Read this, Class: an introduction
"One more thing to add ... " Oh please; here's that smugness I was talking about earlier; all that's missing is a "."
This is an argument in the same category as saying that because you wear Nike or drink Starbucks (I try to avoid both), you can’t be critical of capitalism without being a hypocrite. That’s just ignoring the existing world and current situations. Do you expect anarchist-inspired societies (that includes mass societies as well as smaller commune-type communities) that exist alongside capitalism to be at the very pinnacle of engineering, have all the best technology in place, and to compete with all other countries that have contrary interests? Anarchist-inspired societies/communities that have existed are not representative of any sort of peak-potential or limit to what is possible. Some Libertarian Socialist-inspired societies that have existed in the past did quite well actually in providing for people relative to what they were capable of in their time period. What you’re saying is just ridiculous. Let’s see you organize people into a RBE economy within the existing world alongside capitalism. Where are you going to find the money and resources to produce automated high-speed rails, and so on? Any predictions on how that will end up? Ah yes, the essay I’ve been mentioning has an answer to that:
“If the first assumption is true, i.e., that a technocratic society sans government and capitalism could be achieved through reform, then this movement is certainly not to be taken seriously. Is anyone really naÔve enough to believe that abolishing the bourgeois nation-state and the arbitrary economic system that it resuscitates time-and-time again will be welcomed by the ruling-class? This is, of course, nonsensical. But, to my knowledge, again, the Zeitgeist Movement has no class analysis, no politics, etc. It is agnostic on everything.
To perceive that this first sustainable city is built somehow, without the capitalists shutting it down any way they can, let us hypothetically extrapolate on the scenario: a city gets built in, we’re assuming, the Western world (because third-world US client-states would simply cut their heads off the second they said they were going to build an autonomous self-sustaining city) that is autonomous, has no allegiance to any government, any monetary system, and is completely off-the-grid. What is the first reaction that the State will have? Well, I would extrapolate that the national guard, Blackwater and other fascist, private militias, the police, the FBI, and probably every military force in the world would invade the city and murder everyone they can; this is if they do not simply drop missiles on the first sustainable city. This is the kind of defiance that the bourgeoisie has not tolerated, historically (see the Zapatista Movement and the Spanish Civil War).
Revolutionary social and political theories that historically come from class struggle in contrary to the development of capitalism are not naÔve about this; these theories acknowledge that if revolution is to be successful, i.e., dismantling the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, there must be organized resistance among the majority of people (the working-class) and, an unfortunate matter, a clash with the State (if only in defense). Marx acknowledged the class struggle in he and Engel’s The Communist Manifesto, and believed that the history “of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marx & Engels). Further:
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. (Marx)”