After many years pondering why the world works the way it does, I have come to essentially the same conclusions as Ms. Johnstone. Rather than absolutely the problem, Capitalism is an expression of the psychotic element of humanity. Reading Michael Hudson’s book “and Forgive Them Their Debts” recently, it drove home that the roots of these psychotic elements’ domination can be traced back to the rise of civilization and the accompanying division of labor (thus creating classes) ten thousand years ago. It became clear that the creation of the Priesthood/Warrior class/Merchants in the birth of civilization was mid-wifed from the start by those elements of humanity drawn to power and domination. The kicker is that the rest of humanity . . . the normal part . . . acted and acts as enablers at almost every turn. The question then is why?

As hunter-gatherers, still the bulk of human history, there were no social or political structures beyond allegiance to your tribe or group, as social class was virtually non-existent, that could be commandeered by this psychotic element. Hunter-gatherer social organization was thus rather flat from the standpoint of hierarchy. Since the human psychotic element has likely always existed, I surmise that these elements must have offered some sort of evolutionary advantage whereby they, lacking any compunction against killing, usually were left to do the hunting and fighting. Existing as small groups meant everyone in the group knew each other and no one individual could amass enough power (as usually done through accumulation of wealth which was virtually impossible before the rise of agriculture and sedentary lifestyles) to be able dominate the group. Indeed, the worst form of punishment among hunter-gatherers was banishment as separation from the group meant almost certain death. This, no doubt, had an arresting effect on would be megalomaniacs.

Observing some of our primate cousins, it seems humans are an amalgam of Orangutans and Bonobos. We have the violent impulses of the former combined with the sexual predispositions of the latter. Not the most ideal makeup to say the least as the struggle for mates and power form a potent combination in directing human behavior. Of course, unlike our close primate relatives we can think abstractly, plan and, above all communicate. But again, these features seem to act more as mediators than final arbiters of our behavior. Often, the reptilian part of our brains (the much older part by millions of years) decides what it wants and then enlists the rational part in both rationalizing and carrying out the actions needed to obtain the desired results.

There is another school of thought on this. Denis Rancourt (former tenured full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada) believes Humans are predisposed to “dominance hierarchies” whereby individuals can alternate or combine aspects of two modes of being within a matrix of hierarchies. As he describes it:

One mode is the mode (and strategy) adopted by the dominated individual. This    mode is one where the individual seeks “fairness” and minimal aggressions in their environment. The individual seeks a “safe space” and has no actual design to displace dominants. The culture of individuals that coalesce into such a stratum of the hierarchy is one where “kindness” and “being a good person” are the highest social values that are encouraged and rewarded. Altruism and “goodiness” are elevated to a status meriting religious indulgences. Viciousness actuated by enforcers within the social stratum is turned towards violators of this code.” (1)

The other mode is the mode (and strategy) adopted by the individual who intends to be and to remain dominant. It is an outlook of waging and winning battles for dominance. This is the climber with a “killer’s instinct”, prepared to joust for relative advantage and eager to dominate.”

Elsewhere, he extends his arguments saying:

The reality of social animals is dominance hierarchy, which spontaneously adapts itself to environmental conditions and to the population size, while integrating accumulated knowledge and technological advances.

Dominance hierarchies are both stable and evolutionarily advantageous only if effective balancing forces against creeping or runaway totalitarianism are admitted. A dominance hierarchy is doomed when its highest codes allow an elite class to have disproportionate power, including the power to modify the highest codes without restraint. In particular, in a society in which the state — controlled by an elite class — effectively has a technological monopoly on lethal force, the balancing mechanism of free expression, free association, and real influence — otherwise known as “democracy” — must be allowed. (2)

Rancourt is on to something her. His take would explain why its been so difficult for humanity to move beyond a system such as Capitalism. He realizes that his theory implies that socialism may in fact be impossible given our evolutionary inheritance.

As Caitlin Johnstone keenly noted, what we need is

A society where the idea of having power over anybody became so culturally taboo that even an unequal power dynamic between spouses would be seen as outrageous and ugly, to say nothing of governments or police forces. Such a society is very far from what we’ve got now, but it would surely be a very inhospitable environment for psychopathy. There would be no positions of leverage for one to manipulate their way into in order to force others to give them what they want, and if you started trying to create one everybody would immediately point at you and yell, “Hey! What are you doing? Stop that, that’s weird! If you want something from us you need to form consensual collaborative relationships with us, just like we’re all doing. (3)

More than taboos and social opprobrium, I believe agglomerations of power such as the military, police, intelligence agencies and financial institutions such as the Federal Reserve must be outlawed. Rather than community watchdogs over the police, communities must police themselves. No standing armies and all citizens are required to undergo weapons training. Political borders must be abolished and replaced by a federated system of global governance. This is not to say there will be forced social or cultural homogenization. The English could still be English, The German, German and the Sudanese, Sudanese for example. But these would remain as cultural divisions and not hard divisions encased in the mote of the Nation State. Globalization is indispensable. However, it must proceed from the bottom up rather than the top down based on cooperation, mutual aid and respect for all cultures.

No major issue confronting humanity, from climate change, to uneven development, to regional differences in resource availability or allocation and much more can be solved at a national level. James Lovelock’s Gaia theory that the entire planet acts like a living whole and can be considered a living creature has long been accepted by most of the scientific community. The nation state is thus an affront to the living earth and is completely inadequate for dealing with the myriad complex issues created by humanity’s ascension to the top of the food chain. The planet, at this point, sees us as a virus and like our own bodies when struck by a virus, it is catching a fever in an effort raise the temperature on us and kill us off. The first order of business then is a revolution in our consciousness so that we may be able turn back the tide of psychopathy that has been dominant since the rise of civilization (now dressed in the garb of Neo-Liberal Capitalism) some 10,000 odd years ago.