Madaba on Communitarianism

Madaba is neither a Communist or a Capitalist

In this post I will explain Madaba’s political philosophy

This was penned by Andy Perwend, for his Superbrain - Madaba. All this comes from Madaba, not Andy. Although it was Andy who wrote it all down. 

Anyway:

Madaba could never be a Capitalist as to be a Capitalism is to support the Capitalist Class being the ruling class. And Capitalism is a ruthless and destructive thing and works against the interests of the majority of the people. It puts profit above all things, including some of the things that Madaba values: Peace, Freedom, Development, The Environment. Indeed most of the time it is overtly and unashamedly against Peace, Freedom, Development, and The Environment. Capitalism only cares about these if it can get something out of them or use them to make them look good or feel slightly better about themselves.

And the Capitalists clearly are the ruling class. Their servants occupy all high offices, and the system works to serve and perpetuate them and their status as the ruling class. And the media and cultural and ideological apparatuses (religion, education) help this along. The ideology by which the whole system works is an ideology of Capitalism, dressed up in various disguises, such as “Democracy” and “The Rule of Law”. Democracy and The Rule of Law are fine things, but only when they are genuine and not shoddy devices used to legitimatise and normalise the Capitalist system by associating it with good things. And I say that the Capitalist system is neither legitimate nor normal! It is not normal as it is not legitimate!

Capitalism will only ever work in the interests of the Capitalist class. It is against the interest of the working class and does not serve any greater, common good. That is why Madaba does not support it - because he does not want the world to be run by (and for) the Capitalists. That would not be in the interest of anyone other than a very small segment of the population.

Madaba is not a Communist. You cannot have a complex and large society run according to the Communist dream. Caring and sharing, and no possessions. It can’t happen. Sure, it could work if there were only fifty people, but most nations have populations in at least the tens of million. Communism can never be achieved, the best it can be is a utopian vision to serve as the model of a perfect society, an ideal to be worked towards and to inspire. To live in a true state of Communism would require living as a stone-age tribe. Modern humans as we know them could not live like that, organising like that could never work. Holding all things in common is on one level a good thing, but the society and economy required to deliver that is impossible and contrary to human nature. Those things are not practical but morally good – as opposed to Capitalism, which is practical but evil

What about Socialism? I think Socialism is good. A lot of people, particularly Americans, have funny and inaccurate ideas as to what Socialism is – which conveniently obscure it and confuse the public’s understanding of it. They equate it with “progressive” and “liberal” policies, whereas it is truly neither of these. It serves as an ideological bogeyman and a lazy and ignorant slur. Socialism is basically the ideology which advances the interests of the working-class, against those of the Capitalists, the boss class. No wonder the American mainstream media have it in for Socialism! And constantly trash and demonise it! And of course, politicised Christianity is offered as a distraction, to keep the American working class from pursuing their sectional class interests and to get them drunk on cultural conservatism instead, and to open their minds up to right-wing commentators and demagogues. I think Socialism as a political movement is great and am very much for it. But I would not want to see our entire economy, society, and political system become Socialist. As that attempts to fully implement a socialist vision beyond advocating for and serving the working class would be bad for everyone and causes more problems than it would solve. It would not be much better than Capitalism and certainly a lot worse than Communitarianism! During the Cold War I’d have rather lived in the USA than the USSR, even though I dislike Capitalism and am somewhat sympathetic as to Socialism. And of course, this goes for Madaba too.

So, if not Capitalism and not Communism – then what? Communitarianism.

I must first define “Community”: The sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies drew a distinction between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft - Association and Community. Two different kinds of society. A Community is a society based on personal relations – family, kinship, neighbourliness, friendship. It is small and everyone joins in as an individual. An Association however is different. In an Association relations are impersonal and instrumental, and decision making and policy making is formalised and institutionalised – as opposed to being inter-personal, spontaneous, and communal. Also, Communities tend to be socially homogenous whereas Associations can be diverse – in terms of ethnicity, culture, religion. A society cannot function as a Community once it reaches a certain size and level of complexity and diversity. And a Community will always morph into an Association. That is a law of Sociology. So, basically, a Community is a certain type of Society, a certain way in which people live together as civilized beings. But a large, complicated, diverse and differentiated society cannot function as a Community and will always develop into an Association.

Communitarianism – in the way that Madaba uses the term – is the idea that we should model the ways in which we run and order our large and complex modern (associational) societies on more primitive and simple (communal) societies. The motto of the French revolution was Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. And that is a good place to begin. Liberty needs no explanation, but Equality and Fraternity are very significant – as they both require thinking of people other than yourself! – a society ordered under those principles would feature everyone being concerned about the welfare of each other. Individuals make societies and societies make individuals. In Communitarianism there is zero tension between the individual and the social. But there is in Capitalism, in which individualism and collectivism can both be co-opted and mobilised to serve the capitalists.

In a Communitarian system, the interest is “the common good” and the identity is “the community”. People value the common good more than personal and sectional interests and think in terms of everyone, not just their own faction or section. These combine to produce the phrase “the common good of the community”. And a community spirit in which everyone looks after each other and where there is a shared common interest and a common communal identity to bind all people together into a real community! And that is what Communitarianism is all about! Contrast this with “the interests of the ruling class” (which is what Capitalism is if you remove the façade) and you will see the difference. And “the interests of the ruling class” can be easily disguised into something less outrageous – such as “freedom”, as in the USA. The way Madaba sees it, Communism is a non-option, and Communitarianism is WAY superior to Capitalism

A big part of this is Citizenship and Democracy. Democracy is not just voting; it is making the system work for the demos – i.e. the ordinary people. By the people and for the people. As opposed to for the bosses! And to be a Citizen is to be a player in Democracy. And there is way more to Democracy than voting. It is a state of mind. A way of life. At its best it is when the masses wield power and use that power for their own good. But in a Capitalist system democracy is an elaborate show designed to make the subordinate classes accept the conditions of their own subordination. And even celebrate them! Right now, “identity politics” are a big thing and also a big distraction. They distract the people from their class interests with issues such as homosexuality, gun control, transsexualism, abortion, immigration, religion. None of these threaten the Capitalist system and all of them distract people from becoming more politically aware. Although that’s not to say those issues aren’t important – and they are. It’s just that they are being employed in a cynical manner, to keep the minds of the public away from demanding power and change. It’s brain-washing on an enormous scale and nobody notices because it is now normal!

There is a lot more to Democracy than voting. Democracy should be a deliberation, a debate. A way of life. And key to this is Citizenship – membership of the political community. To be a citizen is to have formally enshrined rights and responsibilities. It is a status that one has, and all citizens are equal to each other. Communitarianism is rule by the citizens and for the citizens. As opposed to rule of the Capitalists by the political class. To be a Communitarian is to be democratically minded and to think and behave in terms of what is best for The Community as a while, not just you or people like you, or people in the same position as you.

What might Communitarian policies look like? I will now sketch out a few, but these are not central to Communitarianism. I have provided them to provide a flavour of what might be:

I think some things should be in public ownership. Held by the state for the good of the people. For instance utilities and infrastructure – railways, electricity, water. Railway companies should exist to transport people and goods from A to B, not make money for their shareholders. Electricity companies should exist to generate electricity for all the towns and villages, not make money for their shareholders. And water companies should exist to give us all drinking water and take away our sewage, not make money for their shareholders. You get the picture? It’s common sense, common decency even. Those things should exist to serve the public, not make profits for shareholders. I see no rational argument against this other than “it would make me (a shareholder or executive) less rich” which frankly is a bit rubbish.

Another idea would be dividends for workers. Imagine an enormous supermarket chain, with thousands of outlets across the land, raking in billions of pounds’ worth of profit each year. All to idle shareholders and overpaid business types in nice suits. I say give the workers a share! A big fat juicy cheque. They worked to make that money so it is only right they should see at least some of it. I think this is a matter of respect more than anything else. Workers are human beings – citizens. Not machines. Without the workers there would be no business. They made that money! And of course, such dividends should be tax free. There is no reason to oppose this other than “that wouldn’t make members of the capitalist class as rich as they would otherwise be” – which is a non-reason. The capitalists should be subordinate to the ordinary people, not the other way round!

Another Communitarian policy (and I’m not stating all these as essential features of Communitarianism, only as examples of what such policies could look like) would be the abolition of the titles “Mr”, “Mrs” and “Miss”. And then replacing them with “Citizen”. I think this would make things sound and feel much more equal and generate a sense of fellowship, solidarity, and community amongst Citizens.

So, that’s what Madaba means by Communitarianism and a hint of what Communitarianism might look like in practice. And the mindset that it involves. Please, leave any comments down below and feel free to get in touch!

Madaba thanks you for reading