Live Earth

[crackerjack]

Clearly not the case...

Quite. Stupid as it was, there was an opinion poll majority in both countries in Mar 03. Bush and Labour have both since been re-elected - long after "it all went wrong" - not because it was impossible to get them out, but because people weighed it up and decided to vote for them again regardless/because of the war.

 

[IdleRich]

"Interesting, that's what Vimothy's doing right now!"

Though presumably I'm not?

"Our "democracies" (and, Mr. Tea, your beloved NHS) are possible and desirable only because so many are precisely willing to brush aside mass death for the "brave new world" (a term used by George Bush Sr.) of universal capitalism. One reason some welcome the collapse (and I'm actually more ambivalent about it than I come off here) is because that's the only way to stop the mass death and misery caused by the current neoliberal imperial order. Maybe you should ask yourself if it would be better to try and find an alternative, and how that could possibly happen. Unless you prefer to brush aside mass death."

What I'm saying (and I guess you're coming round to with your talk of ambivalence and alternatives) is, suppose one accepts that the neoliberal capital order is solely responsible for the mass deaths that occur in the world today, then to simply say "I hope that everything goes tits up and more people die and then something else which may be better comes along" is completely unconstructive and nihilistic - wouldn't it be better to find a (ahem) third way?
Of course, if one doesn't blame the neoliberal capital order then someone wishing for mass death is merely a genocidal lunatic.
Either way I don't see it as helpful.

 

[gek-opel]

Heroes tend to end up dead. In fact being dead is almost a prerequisite quality for hero-dom.

I have mates and a great girlfriend and nice parents and I like good food and beer and decent music and a few pills now and then and reading books and thinking about stuff and talking crap with you guys on the Interweb. I have all the meaning I need, and I certainly don't feel as if I'm missing out because of a lack of 'heroism' or 'grandeur' in my life.

Also, the alternative to being free to choose meaning would seem to be to have meaning forced upon you, and we all know where that leads, right?

Where's the "head in hands" emoticon when you need it...

No, I totally get where you are coming from Mr Tea, it is an understandable position, that many people (most, I assume) hold. I understand it, but I cannot agree with it tho, its basically a life as a well-fed, possibly even well-read animal. And its only from spending the vast majority (all...?) of my time in such a state myself that I know from the inside out what an animal state it is. Interesting point about "choosing meaning"-- I think that is precisely the sense Badiou holds his grandiose vision for- to be a subject to a truth, that rends the matter of the essentially deterministic situation apart. Indeed, the basic animal state is what occupies 99% of all human activity. Its not even wrong, in and of itself, it merely is.

 

[gek-opel]

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.

Well this is the thing- its not as some like Zizek argue that we should embrace terror in itself, (as an end in itself) but rather that sometimes it might be necessary. It appears that for many it is an a priori assumption that anything that requires suffering is innately to be rejected- that grandiose utopianism leads to terror all too easily, and hence ALL revolutionary projects are to be rejected. And yet there remains a fairly constant rate of terrible activities conducted by those who are engaged in what might be termed corroded-Utopian projects right now (indeed many neoconservatives have been branded Utopians who have been "mugged by reality")... or alternately conservative reactionary theocratic movements taking the form of revolution, the simulacra of revolution... (fill in the blanks here, I'm sure we know who I'm referring to...). Mass murder by act and omission continue apace- with or without genuinely revolutionary projects.

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).

Of course this is exactly what I believe- there are entirely different alternatives! but as this makes clear...

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.

...the shutting down of the possible is the terminal effect of our current "politics". The only thing we can imagine OUTSIDE capital/liberal democratic/management is the abyss, total annihilation, the point of no return, apocalypse. And hence it is literally impossible to think the un-thinkable, and hence the terminal decline in innovative thought OUTSIDE of the limited categories of finance and technology. And hence the only utopias are properly eschatological... So the problem presents itself- is this actually the case? What is needed to break this (predominantly mental) deadlock? How does it manifest itself? Do we NEED (indeed YEARN) for apocalypse? And what form would it take? Could Capital be used as a machine to further its own downfall? What would the cost be? If the cost is total destruction and (as I'm quoted as saying upthread) a return to mere primitive capitalism, a feudal society or whatever , then it is foolish and not worth pursuing (as I say- it makes my hopes, hopes for some genuinely new thing emerging, totally naive). But if some form of collapse, be it financial or environmental, gives rise to the conditions whereby thought can begin again, then perhaps it is indeed worth it...?

 

[gek-opel]

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

Also Pessoa, Proust, Beckett, Schoenburg, Webern, Cantor, Godel, Cohen...

 

[Mr. Tea]

Where's the "head in hands" emoticon when you need it...

No, I totally get where you are coming from Mr Tea, it is an understandable position, that many people (most, I assume) hold. I understand it, but I cannot agree with it tho, its basically a life as a well-fed, possibly even well-read animal.

I started a thread contending that there's a major objective difference between us and other animals; however, I certainly agree that we are animals.

And its only from spending the vast majority (all...?) of my time in such a state myself that I know from the inside out what an animal state it is.

So just *when* exactly are we human, then? Do we have to be doing something overtly political at the time in order to count as human? Because if that's the case I'm perfectly happy to be in an 'animal' state and doing things that are far more important than politics, such as studying for my doctorate, cooking dinner, spending time with Mrs. Tea or listening to music...
(To take this point to an admittedly ridiculous extreme, you'd presumably end up denying the humanity of cultures in which politics, as we understand it, never arose in the first place.)
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's difficult to motivate people to think about overthrowing 'the system' when most people do so well out of it. Sure, Britain (and, in a wider sense, the democratic developed world) in 2007 has its share of problems, but I wouldn't characterise it as a society in a state of terminal decline, and it's clearly unfair to blame all the problems of the rest of the world on a few Western democracies. I get the feeling that, as the current set-up undeniably has some things going for it, ripping it up and starting again would be a monumental case of throwing the baby out wth the bathwater.
I suppose climate change, and possibly also oil depletion, could be the real sticking point here, the true litmus test by which political and economic systems stand or fall.

Interesting point about "choosing meaning"-- I think that is precisely the sense Badiou holds his grandiose vision for- to be a subject to a truth, that rends the matter of the essentially deterministic situation apart. Indeed, the basic animal state is what occupies 99% of all human activity. Its not even wrong, in and of itself, it merely is.

[/QUOTE]
No 'fence, but I can't really make head nor tail of this.

 

[noel emits]

So the problem presents itself- is this actually the case? What is needed to break this (predominantly mental) deadlock? How does it manifest itself? Do we NEED (indeed YEARN) for apocalypse? And what form would it take? Could Capital be used as a machine to further its own downfall? What would the cost be?

So basically the idea is that it's the deadening weight of nearly everyone's expectation, experience and indoctrination that makes it hard to see anything beyond the horizon but disaster?

It sounds really corny but the obvious way forward lies with education - a positive, empowering education where people (children) are shown how to think for themselves and to use their imaginations freely. Of course it's probably too late for that, and they'd kill us in our beds when they found out.

Hit it George.

 

[gek-opel]

I started a thread contending that there's a major objective difference between us and other animals; however, I certainly agree that we are animals.

So just *when* exactly are we human, then? Do we have to be doing something overtly political at the time in order to count as human? Because if that's the case I'm perfectly happy to be in an 'animal' state and doing things that are far more important than politics, such as studying for my doctorate, cooking dinner, spending time with Mrs. Tea or listening to music...
(To take this point to an admittedly ridiculous extreme, you'd presumably end up denying the humanity of cultures in which politics, as we understand it, never arose in the first place.)
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's difficult to motivate people to think about overthrowing 'the system' when most people do so well out of it. Sure, Britain (and, in a wider sense, the democratic developed world) in 2007 has its share of problems, but I wouldn't characterise it as a society in a state of terminal decline, and it's clearly unfair to blame all the problems of the rest of the world on a few Western democracies. I get the feeling that, as the current set-up undeniably has some things going for it, ripping it up and starting again would be a monumental case of throwing the baby out wth the bathwater.
I suppose climate change, and possibly also oil depletion, could be the real sticking point here, the true litmus test by which political and economic systems stand or fall.

No 'fence, but I can't really make head nor tail of this.[/QUOTE]

Of course literally speaking we are humans- human animals. Occasionally there are points of rupture (be it literal or figurative) tears in the fabric of the everyday situation (on a macro or micro scale). To deliberately seek refuge in a (as This Heat had it) a life of food is just lacking ambition or ability to see what is possible. Of course, if you are working away in science (is that correct?) then godspeed to you, there are truths and ruptures and events enough in that field... and I will say no more...

 

[noel emits]

Conditions of relative comfort in the 'democratic developed world' will not persist indefinitely if the rest of the world continues to fall apart.
Especially if they blame 'us' for it.

 

[gek-opel]

So basically the idea is that it's the deadening weight of nearly everyone's expectation, experience and indoctrination that makes it hard to see anything beyond the horizon but disaster?

It sounds really corny but the obvious way forward lies with education - a positive, empowering education where people (children) are shown how to think for themselves and to use their imaginations freely. Of course it's probably too late for that, and they'd kill us in our beds when they found out.

Hit it George.

Indoctrination is too strong a term really, its more diffuse, insidious, and out of direct control than that - I'm no conspiracy nut, indeed its all the more sinister for there not being some cabal controlling everything... its the dead weight of history in some senses, but more specifically the way what is in fact an ideology is presented as anything but. Its lots of other factors too, none of which entirely explicate this functioning... post modernity perhaps as well... need to investigate this property properly.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I certainly don't think ambition is a bad thing! As long as it's not towards a totally selfish or antisocial goal, of course. But trying to 'see what is possible' doesn't have to imply political activism.

 

[crackerjack]

Conditions of relative comfort in the 'democratic developed world' will not persist indefinitely if the rest of the world continues to fall apart.

Do you mean this hypothetically? The rest of the world isn't falling apart - parts of Africa, central Asia and the ME certainly are, but vast swathes of the far east, eastern Europe and south America are doing well.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Conditions of relative comfort in the 'democratic developed world' will not persist indefinitely if the rest of the world continues to fall apart.
Especially if they blame 'us' for it.

That's entirely true, and I think huge changes will have to be made to the way we live. But at the moment I think the best chance we have of doing that, in any remotely humane and sane way, is to work to improve the current system rather than tear it all up (or encourage it to tear itself up, as Gek would have it) and start all over again.

 

[gek-opel]

I certainly don't think ambition is a bad thing! As long as it's not towards a totally selfish or antisocial goal, of course. But trying to 'see what is possible' doesn't have to imply political activism.

Yes, of course not...

 

[noel emits]

Indoctrination is too strong a term really, its more diffuse, insidious, and out of direct control than that - I'm no conspiracy nut, indeed its all the more sinister for there not to be a cabal controlling everything... its the dead weight of history in some senses, but more specifically the way what is in fact an ideology is presented as anything but. Its lots of other factors too, none of which entirely explicate this functioning... post modernity perhaps as well... need to investigate this property properly.

Sure, I didn't mean to imply deliberate indoctrination - was casting around for the right word. It's more like the way systems take on an autonomous existence. Like demons. So even the architects of the systems become slaves to their machinations.

Isn't that the definition of ideology - that it consists of unacknowledged assumptions?

 

[gek-opel]

Sure, I didn't mean to imply deliberate indoctrination - was casting around for the right word. It's more like the way systems take on an autonomous existence. Like demons. So even the architects of the systems become slaves to their machinations.

Isn't that the definition of ideology - that it consists of unacknowledged assumptions?

Exactly... but an ideology which is inside everything, normalised to the point where it is invisible... whilst paradoxically never more visibly manifest...

Ideology= system of ideas no?

 

[noel emits]

Do you mean this hypothetically? The rest of the world isn't falling apart - parts of Africa, central Asia and the ME certainly are, but vast swathes of the far east, eastern Europe and south America are doing well.

Hypothetical, I suppose. Until the full effects of climate change and the end of oil and the usual apparently insoluble political / religious / territorial disputes become apparent it remains hypothetical.

 

[noel emits]

Ideology= system of ideas no?

"... the way what is in fact an ideology is presented as anything but".

OK - 'dominant ideology' is what I was thinking of.

Do you really mean to say 'presented'? That makes it sound rather more intentional.

 

[IdleRich]

"(or encourage it to tear itself up, as Gek would have it)"

I would like to hear more about this idea, it's been referred to several times but only in the most general terms. Given that I find the idea of complete environmental collapse pretty terrifying this seems like a much more attractive version of this "end of capitalism" scenario but I really can't grasp how it will happen. How will the actions of (say) Gek-Opel working to subvert Capital through Capital differ from the actions of (say) Vimothy, working in the same system with (let's say) virtually the opposite aim?
Also, separate question I guess, what kind of collapse could there be that won't affect the poor and disadvantaged far more than the rich? I'm guessing it would have to take a form such that the very first step would somehow at a stroke remove all the advantages of the haves so that a rich man living in a huge mansion in London would instantly be in the same situation as a tramp on the streets. If this was not the case how could the rich man be prevented from taking his advantages forward to the new stage (whatever it may be)?
I suppose that's what you mean by asking you to think outside the possible as you have to imagine a scenario where having food or shelter or minions or transport or clothes etc is not an advantage.

 

[vimothy]

I cannot see how a global collapse could be expected to affect the rich more than the poor, such that the differences between both groups would be leveled. Seems obvious to me that in any catastrophe situation, the poor will necessarily suffer first and most.