If not capitalism then what exactly?

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

Equally Gek, Gavin and HMLT are ideological in the way that they take as read that capitalism is the source of all evils. It is weird though that after about a week and fifteen pages no-one at all has even made the slightest attempt to answer the original question. Got a feeling that no-one is going to either, they would rather talk about Zizek's review of 300 than rise to the challeng of making a point.

But your question is inherently ideological (and "Gek, Gavin, and HMLT" are attempting to expose capitalism AS A BLIND IDEOLOGY in all its contours, including its manifestation in the very question that started this thread). There have been three responses to the original question:

[1] Capitalism is commonsensically Great ("Capitalist realism"), and if anyone points out otherwise, its because they're deluded or they've been misled by Commie propaganda or because capitalism has been 'interfered' with by Evil Dictators or the Horrible State. Naive, utopian dogma completely divorced from all Theory.

[2] Capitalism is generally okay, but sometimes it gets a bit out of hand, its MNCs missing the plot a little and indulging in too much exploitin' and pollutin', so we need to ease up a little, be nicer to those whom we still openly but disavowedly oppress, and everything will be just fine. Capitalism just needs to be reformed a little. Big Other passivism.

[3] Capitalism is an inherently destructive and repressively contradictory ideology which unwittingly is destroying both humanity and the planet. Given that any alternative is potentially more preferable, how should we go about destroying, not humanity and the world, but its vampiric enemy, capitalism.

 

[IdleRich]

"Oh get off it, there's no answer to this question for reasons already discussed."

Discussed but certainly not accepted. The best "reason" you gave was that Zizek said there is no sci-fi that deals with an alternative and even you said that that was a crude example (perhaps moronic would have been a better description).

"What exactly have you proposed, by the way, when you weren't comparing dick size with Vim and mischaracterizing/oversimplifying the viewpoints of others? I haven't bothered to read your posts."

The end of that statement shows the inanity of the rest of it.

 

[noel emits]

[3] Capitalism is an inherently destructive and repressively contradictory ideology which unwittingly is destroying both humanity and the planet. Given that any alternative is potentially more preferable, how should we go about destroying, not humanity and the world, but its vampiric enemy, capitalism.

Don't see your logic here mate.

I'm assuming you favour this response from your list of three as it's the only one you're not dismissing as 'Naive, utopian dogma completely divorced from all Theory.', or 'Big Other passivism.'.

 

[noel emits]

As I see it capitalist ideology says: human beings are motivated by self-interest so the best thing we can do is to use that as our main organising principle.

Well that may not be a bad idea. The trouble is that what has happened is that greed (not mere self-interest) has been enshrined as a principle value. Clearly a mistake, but not one fundamental to capitalism.

 

[IdleRich]

"[3] Capitalism is an inherently destructive and repressively contradictory ideology which unwittingly is destroying both humanity and the planet. Given that any alternative is potentially more preferable, how should we go about destroying, not humanity and the world, but its vampiric enemy, capitalism."

Fair enough, that is a straight answer of sorts. Basically, absolutely anything whatsoever would be potentially better than the system we have now. Potentially is the important word there though, presumably you're also saying it is potentially no better? And as you are making no attempt to quantify the likelihood of it actually being better (guess that's impossible right?) you are saying that it is best to put all your efforts in to securing one chance at an all or nothing throw of the die when you don't even know how many sides that die has?

 

[Gavin]

Discussed but certainly not accepted. The best "reason" you gave was that Zizek said there is no sci-fi that deals with an alternative and even you said that that was a crude example (perhaps moronic would have been a better description).

Look, I can't solve all your problems for you. I'm not going to give you a justify my existence by providing you with a fully illustrated utopia because I don't know, and I'd rather discuss other things.

The topic question begs its own answer: of course there's nothing else after capitalism, and since you pathetic Zizek groupies have no answer, shut the fuck up about ending it. That's what you want to say, right? So we can all get back to debating whether it's feasible to chuck a few more dollars to sweatshop workers?

 

[Gavin]

Fair enough, that is a straight answer of sorts. Basically, absolutely anything whatsoever would be potentially better than the system we have now. Potentially is the important word there though, presumably you're also saying it is potentially no better? And as you are making no attempt to quantify the likelihood of it actually being better (guess that's impossible right?) you are saying that it is best to put all your efforts in to securing one chance at an all or nothing throw of the die when you don't even know how many sides that die has?

If you continually ask yourself whether it's a good decision to fall in love, do you think you ever will?

 

[noel emits]

The point is that maybe it's not a good idea to fall in love.

 

[Gavin]

The point is that maybe it's not a good idea to fall in love.

Maybe, but that would make for a pretty paltry existence don't you think (which IS the point)

 

[IdleRich]

"The topic question begs its own answer: of course there's nothing else after capitalism, and since you pathetic Zizek groupies have no answer, shut the fuck up about ending it. That's what you want to say, right? "

No, that's exactly what I don't want you to say. I want you to say something exciting, I want you to put as much thought in to suggesting something better as you put in to arguing that it's impossible to make those suggestions. To me that seems very defeatist and so does the viewpoint that HMLT just put across.

 

[noel emits]

Maybe, but that would make for a pretty paltry existence don't you think (which IS the point)

I think IdleRich, like myself, was contesting HMLTs logic in stating that because any alternative was 'potentially more preferable' we should go ahead and smash capitalism. That position conceals it's own ideology, religion even. Anything is 'potentially more preferrable' to something else, that's no basis on which to make a decision.

As for love, well that's obviously another thread but I wouldn't say things were so straightforward there either...

 

[Gavin]

No, that's exactly what I don't want you to say. I want you to say something exciting, I want you to put as much thought in to suggesting something better as you put in to arguing that it's impossible to make those suggestions. To me that seems very defeatist and so does the viewpoint that HMLT just put across.

You think that's more defeatist than asking for some fully fleshed out utopia before we can talk about how to end capitalism? I'd love to delight you with exciting visions of the future, but I'm no novelist or poet, or perhaps more to the point, I'm no advertising executive (advertising being the most utopic of expression today).

I've never tasted true freedom so I can't tell you if it's too spicy.

 

[Gavin]

I think IdleRich, like myself, was contesting HMLTs logic in stating that because any alternative was 'potentially more preferable' we should go ahead and smash capitalism. That position conceals it's own ideology, religion even. Anything is 'potentially more preferrable' to something else, that's no basis on which to make a decision.

As for love, well that's obviously another thread but I wouldn't say things were so straightforward there either...

Maybe more to the point: do you think revolutionaries plan out the coming society after the revolution before they make a go of it, or do you think overthrowing the oppressive regime weighs most heavily on their mind?

 

[IdleRich]

"If you continually ask yourself whether it's a good decision to fall in love, do you think you ever will?"

Weak, you're begging the question by assuming that "destroying capitalism at all costs no matter what replaces it" is analagous to "falling in love" (something which I assume you think is good).
How about if I say "if I continually ask myself whether it's a good idea to drink bleach then will I ever do it?"?
But, you're right in so much as, if I continually ask myself whether it's a good idea to destroy capitalism then I probably won't do it. In general, if you consider the pros and cons of a situation before doing it you are less likely to do it than someone who (like you presumably) automatically does anything they are offered the chance to do.

 

[Slothrop]

You think that's more defeatist than asking for some fully fleshed out utopia before we can talk about how to end capitalism?

If someone gave me a bag and told me to jump out of a plane, I wouldn't consider it defeatist to try to find out whether the bag contains a parachute or a load of dirty washing before jumping rather than after...

 

[noel emits]

Maybe more to the point: do you think revolutionaries plan out the coming society after the revolution before they make a go of it, or do you think overthrowing the oppressive regime weighs most heavily on their mind?

Some 'revolutionaries' might, some might not, I dunno. First you've got ask yourself, what is a revolutionary? What is a revolution? Do we need them? Have they ever worked? What are the other options?

And what exactly constitutes this oppressive regime? How does it work?

 

[Slothrop]

Some 'revolutionaries' might, some might not, I dunno. First you've got ask yourself, what is a revolutionary? What is a revolution? Do we need them? Have they ever worked? What are the other options?

And what exactly constitutes this oppressive regime? How does it work?

Moreover, even if revolutionaries haven't got the precise details planned out, they'll be looking out into the rest of the world and saying 'we want something that isn't this regime and is more like what they've got over there.' Not 'we want to get rid of this regime and replace it with something. We have absolutely no idea what we'll replace it with, we'll think about that later.'

 

[Gavin]

If someone gave me a bag and told me to jump out of a plane, I wouldn't consider it defeatist to try to find out whether the bag contains a parachute or a load of dirty washing before jumping rather than after...

These analogies don't really work because they assume capitalism is the zero point, neutral and benign, an example of the ideological blinders that limit what is possible that Idle Rich kept wanting me to explain.

I'm not sure if I'm proposing something like a Kierkegaardian leap of faith (having not read much Kierkegaard), but maybe that's what my analogy was implying. You'll never be able to prove that a revolution will be perfect, or even better, just as you can't be sure your heart won't be broken if you fall in love, or that God doesn't exist should you choose to believe in Him (as Kierkegaard did). I don't think that's a reason to not try for a society that has something closer to truth or freedom or justice than today's utter perversion that you lot seem quite comfortable with.

 

[noel emits]

These analogies don't really work because they assume capitalism is the zero point, neutral and benign, an example of the ideological blinders that limit what is possible that Idle Rich kept wanting me to explain.

That's not true. What is being assumed is that capitalism is the current condition.

I'm not sure if I'm proposing something like a Kierkegaardian leap of faith (having not read much Kierkegaard), but maybe that's what my analogy was implying. You'll never be able to prove that a revolution will be perfect, or even better, just as you can't be sure your heart won't be broken if you fall in love, or that God doesn't exist should you choose to believe in Him (as Kierkegaard did). I don't think that's a reason to not try for a society that has something closer to truth or freedom or justice than today's utter perversion that you lot seem quite comfortable with.

Can you explain what truth, freedom and justice mean to you?

As I see it what is needed, first at least, is economic reform, unless you think we can somehow do away with systems of exchange all together, and all at the same time.

The perversion comes when stored money gains in value, which is absolutely ludicrous. If stored money lost value over time then excessive profit making would not have nearly the negative impact it does now. The money would be recirculated. It is also important that the currencies be based on and represent actual resources.

I think under those conditions capitalist ideology ('monetary profit is all') will fade away with an awareness that real self-interest is a more interdependent condition than simply making a buck. This doesn't mean you can't have markets and it doesn't mean you have to tear down everything we have.

 

[vimothy]

Yes- these are each as detestable and a blockage as Capital itself- and the interesting thing is that you could have it the other way, the inverse to your schema- use the power of Capitalism to remove such crutches, the family, charity, the reified god-child cult, the state etc etc, and Capitalism itself will be utterly unbearable. So the very method of attacking it is to attack the things it disavows, and yet perversely endlessly re-affirms in new forms (re-territorialization yes?) and which as you accurately argue it draws strength from.

Interesting - though I wonder if you might not simply turbo-charge capitalism in its most inhuman form, expecting (like Marx) that as we speed up the path of progress the conditions created will naturally favour the abandonment of capitalism, and yet be disappointed when no such thing happens. In fact, you might end up helping capitalism.