An Incoherent Ramble about the Object of Power

My last post was a little literary, but its intention was very precise and even, in a broad sense, scientific. In understanding systems of oppression, systems of power, we should not suppose that they serve a purpose beyond themselves – to do so would be to walk towards conspiracy theories or religious devil-figures, which are distinguished precisely by supposing a conscious purpose “behind it all”.

But some ideological systems, I believe, are halfway to this, in seeing one oppressive system as the ‘purpose’ or ‘ultimate basis’ of others. The examples that spring to my mind are, firstly, right-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and so forth, who claim that if the state was removed, the capitalist economy would lose its oppressive character, and secondly, some very crude state communists, who claim that if the capitalist economy was dismantled, the state would lose its oppressive character.

That’s not to say that such positions are necessarily or obviously wrong. I believe they are, but their truth is perfectly conceivable. I do think, though, that they perhaps offer a way of defining things – a way that is incapable of precision or objectivity, but perhaps is still helpful in the fuzzy world of revolutionary politics.

What I mean is – to define the difference between a right-wing anarchist, a left-wing anarchist, and a non-anarchist leftist (such as a Marxist), ask yourself what shape the oppressive structure they oppose has. If it has a single head labelled ’state’, think of them as a right-wing anarchist, if it has a single head labelled ‘capitalism’, think of them as a non-anarchist leftist, and if it has two heads labelled ’state’ and ‘capitalism’, think of them as a left-wing anarchist. If it has a head labelled ‘conspiracy’ think of them as a nutjob. If it’s two or more separate creature each with a single head think of them as unsophisticated.

Of course, that procedure leaves out possible other heads – to my mind, the most prominent being patriarchy, racism/imperialism and anthroparchy/human supremacism.

Having conjured up the idea of a multi-headed monster, it’s only a short step to call it a ‘hydra‘ and with that mean that heads can be re-grown if any one of them is left behind. For example, if the economic head is cut off but the state head is left, the vitality left in that state could grow back a new economic head, as arguably happened in Russia. Perhaps even if the anarchists could succeed in cutting off both the state head and the economic head, the vitality of the patriarchy head could grow them back – that habits of domination and aggression built through MAN!-hood could resurrect other oppressive structures.

But phrasing it like that, makes it sound almost impossible to defeat. What gives the creature this vitality? That question might be made metaphorical by asking what it’s “body” is. What is it that explains why these structures have been able to grow – if they are not inevitable and unavoidable, what pumps blood into them?

Without giving any particular arguments or evidence I’d suggest that it’s the bare fact of scarcity – the fact of the natural environment being hostile to humans, through disease, cold, heat, famine, predators, and the unrestrained growth of population to maintain this pressure. The residue of pain and frustration this leaves in people’s psyches, the habits of hostility and struggle that it develops, are the blood that nourishes oppressive structures between humans.

Which (again basically repeating what Orwell says) suggests that growing abundance and wealth would make people harder to oppress – which would certainly seem to be borne out by the history of the last few centuries. But ironically, this observation can then be made self-defeating – for example, in Russia, the government took to heart the idea that ‘oppression will end when people are rich enough’, and used it to ensure that people were never rich enough, because more more more wealth and development was always needed.

Capitalism of course does the same – we can never ever have enough. If we had enough we could relax and stop working, and that would destroy the economy. So there must always be more that you need!

What is the Object of it all?

Often we speak of how some form of oppression ’serves’ or ’supports’ some greater form of oppression. How does the state support capitalism? How does capitalism serve patriarchy? How does patriarchy strengthen racism? These should not be taken too literally.

This mutual support may be why these forms of oppression have emerged and persisted, but just like the ‘adaptive fitness’ of an evolving organism, they are not in any way their “purpose”.

From George Orwell’s 1984, though abridged. O’brien, a representative of the state, is torturing and re-educating Winston, who attempted dissent.

O’Brien says:

“You could grasp the mechanics of the Society you lived in, but not its underlying motives. Do you remember writing in your diary, ‘I understand how: I do not understand why’?

You understand well enough how the Party maintains itself in power. Now tell me why we cling to power. What is our motive? Why should we want power? Go on, speak.”

Winston answers:

“You are ruling over us for our own good. You believe that human beings are not fit to govern themselves, and therefore –”

He started and almost cried out. A pang of pain had shot through his body.

“That was stupid, Winston, stupid!” O’brien said. “You should know better than to say a thing like that.”

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power.

We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal.

We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.

The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

Now do you begin to understand me?”