Anarchism and socialism now?

My professed anarchism and socialism are not doctrinaire nor "trapped in ideology".

At the most basic, I see my commitment to anarchism and socialism as based in beliefs in both individual freedom and questioning of unjustified coercive power (in the case of anarchism) and social justice and equality (in the case of socialism).
I see them as essential principles and values in my politics.
Similarly I see my general belief in democracy as based on the general principle of freedom and opposition to tyranny, and not necessarily in conflict with a belief in libertarianism or anarchism.
I do of course realize that it does seem contradictory to profess anarchism at the same time as a belief in democracy, and I will write more about this at some point. I see SUBSIDIARITY and DEVOLUTION and GRASS ROOTS DEMOCRACY as important concepts in this regard - as ways of bringing individuals closer to decisions and policies that affect them.
I am also broadly speaking against extreme nationalism, but broadly speaking in favour of democracy, which is possibly another area of ideological conflict and contradiction.

I am not the kind of anarchist that doesn't vote on principle. On the contrary, I believe in voting on principle and I even believe it should be compulsory.

In Steven Pinker's book "Enlightenment Now", I was not fully convinced by his contention that "anarchy" - in the sense of pre-existing chaos and lack of government - is more violent than tyranny.
Even if this is in some sense true, this seems a minor point. I tend to agree with Thoreau that "that government is best which governs the least."

But I was overall very heartened by Pinker's chapter on Democracy and its progress since the Enlightenment and very much convinced by it.
Though he didn't seem to deal with the argument of thinkers like Chomsky that capitalism - private and business ownership and control of production - is in some ways antithetical to democracy.

I remain a Green and I do not think that Pinker successfully dealt with this ideology.
I see this as an example of CULTURAL LAG - where a culture "lags behind" its reality.
In this case it is a cultural lag regarding an ideology that is far more up to date and in tune with reality than Marxism or other nineteenth century ideologies.
I agree with Pinker that it is regrettable that Marxism still has so many adherents today, which I further see as an example of CULTURAL LAG.
I am a humanist environmentalist and I don't believe that Green politics is anti-human.
Green Politics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_politics
I fully see Green politics as an outgrowth and development and part of the Enlightenment and not being in contradiction with it. It has undoubtedly had influences from Romanticism but I feel that it is fully part of the Enlightenment, and fully compatible with it.

I was glad that Pinker spoke approvingly of non-violence and pointed out that it can work.

"Civilisation: A Sceptic's View"

Very much enjoyed and learned from "Civilisation: A Sceptic's View" by David Cannadine on BBC Radio 4.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09sn1hj

Excellent book - "Who Are We - and Should It Matter in the 21st Century?"

I read "Who Are We - and Should It Matter in the 21st Century?" by Gary Younge and it is an excellent book. I think he is sometimes a little too sympathetic to radical Islam for my liking. It was written nearly a decade ago now, but is still very relevant.
 It has made me think about the issue of identity and identity politics. I am glad he is critical of Eric Hobsbawm's Marxist-inspired insistence that nationalism and identity are not major historical forces. But I hope they become less and less important and I think they will. 

"Enlightenment Now"

I just forked out the grand sum of twenty one pounds on a nice hardback edition of "Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress" by Steven Pinker. Which is not mentioning the trees used up! Looks good. I hope he spends all the royalties on something good! I am sure he will.

I believe in enlightenment and in The Enlightenment and I like the optimism - if only because as Winston Churchill said, there is no point being anything else other than an optimist.
He seems to include a belief in market economics with his vision of enlightened humanism, which I would perhaps take issue with.

As he himself notes, "intellectuals are apt to do a spit take when they read a defence of capitalism."
But I don't think this book is in its entirety a defence of capitalism, but a defence of the Enlightenment. And a very good one at that. In economic terms, I think it is as much a defence of development and social democracy, as of capitalism and free markets as such.

I am very much a supporter of Pinker's strong condemnation of Nietzsche and his continuing influence in particular. Freud needs a similar condemnation as well, if you ask me. And for similar reasons.
Freud's views were certainly a threat to reason, science, humanism and progress.
His influence is still a threat to reason, science, humanism and progress.

I must get round to actually reading it properly from cover to cover, hopefully some time in this century. If humanity does last out this century. Hopefully it will.

I have now read it from cover to cover and I am very glad I did. It is very good indeed.

Whilst I am very much inclined to take heed of George Monbiot's criticisms of the way the environment is dealt with in the book [ You can deny environmental calamity -until you check the facts." ], I still like what seems to be the message of the book overall. George Monbiot's words are a little too harsh in places I think; and this book is worth reading and not wholly discredited by a few mistakes or biases.

In particular, I wasn't convinced at all by Pinker's dismissal of the concept of "Sustainability".
We are indeed inevitably a part of the planet's ecosystem and he didn't really face up to that reality to a sufficient extent in my view. And I hope we have reached "Peak Car", but I don't know if we have.
The Ecosystem is not just another mythical "transcendent entity" like the "nation", as he infers - I think it is a valid and scientific concept.

I resent his accusation that so-called "Greenism" is "apocalyptic", but I was relieved to see his advocacy of Ecomodernism and Ecopragmatism, and of a more humanistic environmentalism.
However, I am not sure if these tendencies go far enough in humanity's imperative quest to achieve an ecological civilisation.
I am glad that he accepts that the environment is facing "serious problems", and I agree with his emphasis on Enlightenment optimism, even if things in this regard are perhaps not quite as rosy as he portrays them.

Though, along with George Monbiot, he has swayed me over the issue of nuclear power, which I now support, I remain a convinced Green and I resent his disparagement of that ideology.

On the question of psychology and psychiatry - he comes close to agreeing that psychiatry is over-diagnosing so-called "mental illness", but he still needs to open his eyes to the insult to the Enlightenment that Psychiatry represents. Psychiatry is undoubtedly an affront to reason, science, humanism and progress. I think Thomas Szasz (1920-2012) was a very important thinker on this question and others and was very much in the Enlightenment tradition, particularly with regard to supporting freedom and alleviating human suffering. I do like Pinker's emphasis on reducing suffering with regard to the question of psychology and throughout the book.

John Gray has written of the book "Enlightenment Now" - "To think of this book as any kind of scholarly exercise is a category mistake."  This statement is just ridiculous bullshit. Yes the book is quite polemical, but it is a polemic that is undoubtedly backed up by scholarship.

I certainly believe in enlightenment and in The Enlightenment. And this book is a good manifesto for it and its continuation.

If people need something to believe in, I recommend this book - it is an eloquent riposte to religious and nationalist fundamentalism. I believe yet more in reason, science, humanism and progress. I think, however, that the environment is the biggest challenge faced by the Enlightenment and I was not entirely convinced by his coverage of this topic.

I was overall convinced by the book that many things have indeed got better since the Enlightenment, and that it is due to enlightenment and the Enlightenment. Ideas do indeed matter. I was further convinced that things can get better still.


I now plan to read George Monbiot's "Out of the Wreckage". 

March 30th 2018.

I have now read George Monbiot's "Out of the Wreckage: A New Politics for an Age of Crisis" and I was very impressed.
This is an inspirational book that I think is more in the real world than Pinker's one and makes some real proposals for moving things forward to a better place for humanity.
I like his attack on the politics of selfishness, and his belief that humans are social beings that need to be altruistic and co-operate.
His book is a good basis on which to build progressive ideas.

Two superb books.

"At the Existentialist Café: Freedom, Being, and Apricot Cocktails" and "How to Live: A Life of Montaigne in One Question and Twenty Attempts at an Answer" by Sarah Bakewell are both simply superb books.

Keynes quote

"The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones."
 John Maynard Keynes.

How does this quote help us move on from psychiatry?