In defense of empathy

I have read many excellent books & essays on anarchism in its many forms. In my youth, they helped me figure out what I believed in, who I am, but there was always something missing, namely: How do you organize complex societies? How do you produce the stuff we need for daily living and how do you start up new projects, in order to progress the human experience?

An illustration from the Spanish civil war, probably allegorical: During the many battles between the republican forces, which included the anarchists & other lefties, and the fascist Franco forces, a pattern emerged. The republican were very good at defending, but fell short when it came to attacks and the opposite for the Franco forces. Defending is a mutual, cooperative thing, we stand together, but attacks require commitment & a singular focus. So when you have a disparate group, with all kinds of ideas about how things should be run, it is easy to come together in the face of an attack. But it becomes very hard to come to a decision about doing new stuff, in this case doing an attack. How should it be done, who should lead it and what is the objective? Like herding cats, as the old saying goes. This was not an issue for the fascists. Not only did they believe in absolute hierarchy, they worshiped the idea of battle, of the noble fight. They fell, when it came to defense, because this required cooperation, which was not a part of their ideology.

It is probably way more complicated than this, but I think it works as an illustration of what issues anti-authoritarians face. We know what we are against and we are good at helping each other, but whenever we need to create new projects, change, we fall apart. From the Spanish civil war to Occupy Wall Street, it is clear that it is not enough to want change, you have to have a way to enact it. You need a way to organize.

Whenever there is a disaster, whenever things fall apart, you see informal anarcho-socialism in action. Mutual aid & selfless sacrifice rises because we are empathetic beings, who want to help. It is a foundational part of who we are. But it never lasts. Once the initial wave of adrenaline runs out, once the drudgery of daily living reasserts itself, cooperation gives way to recrimination & infighting. Empathy is a prerequisite, not an organizational principle. I used to think that it was enough for everyone to just give more than they take, because that is how I operate, but I suffer from sympathy. It is not sustainable, even if somehow we could make everyone people-pleasers.

Which is why capitalism works, at least in the short run. It is a destructive force, but greed provides. It “solves” the problem of fairness, at least as long as you do not look to closely at the costs.

In the next chapter I give my idea on how we might solve this issue. It might not be the best idea, but hopefully it can be a starting point for thinking about this. Because we need a solution for this, a way to show that cooperation can work, as opposed to competition.

Another important point in regards to capitalism and competitive systems of resource allocation: It is so very wasteful! Yes, the marketplace of ideas can create amazing things, but only by externalizing waste. It only works as long as it does not have to account for the consequences of these ideas.

One of the main points of sociopathic thinking is that it gives people a way to get stuff done. A single human being only have as much agency in the world as their muscles, skills, brains afford them. In order to get things done outside of that, you need to convince others using words, force or bribes. Money is power, but what is power? It is a way to extend agency, a way to cut through to get your ideas brought to life. I think it is as bad a way, as using force, but that only leaves words, agitation and that is the hardest way. But maybe we could make a system where words could work? Hence my idea of direct mandate democracy. A way to get shit done, without resorting to exploitation & negating consent.