This may be a strange idea coming from a software developer. But I will return to that later.
I have been reading Kropotkins "Mutual Aid" recently, and it is an interestsing thesis. What is more, as I watch programmes like Digging for Britain, ther eis a resonance there. Let me explain in my own words - drawn from Kropotkin but my interpretation.
We have an idea - promoted and established throughout our society - that the Western, industrialised world is more advanced than "Primitive" cultures. In particular, the paternalistic, heirarchical society in the best way to be, and the natural organisation for our society.
The truth is, I think, that this is a myth propogated by those who wish to keep their power.
History tells us that the Roman Empire was the peak of civilised society, for all its problems. They made roads, they waters their cities, they protected their people. Those outside were called barbarians, because they didn't have this civilisation. Well, actually, it is beause they didn't speak Latin, and their language sounded like "Bar Bar Bar Bar" to the Romans - this is just the common demeaning of "others" that we see even today (Rees-Mogg is considered to talk sense because he has a posh voice, Rayner is demeaned because she has a Stockport accent).
When the Romans left, of course, the UK fell into the "dark ages" of uncivilised society. Of course, what that means is that the records we have are minimal, the structure of society becomes more hidden. Without the admin and documentation, we assume the society is less "civilised".
The truth is, I think, that it was more civilised. The inequalities, the murder, the rampant empire building of the Romans (under the guise of "Civilising the Natives" as was the British Empire centries later) was corrupt and broken.
"Ah no" those in charge will say. "Look at the monuments they built - that is the indication of their civilisation." Monuments build - usually - with slave labour. To honour someone who was not worthy of it, but had power to make it happen. Often the worst of people. But people wrote about them, so we know - admin and documentation.
I would take the view that these are the indications of a broken society. In many of the "primitive" societies, they communicate their stories and their skills verbally. I would say this represents a far more advanced environment than one where everything is written. Stories told have so much more life and vibrancy to them - this is why we read stories to our children, sometimes even when they are able to read for themselves. This is why poetry that is performed is so much more engaging than poetry on a page.
And skills - well, I know that in my business, documentation is both something I hate doing (along with most others who are developers of some form) and very difficult, because it needs to go into such a lot of detail. Passing on ideas, approaches, concepts is much easier in person. You cannot learn skills form a book, you need a person to work with you.
And I am also reminded that the film industry also sees this divide. Look at, for example, Avatar. We are definitely encouraged to be on the side of the Na'vi. The people who are the community, who work in harmony with the Earth. And we are expected to be against the RDA, the technologically advanced side. We see it in Lord of the Rings as well. We are always expected to be on the side of the nature-lovers in the films. And yet, in the real world, we are expected to be on the side of the technological teams. And they are not compatible.
But what about the Luddites? It is the same thing, in a different context. The mill owners insisted on running things for their own benefit. When they found they could introduce machines to produce their products cheaper, using machinery, they did, and removed the workers. They did this to make more money for themselves - to increase their market share. To keep their money coming in.
The problem here is that, by reducing the VALUE of a product to financial, we don't take into account the HUMAN aspect. If people work together to produce what they need, it is entirely possible to introduce new machinery (as Kropotkin describes) for the benefit of the whole group. By losing this, the ideas of mutual aid are sacrificed to the god of capitalism, and that is why I think the Luddites had it right - they saw the route we were going, that has lead to global outsourcing, and the tragedies like the Dharma collapse. Losing the mutuality is a bad thing - the more advanced societies are, oddly enough, the ones where they do not have the Wests sociopathic capitalism drive and insistence of paternalistic heirachies.
More recent evidence has come from the pandemic times in the UK. The biggest success has been the vaccine rollout - largely done by volunteers, which is the mutual aid principle. Driven by the NHS (which is an example of a mutual aid organisation on a large scale). The biggest disaster has been teh Test and Trace, which was just throwing money and failed to achieve anything.
