaking, it was always the prophet, the seer, the idealist, who dreamed of a world more to his heart’s desire and who served as the beacon light on the road to greater achievement.
    The State, every government whatever its form, character or color – be it absolute or constitutional, monarchy or republic, Fascist, Nazi or Bolshevik – is by its very nature conservative, static, intolerant of change and opposed to it. Whatever changes it undergoes are always the result of pressure exerted upon it, pressure strong enough to compel the ruling powers to submit peaceably or otherwise, generally “otherwise” – that is, by revolution. Moreover, the inherent conservatism of govemment, of authority of any kind, unavoidably becomes reactionary. For two reasons: first, because it is in the nature of government not only to retain the power it has, but also to strengthen, widen and perpetuate it, nationally as well as internationally. The stronger authority grows, the greater the State and its power, the less it can tolelate a similar authority or political power along side of itself. The psychology of
    govemment demands that its influence and prestige constantly grow, at home and abroad, and it exploits every opportunity to increase it. This tendency is motivated by the financial and commercial interests back of the government, represented and served by it. The fundamental raison d’etre of every government to which, incidentally, historians of former days wilfully shut their eyes, has become too obvious now even for professors to ignore.
    The other factor which impels governments to become even more conservative and reactionary is their inherent distrust of the individual and fear of individuality. Our political and social scheme cannot afford to tolerate the individual and his constant quest for innovation. In “self-defense” the State therefore suppresses, persecutes, punishes and even deprives the individual of life. It is aided in this by every institution that stands for the preservation of the existing order. It resorts to every form of violence and force, and its efforts are supported by the “moral indignation” of the majority against the heretic, the social dissenter and the political rebel – the majority for centuries drilled in State worship, trained in discipline and obedience and subdued by the awe of authority in the home, the school, the church and the press.
    The strongest bulwark of authority is uniformity; the least divergence from it is the greatest crime. The wholesale mechanisation of modern life has increased uniformity a thousandfold. It is everywhere present, in habits, tastes, dress, thoughts and ideas. Its most concentrated dullness is “public opinion.” Few have the courage to stand out against it. He who refuses to submit is at once labelled “queer,” “different,” and decried as a disturbing element in the comfortable stagnancy of modern life.
    Perhaps even more than constituted authority, it is social uniformity and sameness that harass the individual most. His very “uniqueness,” “separateness” and “differentiation” make him an alien, not only in his native place, but even in his own home. Often more so than the foreign born who generally falls in with the established.
    In the true sense one’s native land, with its back ground of tradition, early impressions, reminiscences and other things dear to one, is not enough to make sensitive human beings feel at home. A certain atmosphere of “belonging,” the consciousness of being “at one” with the people and environment, is more essential to one’s feeling of home. This holds good in relation to one’s family, the smaller local circle, as well as the larger phase of the life and activities commonly called one’s country. The individual whose vision encompasses the whole world often feels nowhere so hedged in and out of touch with his surroundings than in his native land.
    In pre-war time the individual could at least escape national and family boredom. The whole world was open to his longings and his quests. Now the world has become a prison, and life continual solitary confinement. Especially is this true since the advent of dictatorship, right and left.
    Friedrich Nietzsche called the State a cold monster. What would he have called the hideous beast in the garb of modern dictatorship? Not that government had ever allowed much scope to the individual; but the champions of the new State ideology do not grant even that much. “The individual is nothing,” they declare, “it is the collectivity which counts.” Nothing less than the complete surrender of the individual will satisfy the insatiable appetite of the new deity.
    Strangely enough, the loudest advocates of thig new gospel are to be found among the British and American intelligentsia. Just now they are enamored with the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” In theory only, to be sure. In practice, they still prefer the few liberties in their own respective countries. They go to Russia for a short visit or as salesmen of the “revolution,” but they feel safer and more comfortable at home.
    Perhaps it is not only lack of courage which keeps these good Britishers and Americans in their native lands rather than in the millenium come. Subconsciously there may lurk the feeling that individuality remains the most fundamental fact of all human association, suppressed and persecuted yet never defeated, and in the long run the victor.
    The “genius of man,” which is but another name for personality and individuality, bores its way through all the caverns of dogma, through the thick walls of tradition and custom, defying all taboos, setting authority at naught, facing contumely and the scaffold – ultimately to be blessed as prophet and martyr by succeeding generations. But for the “genuis of man,” that inherent, persistent quality of individuality, we would be still roaming the primeval forests.
    Peter Kropotkin has shown what wonderful results this unique force of man’s individuality has achieved when strengthened by co-operation with other individualities. The one-sided and entirely inadequate Darwinian theory of the struggle for existence received its biological and sociological completion from the great Anarchist scientist and thinker. In his profound work, Mutual Aid Kropotkin shows that in the animal kingdom, as well as in human society, co-operation – as opposed to internecine strife and struggle – has worked for the survival and evolution of the species. He demonstrated that only mutual aid and voluntary co-operation – not the omnipotent, all-devastating State – can create the basis for a free individual and associational life.
    At present the individual is the pawn of the zealots of dictatorship and the equally obsessed zealots of “rugged individualism.” The excuse of the former is its claim of a new objective. The latter does not even make a pretense of anything new. As a matter of fact “rugged individualism” has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Under its guidance the brute struggle for physical existence is still kept up. Strange as it may seem, and utterly absurd as it is, the struggle for physical survival goes merrily on though the necessity for it has entirely disappeared. Indeed, the struggle is being continued apparently because there is no necessity for it. Does not so-called overproduction prove it? Is not the world-wide economic crisis an eloquent demonstration that the struggle for existence is being maintained by the blindness of “rugged individualism” at the risk of its own destruction?
    One of the insane characteristics of this struggle is the complete negation of the relation of the producer to the things he produces. The average worker has no inner point of contact with the industry he is employed in, and he is a stranger to the process of production of which he is a mechanical part. Like any other cog of the machine, he is replaceable at any time by other similar depersonalized human beings.
    The intellectual proletarian, though he foolishly thinks himself a free agent, is not much better off. He, too, has a little choice or self-direction, in his particular metier as his brother who works with his hands. Material considerations and desire for greater social prestige are usually the deciding factors in the vocation of the intellectual. Added to it is the tendency to follow in the footsteps of family tradition, and become doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, etc. The groove requires less effort and personality. In consequence nearly everybody is out of place in our present scheme of things. The masses plod on, partly because their senses have been dulled by the deadly routine of work and because they must eke out an existence. This applies with even greater force to the political fabric of today. There is no place in its texture for free choice of independent thought and activity. There is a place only for voting and tax-paying puppets.
    The interests of the State and those of the individual differ fundamentally and are antagonistic. The State and the political and economic institutions it supports can exist only by fashioning the individual to their particular purpose; training him to respect ”law and order;” teaching him obedience, submission and unquestioning faith in the wisdom and justice of government; above all, loyal service and complete self-sacrifice when the State commands it, as in war. The State puts itself and its interests even above the claims of religion and of God. It punishes religious or conscientious scruples against individuality because there is no individuality without liberty, and liberty is the greatest menace to authority.
    The struggle of the individual against these tremendous odds is the more difficult – too often dangerous to life and limb – because it is not truth or falsehood which serves as the criterion of the opposition he meets. It is not the validity or usefulness of his thought or activity which rouses against him the forces of the State and of “public opinion.” The persecution of the innovator and protestant has always been inspired by fear on the part of constituted authority of having its infallibility questioned and its power undermined.
    Man’s true liberation, individual and collective, lies in his emancipation from authority and from the belief in it. All human evolution has been a struggle in that direction and for that object. It is not invention and mechanics which constitute development. The ability to travel at the rate of 100 miles an hour is no evidence of being civilized. True civilization is to be measured by the individual, the unit of all social life; by his individuality and the extent to which it is free to have its being to grow and expand unhindered by invasive and coercive authority.
    Socially speaking, the criterion of civilization and culture is the degree of liberty and economic opportunity which the individual enjoys; of social and international unity and co-operation unrestricted by man-made laws and other artificial obstacles; by the absence of privileged castes and by the reality of liberty and human dignity; in short, by the true emancipation of the individual.
    Political absolutism has been abolished because men have realized in the course of time that absolute power is evil and destructive. But the same thing is true of all power, whether it be the power of privilege, of money, of the priest, of the politician or of so-called democracy. In its effect on individuality it matters little what the particular character of coercion is – whether it be as black as Fascism, as yellow as Nazism or as pretentiously red as Bolshevism. It is power that corrupts and degrades both master and slave and it makes no difference whether the power is wielded by an autocrat, by parliament or Soviets. More pernicious than the power of a dictator is that of a class; the most terrible – the tyranny of a majority.
    The long process of history has taught man that division and strife mean death, and that unity and cooperation advance his cause, multiply his strength and further his welfare. The spirit of government has always worked against the social application of this vital lesson, except where it served the State and aided its own particular interests. It is this anti-progressive and anti-social spirit of the State and of the privileged castes back of it which has been responsible for the bitter struggle between man and man. The individual and ever larger groups of individuals are beginning to see beneath the surface of the established order of things. No longer are they so blinded as in the past by the glare and tinsel of the State idea, and of the ”blessings” of ”rugged individualism.” Man is reaching out for the wider scope of human relations which liberty alone can give. For true liberty is not a mere scrap of paper called ”constitution,” “legal right” or “law.” It is not an abstraction derived from the non-reality known as “the State.” It is not the negative thing of being free from something, because with such freedom you may starve to death. Real freedom, true liberty is positive: it is freedom to something; it is the liberty to be, to do; in short, the liberty of actual and active opportunity.
    That sort of liberty is not a gift: it is the natural right of man, of every human being. It cannot be given: it cannot be conferred by any law or government. The need of it, the longing for it, is inherent in the individual. Disobedience to every form of coercion is the instinctive expression of it. Rebellion and revolution are the more or less conscious attempt to achieve it. Those manifestations, individual and social, are fundamentally expressions of the values of man. That those values may be nurtured, the communit y must realize that its greatest and most lasting asset is the unit – the individual.
    In religion, as in politics, people speak of abstractions and believe they are dealing with realities. But when it does come to the real and the concrete, most people seem to lose vital touch with it. It may well be because reality alone is too matter-of-fact, too cold to enthuse the human soul. It can be aroused to enthusiasm only by things out of the commonplace, out of the ordinary. In other words, the Ideal is the spark that fires the imagination and hearts of men. Some ideal is needed to rouse man out of the inertia and humdrum of his existence and turn the abject slave into an heroic figure.
    Right here, of course, comes the Marxist objector who has outmarxed Marx himself. To such a one, man is a mere puppet in the hands of that metaphysical Almighty called economic determinism or, more vulgarly, the class struggle. Man’s will, individual and collective, his psychic life and mental orientation count for almost nothing with ourMarxist and do not affect his conception of human history.
    No intelligent student will deny the importance of the economic factor in the social growth and development of mankind. But only narrow and wilful dogmatism can persist in remaining blind to the important role played by an idea as conceived by the imagination and aspirations of the individual.
    It were vain and unprofitable to attempt to balance one factor as against another in human experience. No one single factor in the complex of individual or social behavior can be designated as the factor of decisive quality. We know too little, and may never know enough, of human psychology to weigh and measure the relative values of this or that factor in determining man’s conduct. To form such dogmas in their social connotation is nothing short of bigotry; yet, perhaps, it has its uses, for the very attempt to do so proved the persistence of the human will and confutes the Marxists.
    Fortunately even some Marxists are beginning to see that all is not well with the Marxian creed. After all, Marx was but human – all too human – hence by no means infallible. The practical application of economic determinism in Russia is helping to clear the minds of the more intelligent Marxists. This can be seen in the transvaluation of Marxian values going on in Socialist and even Communist ranks in some European countries. They are slowly realising that their theory has overlooked the human element, den Menschen, as a Socialist paper put it. Important as the economic factor is, it is not enough. The rejuvenation of mankind needs the inspiration and energising force of an ideal.
    Such an ideal I see in Anarchism. To be sure, not in the popular misrepresentations of Anarchism spread by the worshippers of the State and authority. I mean the philosophy of a new social order based on the released energies of the individual and the free association of liberated individuals.
    Of all social theories Anarchism alone steadfastly proclaims that society exists for man, not man for society. The sole legitimate purpose of society is to serve the needs and advance the aspiration of the individual. Only by doing so can it justify its existence and be an aid to progress and culture.
    The political parties and men savagely scrambling for power will scorn me as hopelessly out of tune with our time. I cheerfully admit the charge. I find comfort in the assurance that their hysteria lacks enduring quality. Their hosanna is but of the hour.
    Man’s yearning for liberation from all authority and power will never be soothed by their cracked song. Man’s quest for freedom from every shackle is eternal. It must and will go on.

    by the Free Society Forum
    1241 N. California Avenue
    Chicago, Illinois
    [1940]

  2. පින්ග්කිරීම: politics « Kathika·

ප්‍රතිචාරයක් ලබාදෙන්න

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

ඔබ අදහස් දක්වන්නේ ඔබේ WordPress.com ගිණුම හරහා ය. පිට වන්න / වෙනස් කරන්න )

Twitter picture

ඔබ අදහස් දක්වන්නේ ඔබේ Twitter ගිණුම හරහා ය. පිට වන්න / වෙනස් කරන්න )

Facebook photo

ඔබ අදහස් දක්වන්නේ ඔබේ Facebook ගිණුම හරහා ය. පිට වන්න / වෙනස් කරන්න )

Google+ photo

ඔබ අදහස් දක්වන්නේ ඔබේ Google+ ගිණුම හරහා ය. පිට වන්න / වෙනස් කරන්න )