To be sure many lefties thus far tend to like gangsterism, because it gives them the thrill of throwing a monkey wrench into the mainstream society without threatening their own safe place in that society. But that may change as gangsterism become a more serious threat to everyone, which is likely to happen way before we run out of oil and the economy cum environment collapses upon us. Remember, you heard it first here.
To be sure, neo-liberalism does not create gangsterism, which is a byproduct of modernization. But neo-liberalism makes it much more difficult to contain gangsterism, especially at the time when the largest parts of human population are threatened by it.
To look at the genesis of gangsterism let’s start with Marx’s observations made in his comments on the British rule in India that capitalist industrialization dissolves the existing pre-modern social structures, thus creating the room for a new – presumably proletarian – order to emerge. The hope that uprooted villagers will turned into industrial proletarians, a progressive social force, was based on a heroic assumption that all the uprooted rural masses can be absorbed into the sphere of industrial production. In reality, however, only a small portion of the uprooted pre-modern masses become proletariat. The majority does not – and becomes either a reserved army of the unemployed or worse yet the unemployable lumpenproletariat.
Perhaps the key outcome of such uprooting of a large number of people is the destruction of social norms and controls that governed rural and pre-modern societies. If those backward and oft oppressive norms are replaced with modern ones, e.g. socialist set of values, that is perfect. However, if they are replaced with nothing, they create a state of nihilism that leads to gangsterism. Gangsterism is basically ur-society, a primitive form of social organization where individualism runs amok and status and respect in the group is built mainly on brute force and terror inflicted on others.
As I already said, neo-liberalism does not create gangsterism, modernization does. In fact gangsterism was a big problem in socialist countries of Eastern Europe, especially in the early stages of industrialization. The gangs of young males terrorizing cities were quite rampant in the early 1950s in Poland, and also dealt with quite brutally by the security forces. Similar problems existed in other EE countries, although the data on the phenomenon are quite sketchy due to the unreliability of statistics from that period.
However, socialist countries did something very unique that no bourgeois country is capable of doing – instilling a socialist value system in the uprooted populace. The uniqueness of the EE socialism was that it was a blend of traditionalism and modernism that was palatable to the uprooted rural masses. By contrast, bourgeois modernism, emphasizing formal rules of governance and abstract legal principles, is much less palatable. The EE socialism combined peasant collectivism, solidarity and informal norms, sanctions, and problem solving, with the best elements of bourgeois social order: belief in scientific rationality and technological progress, appreciation of high arts and culture, equal opportunity, and urbanism.
Of course, this solution was not perfect. Informality created a “shadow economy” that had a destabilizing effect on the legitimate social institutions – as it is well documented in literature. A large chunk of the population (difficult to judge the size, but I would venture to say about 10% of the total population of 38 million in Poland) was “left behind” and warehoused as laborers on state-owned farms or state owned enterprises. This was basically a delinquent group with little social or technical skills allowing it to function in the mainstream society. However, despite their delinquency, petty criminality, domestic violence, and rampant substance abuse (mainly alcohol) they seldom turned into gangsterism. The main reason, imho, was socialist social policy of warehousing these people – providing them with social minimum, in the form of marginal employment, disability pensions (most of them qualified due to alcohol abuse, violence and unhealthy life styles), and public housing.
Of course, these socialist social policy was first to go after the neo-liberal “reforms” – which basically pushed that “warehoused” dysfunctional population into chronic unemployment and criminality. Today, high unemployment (nearly 20%) and high crime are two main woes that haunt the post-communist Poland. I understand that other “post-communist” countries have similar problems, especially Russia and China, and for the same reasons.
This contrast supports my claim that socialism was better equipped to solve the problem of uprootedness and gangsterism created by modernization, than the neo-liberal social order is. While the socialist solutions were not perfect (warehousing of chronically delinquent elements of society is hardly a solution), but they at leas offered reasonable social stability and a prospect of gradual improvement over time.
Today modernization uproots the unprecedented number of peoples in the Third world – the numbers that far exceed those of European modernization. At the same time, however, the neo-liberal policies eliminate and undercut socialist ideas, and with them socialist ways of dealing with uprootedness. As a result, we seen unprecedented explosion of gangsterism around the world, especially in Africa where it became a serious threat to social order.
Threatening the social order is a serious problem, but not the only one created by the spread of gangsterism.
Power abhors vacuum, and gangster groups are often used as tools in various power games: from narco-trafficking, to organized crime, to political insurgency, and to terrorism. As the neo-liberalism progresses and destroys social institutions that used to dampen the adverse social effects of modernization, the uprooted masses are more likely to turn to gangsterism, and drawn to organized crime and terrorism.
As this problem starts threatening the stability of Western societies – the neo-liberal response to that threat is that aptly summarized by Adolf Hitler in the phrase “responsibility towards above, authority towards below.” As the neo-liberal state becomes more and more deferential towards business elites, it will become more and more authoritarian towards the rest of the society. And the cherished “western democracies” themselves will become what is now ubiquitous in countries like South Africa – gated communities surrounded by walls and electric fences, protected by security guards who promise to provide “armed response within 10 minutes” – as the signs on the perimeter of these upper class encampments advertise.
This is a far more real threat than a global economic collapse, running out of oil, or environmental catastrophe. However, with the dismissal of socialism and neo-liberal takeover of policy discourse in most countries our ability as a society to deal with this problem is rapidly diminishing. And there seems to be very relief on the horizon, because the economic and political elites that engineered the neo-liberal coup adopted the “after me, deluge” attitude to all social problems, and will embrace the fascist state and gated communities rather than allow to reverse the neo-liberal policies that gave them their wealth and power.
Basically, we are heading toward a society of gated islands for the wealthy protected by super-armed security forces, surrounded by the sea of those “left behind” tormented by poverty, uncertainty and armed gangs. It is already happening in Africa – the weakest link of the neo-liberal world order, and it is soon coming to the theater near you. Happy new year, everyone.
Wojtek
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com