Anarchism that defend a social revolution such as Switzerland,

Anarchism – Collective – Society – Violence
ANAR??ZM TANIM
COLLECT?VE TANIM
Collectivist anarchism (also known as anarcho-collectivism) is a revolutionary1 anarchist doctrine that advocates the abolition of both the state and private ownership of the means of production as it instead envisions the means of production being owned collectively and controlled and managed by the producers themselves.
Collectivist anarchism is enhanced by Bakunin beginning from the formation of the anarchist organizations, International Alliance of Socialist Democracy and The Program of the International Brotherhood after 1864 (The Encyclope- dia of Philosophy 1967:113). Collectivist anarchism became a significant movement in The International Workingmen’s Association against Marxism until 1872, Hague Congress. Collectivist anarchism expanded to countries that defend a social revolution such as Switzerland, Spain, France, Italy and Russia. It simply claimed a communal system which stands for the idea “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.
According to Bakunin, state is a military one by its nature and goals. A military state is of course an aggressive one. It has to practice the best defence is offence strategy. It has to attack not to be attacked. If there is power, it has to be on display or in activity. Modern state has to be powerful and great in an absolute manner; this is a must for it to defend itself (2000:63). Bakunin argues that state has to be destroyed and violence is a way to achieve this goal. He claims that reconstruction of the society will be be bottom-up, with free unions and labor federations (Marshall 1999:23) Collectivist anarchism differs from Marxism with this aspect. Bakunin describes state as inimical to humanity as follows:
“Absolute rejection of the politics of aggrandizement, of the power and the glory of the State For this is a form of politics which locks each country into a self-made fortress, shutting out the rest of humanity, organizing itself into a closed world, independent of all human solidarity, finding its glory and prosperity in the evil it can do to other countries. A country bent on conquest is necessarily a country internally enslaved (f. ANARCHISM OF MICHAEL BAKUNIN, sam dolgoff).”
Bakunin’s collectivist anarchism differs from other anarchism types with its argument of revolutionary violence during the destruction of the state and reconstruction of the society (Cevizci 1999:53). 

Art – Aesthetic – Masses – Culture
Frankfurt School approaches art in a communal relevance and importance, rather than a political intention. It claims that art is a coding language of the processes that occur in the society and it has to be decoded in the light of critical analysis (1). It can be concluded that art is a reflection of society’s tendencies. Although it is not a reflection of the current tendencies, it is a longing to an ideal society, it is an area that this long-awaited society can come into existence.
Also, Frankfurt School claims that art is not only an outpouring of the artists individual creativity but it is more than that. In a way, artist is a communal subject, as much as he is an individual one. Thus, a piece of art is also an expression of society’s tendencies in an objective manner, and freely from its creator.
All in all, according to Frankfurt School, aesthetic space has to have a political qualification. Although, mentioned qualification of art is less valid compared to the past. Today’s culture, and respectively art is more in an affirmative form and the feature that holds hope of a long-awaited, better living and society has weaken. Today’s type of culture and art creates a joy, but it is only an illusion. This false joy satisfies the individual, but actually it serves for the sovereign. In this way, individual of the mass society is governed by an incomprehensible obligation (Swingewood, 1996, s. 32).
Adorno and Horkheimer blame culture industry for assisting modern capitalist society’s totalitarian aspects. Mass media’s overbearing existence knocks down the criticisms which are made to the capitalism and individual finds happiness by obeying the existing social and political order, and by being a part of it. To Adorno and Horkheimer, the reason of culture industry’s presence is to fulfil this duty. An individual, which is under the sway of culture industry, approves the existing order as if it is constant and subsistent.
Associates of Frankfurt School frequently claimed their discomfort of mass culture, also in respect of art. ‘Light art’ is appreciated rather than ‘serious art’. Culture industry is not a real culture, but a non-unique, stereotyped fake culture. Now, it is out of the question to mention high-culture or sub-culture. To Adorno, individual tries to buy tranquility by adopting the imposed goods to himself, which is now called personal taste and sense of aesthetics.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Culture – Consumer – Capitalism
Tüketim Kültürü Kavram?, Ortaya Ç?k?s?? ve Kapsam?
The term consumption has gained new meanings throughout time, with both negative and positive ones being attributed from different views. Simply, consumption is to finish up something by using it. Human being has many requirements including physiological, biological, social and cultural and mobilization of material and nonmaterial things that are spent to satisfy these needs are also identified to be consumption.
In the 1980’s, with the industrial capitalism and globalisation’s rising effect, the meaning of consumption got out of above-mentioned definition and it has become a term that is highly associated with culture. In this regard, Kotler ve Armstrong (2008:131) claimed that culture is a set of basic values, perception, desires and behaviour which are learned from family, society and other significant institutions, and they also claimed that marketing people always try to dominate and manipulate culture by finding out new products to be wished for. Dougles and Isherwood (1999:73) describe the relationship between culture and consumption as follows: The choices of consumption becomes the vital source of its day’s culture and people who has grew in a certain culture witness that this culture changes throughout their life. New words, new ideas and new manners become parts of people’s cultural values. Culture evolves throughout time and people play a part in this change. Consumption becomes the area which the struggle for culture is made and the place where culture is formed.
Bocock (2009:13) sees consumption as a social process which includes economic factors in both developed capitalist societies and societies that mainly labor agriculture, and he claims that consumption has become a phenomenon relies more and more on desires. 
Some studies which support this idea states that consumption culture origins back to 16th and 17th century’s Britain. According to McCracken (1988), consumption developed in Britain’s court and spread through Europe. Political factors are effective in the spread of consumption. Courtiers of that period did not make an effort to be distinguished in rural, but in the meetings which the queen organized in the court, they wanted to be recognised among others and catch the queen’s attention with their outfits, jewelry and their own feasts. With the 18th century and with the effect of mass production, other individuals began to have access to many stuff from the market. The point to consider is that they did not only get their needs, but they also demanded for luxury products which appeal to their taste.
In this context, it is possible to indicate that the relationship between the terms consumption and consumer, and culture goes back a long way. This relationship has gained strength with the boost of mass production by the effect of industrial capitalism and the increase in consumption.

1. Jay, M. (1996). The dialectical imagination: A history of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950 (Vol. 10). Univ of California Press.