I sort of want that other post to be rebloggable in case people want to argue it or contribute.

 disobey asked:

Excuse me, I read your response to a reblog of one of my posts, but I’m not sure that I understood what you meant. Would you mind expanding on your point for me? I also expanded on mine on my blog with a further reblog of the one you posted.

Hegemony comes from the Greek word hegemon, which literally means chief.  People relate hegemony to meaning leadership but the nature through which capitalist hegemony exists, that leadership transfers also into dominance.  We currently live in a system where capitalist ideals and social interactions are the socialised, ingrained norm.  The bourgeois class, by holding the reigns of power, have structured the world in such a way where their values and expectations are forced upon the masses.  Yet the system created is self-propagating.  Educational systems, religious institutions, media sources, cultural events, shops etc train people from the day they’re born as to the correct way to interact within a capitalist society.  Parents teach their children not to steal and by that merit instil the value of property rights.

This normative social functioning is so completely dominant that people find other forms of social interaction to be completely alien.  Liberal ideology and values are assumed to be the middle point, the neutral value.  Take, for example, newspapers which are expected to be neutral and unbiased.  When they report on police misconduct the considered bias is whether or not the police were at fault in the misconduct, or whether the police were acting within their remit.  They are still instilling bourgeois values: the police are still presumed to exist.  Yet surely a valid question they could be asking to represent all aspects of potential views, which will very rarely be seen in the mainstream media, is whether or not the police are a necessary institution.  They could very easily question whether or not police were first created as a form of social control to enforce capitalist hierarchal structures: they don’t, because they recreate bourgeois ideals, because they’re a part of the bourgeois hegemony.

This creates preconceptions of the normal functioning of society that become expected, treated almost as innate to what it is to be human.  For example the claim that humans are naturally greedy, denying the nature of humans as a product of their society because the person promoting this idea of what it is to be human cannot comprehend that a person has had an upbringing or socialisation other than that which they themselves experienced.

So this idea of voluntaryism, that all of society can exist through the function of voluntary interactions and therefore people can coexist as being socialist or capitalist, functionally doesn’t work.  From the outset it would require that any interaction is, for example … voluntary.  But they’re not.  When you go to the shop to buy something you can make the choice between X brand and Y brand but you cannot choose to not have to pay for it.  When you’re born into a family you do not choose the way they raise you.  Yet the upbringing you have normalises you into those social processes.  If people collect into groupings (so you have a community of socialists and separate to that a community of capitalists) you don’t have a situation where each person can voluntarily change between which society they live in, because there is no true neutrality to human nature.  The socialist societies will propagate socialists, the capitalist societies will propagate capitalists.  When people are a part of a grouping they’re trained to understand, trust and incorporate that grouping into an integral aspect of their identity from the very instant they’re born.

There’s also no way to go from a capitalist hegemonic system to one that isn’t without working to create a counter-hegemony and finding a sufficient power base to re-socialise people’s expectations.  Anarchism without adjectives or without hyphens or whatever which simply cannot do that.  Firstly because it doesn’t find anything wrong with capitalism as long as it doesn’t have the state hierarchy behind it (because, ja know, bosses and owners aren’t hierarchal at all?  Labour is suddenly no longer alienated?), secondly because it’s fear of creating a dominant system (for a marxist that would be the dictatorship of the proletariat) means there’s absolutely no way to distribute or otherwise promote that counter-hegemony on such a level where it can be consumed en masse.

That’s without getting into arguments about the impossibility of the capitalist system to survive without it constantly fighting to maintain dominance.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s