Live Earth
- Thread starter mos dan
- Start date
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Not bad, but I think I liked Jedi best.
vimothy
yurp
As I see it democracy involves more than just holding elections. And the US should be under no obligation to "respect" the Islamist-terrorist rulers of a failing, yet to be born state, regardless of whether they are democratically elected or not.
(However, Hamas may well prove more competent than their corrupt and largely useless secular rivals in the PLO and Fatah. Could be a bad thing for Israel and, obviously, Egypt, but perhaps they'll calm down in the years to come as they start to enjoy the benefits of power and massive amounts of free international aid. Or maybe it'll just be a hudna.)
Last edited:
crackerjack
Well-known member
It's not about respecting Hamas, it's about respecting the will of the Palestinian people as shown through the vote. The US is quite within its rights to withhold aid from govts they dislike, but not to freeze foreign bank accounts (as they;'ve been encoouraging/coercing others to do) and deny legal tax revenue (as Israel has done).
N
nomadologist
Guest
my only question for Gek would be: do you really think the destructive forces of capitalism lead to a kind of collapse that sustains itself against another free market-driven democracy when things start being built up again?
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Perhaps the Whatever-It-Is that replaces capitalism will be so obviously and objectively better, no-one'd ever think of going back to capitalism after its downfall? The same way we view absolute monarchy and feudalism as inherently a thing of the past. Something like that, Gek?
crackerjack
Well-known member
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
What with all that heroism and grandeur that must be a no-brainer
CONAN FOR PRESIDENT!!!!
Well here is the nub... the collapse is only in part the aim. Even a temporary retraction might suffice... enough that the mental deadlock is partially broken. The collapse may be physical, or merely economic. The idea is not just the capital is destroyed utterly, but that Capital is transformed itself into a system-for-death, that its supporters lose their way, their purity of position corroded by people taking their ideology seriously but in the wrong way, the die-back effect creating a system which attacks itself in part. I think it is important to bring the role of the state into this, and how it is the state under pressure from the left that has allowed capitalism to bed in so effectively, in part cushioning the blow but simultaneously allowing Capital as system to become ever more pervasive. Capitalistic systems, especially the avant-garde virtual capital of finance, must be marshaled to deconstruct the state itself (and possibly other institutions of stability such as the family- tho obviously this is less of an innate enemy to capital so may prove more difficult), whilst simultaneously corrupting the ideology of capital, perverting it, by treating it seriously as a weapon in itself. Its a multi-layered strike. The only purpose is to get to the point where the unthinkable can be thought and some new ideas can be brought to the fore. That is the goal in essence (rather than destruction on the one hand or helping the poor on the other)... if retrenchment then occurs, at least some new tools, ideas, political systems may have been devised...
Environmental collapse is another issue entirely, and may well resolve these issues without any intervention at all, by shattering the certainties of consumer capitalist realism. However, I suspect they may remain more stubbornly in place even in the face of death. Again I think the key is to work through capitalism, not against it. To work against it serves only to ameliorate its conditions, which serves to prolong its domination, and doesn't ultimately achieve the goal. And rather than "subverting from within" in a traditional sense by trying to turn something to the good, (which is impossible because by the time one has reached a position of sufficient power and influence all such ambitions are lost) it is vital that the precise and diametric opposite approach be taken, to subvert it by amplifying the most radical, alienating and terrifying aspects, and also utilising approaches of assymetric warfare from islamist terrorists (ie- the die-back mechanism)...
Last edited:
N
nomadologist
Guest
I figured that's what you meant, but wasn't completely certain.
Your position reminds me of how I always used to talk about my best friend's mother being my hero--she was from a very poor Irish Catholic family and somehow got into an elite college to later become an i-banker and eventually the owner and ceo of an international trust. I always fought for the idea that people in the real sphere of anti-capitalist influence were not people working as baristas waving signs around at activist rallies. I used to say that this woman my hero was in an ideal position to chip away at "the man", unlike the children of baby boomers who thought they'd "slack" their way out of capitalism. I always figured it would be necessary for all the ugliest tendencies of capital to come to the fore before it would start to lose influence. Which is, I suppose, another theory resting on history as a pendulum swing.
I don't know if I still agree, but I remember really wanting that to be true.
There are new theories about how radical climate change preceded the collapse of most empires, so that may be the most likely scenario for us.
Lately I wonder if capitalism is any more or less insidious than any other type of government in history was.
Your position reminds me of how I always used to talk about my best friend's mother being my hero--she was from a very poor Irish Catholic family and somehow got into an elite college to later become an i-banker and eventually the owner and ceo of an international trust. I always fought for the idea that people in the real sphere of anti-capitalist influence were not people working as baristas waving signs around at activist rallies. I used to say that this woman my hero was in an ideal position to chip away at "the man", unlike the children of baby boomers who thought they'd "slack" their way out of capitalism. I always figured it would be necessary for all the ugliest tendencies of capital to come to the fore before it would start to lose influence. Which is, I suppose, another theory resting on history as a pendulum swing.
I don't know if I still agree, but I remember really wanting that to be true.
There are new theories about how radical climate change preceded the collapse of most empires, so that may be the most likely scenario for us.
Lately I wonder if capitalism is any more or less insidious than any other type of government in history was.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Capitalism's not really a form of government, though, is it? It's an economic system. I mean, sure, the govermnent of any particular country presumably controls the type of economy going on, but you can have capitalism (of one sort or another) under parliamentary democracy, direct democracy, proportional representation, constitutional monarchy...in some of the more lawless parts of the world it effectivly takes place in an environment of total anarchy, and at the opposite end of the scale you have China's monolithic state capitalism.
Also, I wouldn't call capitalism an 'ideology' - although the belief that capitalism is the best or only way to run an economy is of course an ideology. I hope this isn't an entirely pedantic point...
N
nomadologist
Guest
sorry, you're right, i meant to say economic system
The idea is not to chip away at the man- but to take on the man at his own game, to be the man, indeed to go beyond the man because instead of treating capitalism as a tool for individual or collective enrichment it is to be treated as a tool for deconstruction, a destructive machine. There are some more aspects of this argument that I haven't really got into- but given that Capital is a far more sophisticated system of de-statification than any mooted interim Communist state could ever conceivably and realistically be, instead of siding as the trad left do with the state against the market, we should side with the market against the state. This admittedly inevitably requires a form of indifference (to immediate suffering), a long-term-ism bordering on Mao's galactic indifference to nuclear annihilation...
swears
preppy-kei
gek: Sorry if I'm not 100% grasping this, but are you suggesting something along the lines of rising to a high position in a large corporation and then suggesting destructive business decisions when you have a certain amount of influence? Like telling ICI to dump toxic chemicals into protected wildlife sites or something? (Crude example.) I'm not getting it.
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
We need practical suggestions.
I just can't see what could possibly be so outrageous as to discredit capitalism in most people's eyes that isn't already being done.
I just can't see what could possibly be so outrageous as to discredit capitalism in most people's eyes that isn't already being done.
IdleRich
IdleRich
But this is all so general as to be meaningless. I know that everyone is talking to you Gek and you can't answer everybody but earlier on I asked how someone subverting capital after this manner would differ in behaviour from (say) Vimothy and I still want to see an answer to this question.
Another problem is that your creed seems to be a recipe for doing nothing because small changes are worthless and big changes (economic or environmental collapse) are impossible to bring about (even if they can be shown to be for the better which is something you haven't approached doing).
crackerjack
Well-known member
Gek, you sound less like a Marxist than a Bond villain.
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
LOL @ crackerjack.
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
I keep thinking about some sick blend of Big Brother / Pop Idol / Deal Or No Deal and actual electoral politics. Or is that what we have now?
Like that thing that Endemol did with the kidneys, but for real. Aversion therapy.
Like that thing that Endemol did with the kidneys, but for real. Aversion therapy.
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
I have to admit, I find this to be absurdly (and I suppose, reassuringly) hypothetical. I guess there is a parallel to the trad. revolutionary Marxist ploy of accelerating the conditions of capitalism to speed on up through the dialectic and pop out into the communist paradise at the other side. I expect it to be as successful in the long term, if it ever reaches a practical, action-able stage.
That said, gek: are you familiar with any of the 5GW discussion going on around the blogosphere at the moment? It strikes me that there's elements that cross over between the two programmes, particularly the Puppet-Master 5GW.
Has anyone thought about what happens after the apocalypse/revolution? And, what happens if you gain power without causing planetary collapse? Will the ontological shift needed to role back capitalist pathology (or whatever it is) have occured, or will a catastrophe have to be engineered?
That said, gek: are you familiar with any of the 5GW discussion going on around the blogosphere at the moment? It strikes me that there's elements that cross over between the two programmes, particularly the Puppet-Master 5GW.
Has anyone thought about what happens after the apocalypse/revolution? And, what happens if you gain power without causing planetary collapse? Will the ontological shift needed to role back capitalist pathology (or whatever it is) have occured, or will a catastrophe have to be engineered?