Reynolds on planet-mu

[IdleRich]

"But to actually make it happen is the very opposite of a comfort blanket. The real question therefore is whether you think option 3 is actualy possible or productive."

But I don't think that you can make it happen (that's not to say that it won't happen of its own accord). For three, I think if it's possible then it would definitely be productive (I think that's included in possible). Whether it's possible is a more difficult question but I think that it's more likely to prove possible than the utter destruction of capitalism.

 

[nomadologist]

Yes and no. Can you (we) really be so sure that individuals weren't just as selfish and willing to abandon principle then? I'm willing to be persuaded, it's just that I haven't seen any reason to think that. In fact, the generally lower value placed on human life and the like in those days almost leads me to think the opposite.

It's not that individuals weren't selfish then, it's that the political machine operating at the time only allowed for a privileged few to gain personally from abandoning all principle. Now everyone and anyone stands to gain in the short term by selling out anything they might value. That's why people used to valorize the life of the soldier so much--there was no greater good in those days than to give up your life for your "nation" or your people, etc. The less money or social standing you had in those days, the more likely you were to seek it out in the military. Things have certainly changed on that front. (now people enlist because they have no other options and need to pay the bills, not for any grand nationalistic reasons...)

Also, I don't like pronouncements about the value placed on human life in other cultures--even in cultures where human sacrifice is routine, people value human life. Maybe they even value it more, since they believe it's the highest form of sacrifice to their gods. Either way, even if people didn't "value" human life as much back then, it would be hard to prove to any satisfying degree.

 

[IdleRich]

"It's not that individuals weren't selfish then, it's that the political machine operating at the time only allowed for a privileged few to gain personally from abandoning all principle. Now everyone and anyone stands to gain in the short term by selling out anything they might value."

I'm not sure about that. People could always gain by fucking people over.

"The less money or social standing you had in those days, the more likely you were to seek it out in the military. Things have certainly changed on that front. (now people enlist because they have no other options and need to pay the bills, not for any grand nationalistic reasons...)"

Well, the reasons may have changed but the people with less social standing and or money enlisting in the army looks exactly the same to me.

"Also, I don't like pronouncements about the value placed on human life in other cultures--even in cultures where human sacrifice is routine, people value human life. Maybe they even value it more, since they believe it's the highest form of sacrifice to their gods. Either way, even if people didn't "value" human life as much back then, it would be hard to prove to any satisfying degree."

OK, true enough, perhaps value was the wrong word.

 

[nomadologist]

I'm not sure about that. People could always gain by fucking people over.


Well, the reasons may have changed but the people with less social standing and or money enlisting in the army looks exactly the same to me.


OK, true enough, perhaps value was the wrong word.

They could always gain by fucking people over, but they couldn't gain as much as fast. It's sort of like the way there's always been war, but until WWII we could never obliterate huge masses of people with such efficiency.

I guess I should've added with the military idea that people from the U.S. coming back from wars now don't feel like heroes. They mostly commit suicide. People used to find their "purpose" in life through military service, now it just pays the bills.

 

[IdleRich]

"They could always gain by fucking people over, but they couldn't gain as much as fast. It's sort of like the way there's always been war, but until WWII we could never obliterate huge masses of people with such efficiency."

Again that's degree not kind though right (maybe not in the war example)?

"I guess I should've added with the military idea that people from the U.S. coming back from wars now don't feel like heroes. They mostly commit suicide."

Yeah maybe so but they didn't plan on that when they signed up did they? I've never seen a US army recruitment video or anything but I bet patriotism features quite strongly (along with gung ho adventures and camaraderie if it's anything like in the UK).

 

[nomadologist]

Again that's degree not kind though right (maybe not in the war example)?


Yeah maybe so but they didn't plan on that when they signed up did they? I've never seen a US army recruitment video or anything but I bet patriotism features quite strongly (along with gung ho adventures and camaraderie if it's anything like in the UK).

It's a matter of degree I guess, but once you get that exponentially far from something I think you end up light years away from your original, in the same way the atomic bomb accelerated warfare exponentially in terms of military technology.

There's some patriotic rhetoric, but the proof is in the return home, when most soldiers can barely function psychologically let alone physically. I imagine (though I don't know for sure) that people had more of a "hero's welcome" in Ancient Rome...

 

[IdleRich]

"It's a matter of degree I guess, but once you get that exponentially far from something I think you end up light years away from your original, in the same way the atomic bomb accelerated warfare exponentially in terms of military technology."

Sure, a large amount of difference can cross the line into a new difference, but how do we know that has happened here? If we can't tell how people valued life in Ancient Rome how can we tell how incentivised they felt to throw away their principles for personal gain (relative to how incentivised people feel today)?

"There's some patriotic rhetoric, but the proof is in the return home, when most soldiers can barely function psychologically let alone physically. I imagine (though I don't know for sure) that people had more of a "hero's welcome" in Ancient Rome..."

What I'm saying is, a poor US guy who has or feels he has no prospects may see a US army recruitment video and join with hopes of increased standing in society as well as increased financial status just as a poor Roman may have done. OK, he may find the result is somewhat different but so might have the Roman if he starved to death on the campaign or is captured by Goths or whatever. I think that his dreams of coming back rich and one day owning slaves of his own were probably not much that more realistic than the US grunt's dream of becoming a general.

 

[nomadologist]

Sure, a large amount of difference can cross the line into a new difference, but how do we know that has happened here? If we can't tell how people valued life in Ancient Rome how can we tell how incentivised they felt to throw away their principles for personal gain (relative to how incentivised people feel today)?


What I'm saying is, a poor US guy who has or feels he has no prospects may see a US army recruitment video and join with hopes of increased standing in society as well as increased financial status just as a poor Roman may have done. OK, he may find the result is somewhat different but so might have the Roman if he starved to death on the campaign or is captured by Goths or whatever. I think that his dreams of coming back rich and one day owning slaves of his own were probably not much that more realistic than the US grunt's dream of becoming a general.

Well, you're right in that it's impossible to know for sure--that's why I'd only talk about these things in terms of theory. I do think one thing we can know for sure is that the amount of capital that floats around and the power structures that are built up around it have become larger.

I guess the military example might have been off a little, so this might be a better way to explain the difference--many people think that the "post-modern" era (which is roughly considered to have started after WWII) is distinguished by a collapse of the relationship between between the signifier and the signified, or a collapse of "meaning" in the broadest sense. Some people would say the difference between Ancient Rome and the U.S. (though yeah there are tons of obvious parallels) is a cultural one where those old principles that used to sustain people personally and politically don't exist any more. That's an oversimplification, but you know what I mean?

 

[nomadologist]

Or 'what's the point studying the force of gravity if people who fall of tall buildings are still going to die'? Or am I misunderstanding you?

But Tea's question isn't about studying the failings of capitalism - that could equally lead you to market-socialism or whatever and to various patches to the current system - it's about the idea that the only productive activity is activity leading us to (somehow) chuck out capitalism completely and replace it with something completely different, which we don't actually know what it is yet but we can be pretty sure that it isn't going to degenerate into neo-Stalinism, neo-Fascism, religious fundamentalism or Mad-Max stylee post apocalyptic gang warfare.

Yeah, that's a much better analogy. I couldn't think of one last night off the top of my head, kept thinking about abstraction and going back to art. All questions are worth asking in the abstract, right?

Mr. Tea's question makes sense to me, it's not an invalid question. The more I read about the global economy though the more I think capitalism is a shakier and shakier edifice. When people wonder what might replace it, I think they often try to envision a world without democracy (which they conflate with capitalism) and worry that the "solution" might be worse than the problem. I personally would be happy with democratic socialism in the future, if more radical alternatives are to be feared.

 

[IdleRich]

"Well, you're right in that it's impossible to know for sure--that's why I'd only talk about these things in terms of theory. I do think one thing we can know for sure is that the amount of capital that floats around and the power structures that are built up around it have become larger.

I guess the military example might have been off a little, so this might be a better way to explain the difference--many people think that the "post-modern" era (which is roughly considered to have started after WWII) is distinguished by a collapse of the relationship between between the signifier and the signified, or a collapse of "meaning" in the broadest sense. Some people would say the difference between Ancient Rome and the U.S. (though yeah there are tons of obvious parallels) is a cultural one where those old principles that used to sustain people personally and politically don't exist any more. That's an oversimplification, but you know what I mean?"

I guess what I'm asking is broadly, can you be more specific here, and how do you know that this is true?

 

[Gavin]

A friend put it this way: "There have always been greedy people. Capitalism turns greed into an ethical imperative." Now it's the predominant ethical imperative -- old hats ("metanarratives" according to Lyotard) like God and country, even the Enlightenment, developed piecemeal over time as ways to stablize and perpetuate social structures, no longer work. As Marx says, "All that was solid melts into air." Of course, as noel pointed out, history has a tendency to emphasize the importance of these metanarratives to a monolithic "culture" without examining particular practices of beliefs -- perhaps there was widespread PTSD in an ancient form among Roman soldiers, plenty of cynical atheism, etc.

Fully agreed that the current situation demonstrates that capitalism is inherently unstable -- in fact, so much that I find the posts in which Gek flirts with the idea of "helping" capitalism on its way to destruction to be rather funny -- as if one more schizo I-banker would plunge the whole thing over the precipice. I'd rather have the smart people figuring out what to do next -- and maybe preventing further wholescale barbarism & insanity in the process. Maybe the creation of new metanarratives (not wholly convinced these are without merit or even possible to extract from humanity -- people tend to like stories), or some sort of Deleuzian rhizomatic/nonlinear way out -- or more specifically, way-into (know considerably less about this angle).

 

[Gavin]

More on how to deal with crises in capitalism: http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/01/left-in-crisis.html

Now to read how a thread on planet mu ended up here!

 

[Mr. Tea]

Mr Tea's analysis, as he would probably admit, is marked by fear above all else.

Yes, I think this is fair. I also thinks it's reasonable to be afraid of things like fascism, Stalinism/Maoism, the Taleban and the Spanish Inquisition. That's not to say I'm terrified that Hitler or Torquemada is lying in wait for me around the next corner: I mean 'afraid of' in the sense of 'phobic of', i.e. they are things to be strenuously avoided.

It is this fear which curtails any possible future risk inherent in resolving systemic problems. To my viewpoint it doesn't actually matter if it "gets worse" in many of the terms Mr Tea understands, as the very worst outcome of all is a society where political change is locked off entirely.

What do you mean "locked off entirely"? There is always the possibility of change - even the mightiest empires crumble eventually.

 

[gek-opel]

i think that when a situation of animalistic nihilism really arrives, you'll find yourself wishing for the return of good old capitalism very quickly.

We're already there! What else would you describe the kind of humanism which is the abiding doctrine of liberal-consumer-capitalist societies? The human reduced to an animal, suitable only for making comfortable.

 

[Mr. Tea]

We're already there! What else would you describe the kind of humanism which is the abiding doctrine of liberal-consumer-capitalist societies? The human reduced to an animal, suitable only for making comfortable.

Well you might feel like that: I don't. But then, this is one of those unwinnable arguments, isn't it? "You only say that because the System is so clever it can make you *think* it isn't at work in your mind, too..." and so on.
Is that your position? I've heard zhao say as much on these pages before.

 

[IdleRich]

"Fully agreed that the current situation demonstrates that capitalism is inherently unstable"

Depends exactly what you mean by capitalism though doesn't it?
I think that some people would suggest that even if the world was to suffer a catastrophic collapse that wiped it out except for a handful of people, that handful of people and their descendants would, if they wanted to survive, have to develop along the same lines as they did the last time around with division of labour, land rights, competition etc ultimately capitalism.
Some credence appears to be given to this by the fact that no-one can suggest any alternative way of organising that would allow people to thrive. If I understand Gek correctly however, he is saying that there are (or at least may be) alternatives but they can only be successfully envisaged when the present edifice has been utterly obliterated. Anything less than full obliteration will just lead to capitalism once again.
Or I could be just putting words in his fingers.

"The human reduced to an animal"

Why reduced?

 

[gek-opel]

No, not exactly. Its that the nature of Capitalist realism is such that it excludes from its seamless world the possibility of anything radically different (in terms of a possibility) which isn't intrinsically disastrous. So within the terms of the present situation, there is nothing but disaster outside of the present moment. The form of understanding of the human formed therein (in the conquering humanism of "human rights" and "democracy") is one of man as a given, closed off, finished, reduced to his species and nothing more. The combination of all this leads to a from of being which can only exist in the present-there is no conceivable future for Capitalism which looks any different to our own, only merely with better gadgetry. The alternatives made possible are naturally merely total disaster. As Badiou argues this form of project-less humanism reduces the question, the issue of what we are to take the human to be, to one in which man only exists as worthy of pity, a pitiable animal...

 

[IdleRich]

"No, not exactly. Its that the nature of Capitalist realism is such that it excludes from its seamless world the possibility of anything radically different (in terms of a possibility) which isn't intrinsically disastrous. So within the terms of the present situation, there is nothing but disaster outside of the present moment."

OK, but similar.
So, would you agree or disagree with Gavin in saying that capitalism is unstable? I take you to be saying that unless it tips right over it will always wobble back if you see what I mean. And I'd be inclined to agree, if that is indeed your belief.

 

[gek-opel]

It appears absolutely unbreakable. However, the intricacies of the system of interdependence and precisely calibrated interactions means that if a few key parameters shift one way or that, it could collapse. Or at least, be forced to shape-shift fundamentally, most likely into a less comfortable form of the same thing.

My perspective is that just a few chinks in its armour for a few years would be enough to demonstrate the possibility of an outside (to Capital) being created... its the way that a byproduct of this system of capitalism + consumerism + "democracy" and "human rights" which characterise the western form of social organisation block off the possibility of anything but that system occurring. Hence the idea that if the ONLY alternative is disaster (at least, the only alternative thinkable) then we must embrace disaster itself.

 

[gek-opel]

you obviously never lived through disaster. Go ask the people in eastern congo whether they embrace their disastrous situation at the moment, for that is the real animalistic anarchy you were talking about earlier on. For all the big words you are using and the famous thinkers you are citing, i think you are being foolish, childish and irresponsible in your thinking. You treat society like some abstract construct, were you can turn back changes easily. When the current order really would be gone, you wont be able to say: "hey, that didnt work out like i thought it would, lets put things back to the way the were befor.", i mean the aquarium - fishsoup idea.

Im not talking about "animalistic anarchy". I'm talking about a form of "commonsensical" humanism that shuts down the thought of the possible, of things ever being different (and strangely, that things were ever not thus). In maintaining the present as the only time which has ever existed its a form of amnesia too- with ONLY disaster lying outside. In preferencing cataclysmic change over the nightmare of the end of (at least political) history, I do so firstly to make a rhetorical point, secondly to argue that some minor disasters that pointed out the chinks in the armour of the current status quo would be the best possible thing to happen.