Live Earth

[Mr. Tea]

But the system we have is probably the worst conceivable in terms that almost nothing can be changed through it.

I'd take issue with this: firstly, the system we have is 'the worst conceivable' except for all the others that have ever been tried. Let's face it, life in the UK, or any other democracy, is still better than in a fascist or communist dictatorship - or, indeed, a theocracy. Isn't it? And isn't it also arguable that people only get really involved in politics when they're really unhappy about something - as demonstrated (literally) by the massive opposition to the Iraq war? Apart from that, it could be said that one reason people tend to disengage with politics is that most of them are more or less satisfied with how the country is being run.

Secondly, I don't think it's fair to say that 'almost nothing can be changed'. As much as many lefties may not want to admit it, Blair's government has done a lot for this country over the past ten years: there's the minimum wage, a massive reduction in child poverty, low unemployment, huge amounts of cash pumped into the NHS, the repealing of Section 28...these things would probably not have happened with the Tories in power, right?

 

[gek-opel]

I'm thinking in terms of democracy here, the aims of democracy as a system of government. In this context a system which fails to enable the public the ability to change fails as a democracy. I believe that our current system is worse (in terms of a democracy) than it was in the 70s or 80s. What we have is a form of dictatorship, of a sort, of course not under any individual, but whatever manager there is only meddles around the edges, and also a theocracy, the faith being the market economy. Of course minor details can be changed, but ultimately, in world historical terms (and in comparison to past decades) key areas remain entirely off limits. This partly explains Blair's great need for the grand stage of war, it being one of the few areas which remain accessible. This form of market-dictatorship or market-theocracy explains why in certain senses, you are absolutely correct and our lives are ones of comfort and freedom. But only very particular, limited comforts, and very particular and limited freedoms.

The argument that things could always be worse is utterly pathetic, as it can always (no matter the dire circumstances) be made. And it displays such an inherently delimited, emaciated role for politics. As Badiou says (and not to get to HMLT on yr ass):

...Politics is first the invention and the exercise of an absolutely new and concrete reality. Politics is the creation of thought... I want to fight for; I want to know what I have for the Good and to put it to work. I refuse to be content with the "least evil." It is very fashionable right now to be modest, not to think big. Grandeur is considered a metaphysical evil. Me, I am for grandeur, I am for heroism. I am for the affirmation of the thought and the deed...

(spoken like a true post-Maoist, obv)

 

[vimothy]

Wow

That's why I'm so skeptical about political philosophy - it seems to easily shade into fascism.

Two things about a democracy:

1. Mob mentality decisions are never good, hence professionals with careers at stake should handle the mechanics and decision making.

2. Oligarchies and bureaucratic elites aren't terrific decision makers either, hence the professionals should be limited as to how much leverage they can actually bring to the mechanics of production and society. We don't want people who might have a good understanding of the broad picture but little else leaping into very specific sectors of society and trying to take control.

That's how I read your statement, gek-opel: You would be happier with (leading?) a dictatorship, because it would ensure the primacy of the political rather than its marginalisation. And our system of government is unlike a dictatorship for the very reasons you state that it is: the lack of power of politics. I think Badiou understands that (Me, I am for grandeur, I am for heroism), which is why he's an enemy (although, I can relate to his anti-postmodernism, to a degree).

 

[Mr. Tea]

Alright, so "cheer up, things could be worse" is a bit lame; we should be thinking "how can we make things better?" instead. I'm not against 'grandeur' per se: I suppose people are (understandably) scared of 'utopian' politics after the horror such movements caused in the last century, hence 'realpolitik', pragmatism, the Third Way, whatever you want to call it.

 

[vimothy]

We definitely don't need ideologues of the kind Badiou admires jumping in to affect "change". (To say the least)! No more bloody revolutions, please.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Who does Badiou admire? I know nothing about the guy.

 

[vimothy]

Lenin

 

[dHarry]

Mao

 

[Mr. Tea]

I suppose Stalin just got a bad rap, and Pol Pot was 'misunderstood'?
Hitler wasn't such a bad egg really?

 

[vimothy]

Nah - I think Badiou and his ilk draw a line between Stalin and Lenin, and another line between fascism/Nazism and communism.

 

[Gavin]

What are these non-sequiturs for, Tea, besides shutting down meaningful discussion? As I understand it, Gek is simply yearning for a society where meaningful political engagement is possible -- something that actually existed not too long ago, but now seems inconceivable to certain people, to the extent that they can only conjure totalitarian spectres of the past as an alternative to present set-up. That's symptomatic of just the kind of problem Gek sees Badiou addressing.

 

[dHarry]

Good point, Gavin - Mr. Tea never misses a chance to ridicule "post-modernists"! But it's Lenin's and Mao's thought that Badiou is interested in, not their responsibility for or complicity in terror and genocide, and even then of course he has a specific interpretation of their writings.

 

[IdleRich]

"As I understand it, Gek is simply yearning for a society where meaningful political engagement is possible -- something that actually existed not too long ago, but now seems inconceivable to certain people, to the extent that they can only conjure totalitarian spectres of the past as an alternative to present set-up."

Not quite, I think that no-one at all would have a problem with what you just described, it's the repeated desire for a complete collapse (in some form or other) that Gek appears to regard as necessary (regardless of any short-term harm to countless people) to which I think several people are taking exception. Also his continual flirting with (certainly refusal to disavow) proposing non-democratic alternative systems is causing problems for others and I think that's where the "totalitarian spectres of the past" come in.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Umm, if we're talking about 'totalitarian spectres of the past', I wasn't the one to start this off by mentioning Lenin and Mao, in case you hadn't noticed. :slanted:

And if the options are 'meaningful political engagement' by means of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, and a Blairite centrist politics-by-management pseudo-democracy - well, I don't see that there's any choice there at all.
Naturally, I would like to think there is some alternative to both the former style of politics (so-strong-it-blows-yer-boots-off Proper Politics, just like Ma used to make) and the latter (fat free, low salt, no-added-sugar I Can't Believe It's Not Politics).

Edit: well hang on, dH, I've specifically held back from saying anything about Badiou beyond the fact that I know nothing about him. But if he 'admires' Lenin and Mao - and both of them were very much doers as well as thinkers, so I think it's disingenuous to try and separate what they thought from what they actually did - then that's worthy of comment, is it not? Post-modernism has nothing to do with it; the debate at hand is about the relative merits of democratic and non-democratic political systems.

 

[Gavin]

Not quite, I think that no-one at all would have a problem with what you just described, it's the repeated desire for a complete collapse (in some form or other) that Gek appears to regard as necessary (regardless of any short-term harm to countless people) to which I think several people are taking exception. Also his continual flirting with (certainly refusal to disavow) proposing non-democratic alternative systems is causing problems for others and I think that's where the "totalitarian spectres of the past" come in.

This is another symptom though, that any alternative to neoliberal capitalist-totalitarianism is imagined as complete collapse, a horizon beyond which nothing but horror is imaginable. Once again, an extraordinarily recent contingent set-up has rapidly become the only system possible.

I think it's interesting to examine how 'democracy' as is typically understood has perversely led to this situation -- the system where everyone has a voice has become the system no one can possibly change (and to even suggest thinking outside of it provokes a lot of hostility). No one (as far as I can tell) is interested in setting up a Stalinist dictatorship or even a Maoist one. I think what might bother people is suggesting that a system that provides less comfort than the current one (which provides so much that we practically suffocate, or at least eat ourselves to death) might provide more meaning in differerent forms than we've been taught to accept, and this might be a tangent worthy of more discussion.

And Tea (although this probably isn't worth addressing), other people brought up Lenin and Mao, but antecedents to Badiou's thought, not as boogeymen who threaten to materialize once we stop believing in the holiness of our current system. You threw Stalin and Pol Pot into the mix in what in this context seems rather inappropriate.

Apologies if I've misrepresented anyone's words (Tea included).

 

[Tactics]

I'm not trying to be bad but

considering I've seen threads closed and moved for much less like...why is this still in music?

carry on...

 

[Gavin]

considering I've seen threads closed and moved for much less like...why is this still in music?

carry on...

We're going to steer this behemoth back to overblown celebrity spectacle concerts within 5 pages, just you wait.

 

[Tactics]

*sighs in relief*

We're going to steer this behemoth back to overblown celebrity spectacle concerts within 5 pages, just you wait.

*pats head with damp flannel*

 

[IdleRich]

"This is another symptom though, that any alternative to neoliberal capitalist-totalitarianism is imagined as complete collapse, a horizon beyond which nothing but horror is imaginable. Once again, an extraordinarily recent contingent set-up has rapidly become the only system possible. "

No, not at all, I think that you need to read back through what has been said earlier in the thread. I'm not referring to "any alternative" as distastrous, I'm specifically saying that people have a problem when Gek says things such as (in the context of environmental collapse):

"The point where people say "we could NEVER give up cheap air flights", even when the phenomenon only emerged in the last 10 years or so, you know that we are totally and utterly fucked.
I will welcome the crisis. We need it. Although my hopes for what might emerge are probably laughably naive, and a return to feudal capitalism is likely."

Which is just one example of many and shows you are quite wrong when you wade in half way through with "As I understand it, Gek is simply yearning for a society where meaningful political engagement is possible".

 

[Mr. Tea]

This is another symptom though, that any alternative to neoliberal capitalist-totalitarianism is imagined as complete collapse, a horizon beyond which nothing but horror is imaginable. Once again, an extraordinarily recent contingent set-up has rapidly become the only system possible.

OK, so I'll admit that the system we have at the moment doesn't fulfill the original democratic dream of allowing the public to determine the politics of the nation; I'll admit there really isn't a huge difference between either of the main parties, rendering a vote (at the national level) for another party a 'protest' vote; but seriously, 'capitalist-totalitarianism'? What does that even mean? We do not live in a totallitarian society, and if enough people rejected the liberal-secular-capitalist status quo, then the Communist Party, or the Islamic Party (or whatever) would sweep the boards at the next general election. Obviously, it isn't going to.

I think what might bother people is suggesting that a system that provides less comfort than the current one (which provides so much that we practically suffocate, or at least eat ourselves to death) might provide more meaning in differerent forms than we've been taught to accept

How can one political system or another provide anyone with 'meaning' in their lives? Life has no inherent meaning (does this make me a nihilist? existentialist? post-modernist? I'd happily settle for 'H.P.Lovecraft fan', minus the unfortunate racism...), it has whatever meaning you choose to give it. And bollocks to it, I fucking love comfort (although I've somehow managed to avoid eating myself to death). Your argument starts to sound alarmingly like those who advocate the old British public school tradition of a five-mile cross-country run at the crack of dawn, followed by ice-cold communal showers, on the basis that it 'instills moral fibre'...

Edit: although, while we're talking about 'comfort', I'm all in favour of a reudction in the nanny-state meddling that is increasingly treating adults like children, and trying to end the benefits-dependency culture that has become ingrained in some families over three generations now.