Activism and class struggle
A well-developed capitalist society has a rather complex
social organization. There are numerous social groups, layers
and classes, and the relations between ethnic formations
are built according to the same model: class antagonism.
This social hierarchy may unfold itself differently in
different respects, and those who belonged to the same
social group in one hierarchical structure may belong to
opposite (and conflicting) groups in another unfolding.
This complexity is far from the old conceptions of class
society, with just two main classes struggling for economic
and social dominance. Today, class struggle may be hidden
under apparent cooperation, it may affect particular aspects
of interpersonal relations only, or even be represented by
the different sides of the same personality and felt as a
subjective experience. This hierarchical complexity reflects
the hierarchy of modern capitalist economy, which has developed
with the new ways of value production and consumption.
As division of labor is becoming the absolute principle
governing the development of capitalism, any kind of activity
may, under definite conditions, form into a special business,
obeying the laws of capitalist economy. Such transformation
is usual for various kinds of social activism, and the wide
social movements have certain economic interests behind them,
collapsing soon after they have played their role to the end.
Some "survivor" groups are stressing their radical
orientation, their negative attitude to the capitalists system
and desire to improve the society. They may claim themselves
the successors of the old traditions of the working movement,
and even flirt with communist ideas. The "survivor"
movement is said to struggle against psychiatry as an oppression
tool, employed by the ruling class to bring the people to
obedience.
Well, there may be some parallels between activism and class
struggle. Both are the manifestations of the same antagonistic
structure of capitalist society, and there is no impenetrable
wall between them. Class struggle may assume the form of
social activism, and activism may grow into class struggle.
Still, they are different social phenomena, with their own
functions within the whole. In a sense, they are complementary
and one can notice that the peak of activism coincides
with the low phase of class struggle. This is not a coincidence.
The ideology of the working movement is to change the world
by a joint effort, so that the particular sides of life would
become more bright due to the global change of social organization.
The workers are to build the new society by themselves, they are
to invent the principles and forms of the future. Quite the
opposite of this attitude is represented by the "survivor"
ideology of social activism. Its basic idea is the struggle of
victims against social evil associated with a limited group of
people, the professional "evil-makers". The task of
activism is to throw down this social evil, without changing the
society itself the position quite close to bourgeois
liberalism. The activists may admit that the roots of the
problem are in the nature of capitalism itself but they
cannot imagine how the social system could be changed, and
so they have to conclude that all one has to do is to survive.
Thus, people are encouraged to be victims, rather than conscious
personalities able to change the rules if the rules are against
them.
But where can the "victims" get assistance from?
Capitalist economy is a self-balanced system, and any shift
of the balance in the interests of one social group will result
in the redistribution of the public wealth on a large scale.
Social activism thus appears to be just another side of
economic competition, with every group pulling the blanket
onto themselves and quarreling with the other aspirants.
Yes, an invalid's participation in the Olympics is a great
support for the person's spirit but the money spent
on that might draw a hundred people out of hunger.
The class roots of the working movement and social activism
are different too, since activism is almost completely based
on the intelligentsia, with its oscillations between angry
radicalism and fearful loyalty. The internal contradictions
of activism reflect this intermediate social position of
the activists. While the working movement may be progressive,
activism is merely progressist. Virtually, it often occurs that
such progressist movements serve the interests of the wealthier
capitalists, being their tool in the economic competition and
political struggle. Thus, numerous "green" movements
have nothing to do with ecology: their function is to support
one group of capitalists against another, to undermine the
business of a competing company or the economy of a weaker
country. One more example is the noise around forcing
psychiatric treatment on political opponents: somehow it
finally happens to fight against the communist ideas only,
quite ignoring the psychological oppression in the capitalist
countries. There is much speculation on the Stalinist regime,
and the fantasy of a bourgeois produces enough fiction
about the most sadist forms of repression which they readily
ascribe to the communists, without a slightest thought of
the evidence (which may well be invented afterwards).
In particular, Stalin is blamed for the wide use of psychiatry
to suppress the political opponents; there is no evidence
on that (except the specially invented), and there cannot be
any still, much shouting is enough to make the Philistine
tremble.
There is a significant difference between activism and Marxism
in that the "survivors" mostly talk about malpractice
and potential danger of common procedures, while a Marxist
would first investigate the economic and social conditions
that has lead to the very necessity of treatment. The activists
like talking about human rights in Marxism, there are no
abstract human rights at all, since the relations between people
depend on their place in the economy. For Marxist, a capitalist
has the right, say, to force medical treatment on a worker who
is not obedient enough but this right is not something
"natural" or "inherent" to the class of
capitalists, being mere implication of its economical position.
The exploited have no rights, and this is their social position
too. Of course, this scheme is much less apparent in the
developed capitalist societies; however, it can be traced in
every particular case, forced medication included.
The corollary of the Marxist approach is that the major cause of
any disease is the low level of economic development, with the
respectively underdeveloped social organization. Poverty cripples
the souls much more often than a "malignant" psychiatrist,
and injures the bodies long before they become injured by the
"bad" doctors. Ill conditions of life lead to physical
illness, while the absence of any hope results in compensatory
psychological deviations, readily becoming mental disease.
On the other side, the level of medical treatment available
depends on the thickness of the purse under capitalism, so that
those who need help most often cannot have it at all.
The bourgeois may argue that poverty is not a strong stressor
on itself, and poverty does not necessarily lead to mental
malfunction or unhappiness. There are so many poor people who
are much happier than the rich, who have so many responsibilities
and must work hard to preserve their social status. Still,
there is no bourgeois who would give all their money to the poor
and become as deprived of property and civil rights. The destructive
effect of poverty does not depend on whether one had experienced
a better life or not however, individual experience may
make a person aware of these effects, thus leading to the
conscious frustration and psychological distress.
Such people are more likely to be subjected to forced medication
for their "anti-social" behavior; this would be
a medical procedure, of course, and a kind of healing too
and it is the ill social system that makes them the means of
social control. There are no direct implications for class
struggle arising from forced medication rather, the
"survivor" activism should serve the needs of a more
global social change to become something more than the weep
of a hurt puppy.
Seeking for the future
Social activism (including the "survivor" movements)
purports to improve the society, making it more human and
protective for its members. Indeed, social changes of this kind
could be observed in the developed capitalist countries, and
the activists are apt to think that it was the result of their
"struggle". They say that activism is to replace the
working movement and that it has become the only efficient form
of the struggle for a better social organization.
Well, social progress implies some contribution from social
activism, though its actual role is much more modest. Class
struggle will always remain the major force of development
in the capitalist society, and all the achievements of activism
could not be possible without a strong support from the working
movement (including the international level), which is directly
linked to the economic processes. The observable reorganizations
of society are due to the drastic changes in economy, and the
corresponding adjustment of the basic social relations, in the
production sphere.
However, the role of the working movement should not be
overestimated too. In fact, the working movement and social
activism are the levels of the same hierarchy, and their
relations may be inverted in a definite context.
They are the complementary sides of the reproduction of
the capitalist social organization, and the progress they
cause cannot break the very foundations of capitalism,
leading to a new socioeconomic formation. Capitalism can
be improved, to a certain extent, as long as its internal
contradictions can be resolved within the capitalist system.
Still, the formation change is inevitable, sooner or later,
and the leading force of this change cannot be identified with
none of the basic classes of capitalism, and, of course,
none of the classes pertaining to the earlier historical stages.
Like bourgeoisie was the third force that came to power when
the class struggle between landlords and peasants had reached
its culmination, there is a new social force in the present
society, which will shape the future economic formation to
replace capitalism, and this force is different from both
bourgeoisie and the working class.
It would be premature to make any guesses until the very
economy of capitalism shows the directions where the future
od the humanity is to be sought. However, one can say with
certainty that the efficiency and progressiveness of both
the working movement and social activism depends on whether
they support the birth of the new economic formation
(and the new social system), thus preparing the conditions
for the higher stage of human development to come.
[Online texts]
[Search]
[Contact information]
[Guestbook]