Login Join IOPS

Politics of Rupture

forest
  • Written by:
  • Published on:
  • Categories:
  • Comments:
  • Share:

Politics of Rupture

 

   We start with ecological crisis; both its current unfolding and its immanently exponential threat. Things are bad but we know soon, barring what the IPCC refers to as “rapid, far reaching and unprecedented changes”, they will grow worse, much worse. “Rapid” also describes the rate at which each passing moment diminishes available options. It is this tragic reality which conditions any possibility for change or maneuver. Therefore, we must begin with this dreadful understanding.

  We must also acknowledge the terrible fact that this ecological crisis is but one tributary in a confluence of crises; the concurrent de-stabilization of political, economic and ecological systems along with a widely felt spiritual aporia, or crisis of meaning. Marx captured this profound sense of modern alienation in his famous phrase: “all that is solid melts into air, all that was sacred is profaned”. We focus here on the ecological due to the existential nature of the consequences, knowing this particular crisis to be embedded within and intertwined with others.

   While liberal “democratic” capitalism may not be the “end of history” as some have claimed, we now understand that it may well portend the end of civilization. The earth’s oceans and atmosphere are heating to dangerous levels and the reaction of our global political-economic system is static paralysis. International cooperation has stalled around questions of justice and the various forms of localized mitigation efforts are too little too late. Some rely on technologies which don’t yet exist; others depend on enlightened consumption by a privileged few. All treat the symptom rather than the disease. Due to their deleterious effect on the global economy, truly effective measures, such as phasing out the use of fossil fuels, were never viable to begin with. Therefore if, as Margaret Thatcher famously declared, “there is no alternative”, to this system, the science is increasingly clear: its continued hegemony will disrupt the “rare earth’s” fragile ecosystems to the point where humanity enters a new Dark Age, however that may be defined. Inertia rapidly equals chaos.

   Public reaction to this chilling consensus varies considerably. “Average” Americans (the only country we can speak to) not directly affected by extreme weather events remain oblivious. The procession of increasingly dire scientific reports compel responses ranging from inadequate to incoherent. It is in fact only during times of emergency, be it super storms or raging fires, that fleeting attention is paid. This lack of concern is less denial than disavowal, encouraged and even promoted by hegemonic forms of cultural production and the over-arching imperative to maintain consumption levels. Elites either pooh pooh any notion of “crisis”, preferring to categorize the conjuncture as a techno-managerial “problem” ripe with opportunity for increased profit and accumulation, or they simply divert their gaze altogether. On the so-called “political” front, “progressives” and much of what remains of the Left enlist the alarming science to push for a vague political “revolution”. While the antithetical nature of democracy and capitalism is studiously ignored, fantasies of market and state forces being marshalled through a “just transition” towards a rational “green capitalism” prevail.

   These fantasies are based on unquestioned orthodoxy, a prime example being the belief that within our system of liberal “democratic” capitalism, the thing we call “politics” is how the will of the people is expressed and policy determined. A critical examination reveals instead an anti-political “politics”, a manufactured drama of pseudo-contested beliefs, all of which pre-serve and prop up the status quo. Contained within this liberal conceit are the notions of a “national conversation”, debate or “dialogue” between civil society, elites and politicians whereby popular consensus is achieved. Writing in 1993, Chantel Mouffe warned against the evisceration of the political sphere “and the possibility of its elimination”. It is our contention that her fears have been fully realized. The State is no longer the place of antagonistic contest (if indeed it ever was), nor even the primary site of dominant power. The liberal notion of democratic self-rule has been usurped and replace by its simulacra, an illusion manufactured by a post-modern cultural apparatus, a “many-headed hydra”, as the Zapatistas refer to it, of capitalist media, capitalist law, capitalist education and governance. In other words, capitalist hegemony and its ideological reinforcements/ accoutrements as explained in Mouffe’s other seminal work, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (with Ernesto Laclau). If we accept this premise, we must cast a critical eye at efforts to reform the state and its institutions, including the electoral strategy of today’s socialists. It is time to ask whether these efforts only serve to legitimize and further strengthen the very illusion which maintains our oppression. The liberal fantasy of an arc of history bending towards justice, along with an intense aversion to unleashed desire, may only serve to extend that arc into oblivion.

   Meanwhile, those on the Right have embraced an all-too-familiar isolationist, “blood and soil” populism. One side calls for a new Leviathan, a supra-sovereign to manage a desperate, just-in-the nick-of-time realignment. The other clings desperately to the anarchy of “free” markets and an ever-fiercer, hyper-nationalist competitiveness.  We understand there to be greater levels of awareness and anxiety in other nations, but we can’t say what this means nor if it is reason for optimism.     

   And it’s not as if global warming is the only ecological emergency on our plate. We are flirting dangerously with other critical “planetary boundaries” which threaten existence (as we know it) every bit as much as climate change, though with differing time lines. Soil fertility, fresh water use, chemical pollution, the list is long. The language of fact and statistic conveys the quantitative loss of biological diversity but not the sadness or danger. The Amazon is disappearing at the rate of 70,000 acres daily. A silent spring amid the roar of chainsaws.

   This predictable yet inexorable catastrophe can be traced directly to Capital’s most basic imperative: grow or die. Extraction must generate profit. Market “externalities”, such as pollutants, must remain an unquantifiable, hidden cost, allowing distorted prices to create perverse incentives, resulting inevitably in the squandering of our children’s future (“cheap” palm oil, “cheap” coal, etc). Some believe prices can be set to reflect “true social costs”( perhaps by a climate czar?). Others believe we can spray aerosols into the atmosphere or cover the oceans with reflective foam. Others believe Jesus can help us out. While a smattering of optimists propose “de-growth” or “de-coupling” growth from emissions, we argue that all these proposals are delusional at best, and in many respects serve a counter-revolutionary reaction. Both the fantasy of continuous growth and the dream of “capitalism with a human face” depends on human subjects willing to pull the wool over their own eyes.

   Despite the optimistic title of Naomi Klein’s 2014 book, little has actually changed when it comes to the relentless trajectory of global warming. After a brief levelling, CO2 emissions are once again on the rise, oil production is at an all-time high and hundreds of new coal-fired power plants are in the pipeline. In a strangely perverse relationship, as each new study is produced showing accelerated climate effects and a shortened timeline before irreversible tipping points are reached, less and less ambition to remedy the situation is demonstrated.

   For mainstream climate groups, the reaction to this dark cloud has been to focus on “silver linings”. They point to the falling cost/price-point of renewable energy (and ignore their falling market share over-all) They point to a growing “awareness”. They point to the “resistance” of progressive “inter-sectional” social movements (Me Too, gun control, Black Lives Matter, etc) and ignore their lack of institutional power. They shift their strategic focus to “local solutions” and ignore the gap in scale with what needs to actually happen (“rapidly”). They send out on-line petitions, organize marches and lobby politicians. Again, too little too late. “Blockadia”, the UN process, Bill Mc Kibben, all have been absorbed seamlessly into the Spectacle as investment and accumulation continue apace. No doubt solar powered sweatshops are preferable to climate chaos, but the chance of “renewables” replacing current, much less projected energy needs, are nil to none.

    Such nostalgic, anachronistic strategies will not stop global heating in time. The goal is too complex and the timeframe too short. There is no organizing model which can build a constituency powerful enough, rapidly enough, to challenge the eco-cidal system through political or economic pressure.  While we agree “there is no blueprint for ecological salvation”, the ideologically fractured climate movement can’t even settle on language with which to describe the crisis, much less agree on a general theoretical foundation to guide action. Is it a techno-managerial problem in need of research funding? A market failure in need of investment? A political issue in need of policy and consensus? A movement issue needing more people in the street?

   In the face of this historical crisis we see two choices, and both are “worse”. Perhaps Thatcher was correct and the sane course is to join those already headed up the Dark Mountain. But our argument here is that for these Spectacular times, there is but one other spectacular possibility for realizing a more emancipatory, egalitarian future; attend to and accelerate the unravelling. This we might call the politics of rupture, where efforts are directed towards “heightening the contradictions” and encouraging the current order to implode or self-immolate as swiftly as possible. Rather than work to ameliorate or mitigate or adapt to the damage, we act as if our house is on fire. Which it is. When “everything under heaven is in utter chaos” it might just be that “the situation is” if not exactly “excellent”, at least open to some degree. It might just be that only through the maelstrom of crisis do the conditions of possibility for true emancipatory change exist; why then not embrace it, fan the flames and use the crisis to advance a radical restructuring? If you have run out of time and options, isn’t the Hail Mary the perfect choice? Must the shock doctrine only be applied by right-wing revolutionaries?

   In our view, the only possibility for radical structural change then is for an “Event” to occur which radically displaces the dominant discourses and logics and thoroughly undermines the legitimacy of the current order. In other words, a rupture in the protective veil which exposes the lacuna at the core of liberal “democratic” capitalism, a rupture occurring simultaneously in the ideological as well as material realms. It is only through this tear in the production and re-production of capital’s current hegemony, in the circuits of capital itself, that a gap may be opened, a wound to make it vulnerable to infection. All other efforts at reform simply reinforce those logics and legitimize the (re)production.

   Many serious voices will argue that this is a path to violent conflict and increasing misery. And they are probably correct. Given a wide array of options, it is certainly not a path one would choose. But that luxury is not our reality. And it is not as though violent conflict can somehow be avoided; we exist in its midst and with every passing day it only increases. The ecocide and murder and savage injustice are real; they are simply occurring at a convenient remove, out on the easily-ignored periphery. That we in the Center remain, however temporary, in comfort and privilege within our increasingly fragile bubble should not be cause for celebration nor hesitation when it comes to recognizing our moral duty to subvert, dismantle and replace the ruling order. This argument rests within an undecidable, indeterminate paradox; though we live in an age that knows no time, time pressures us to act expediently. That is, while the Catastrophe lies at the edge of our under-theorized, dystopian imaginary, now is the perfect Moment to demand the impossible; to precipitate the Event. Only through a radical disobedience and refusal to participate at every level can the curtain be ripped away, exposing all the venal, corrupt illusions which hold us enthralled. If, as Walter Benjamin advised, “it is our task to bring about the real state of emergency”, we must embrace the urgency and re-acknowledge the arrow of time. Rapidly.

     What will a rupture look like? What form could such an event possibly assume? This type of conjuncture, one capable of inflicting such a lethal wound, would be both qualitatively and quantitatively unprecedented. It would disrupt material flows, undermine the legitimacy of the ruling order and demonstrate the fragility of current management. Imagine a series of storms followed by migration, breakdown of services, a freeze on all investment, a run on banks, the insolvency of the re-insurance system, etc.. yet not to the point of collapse. Imagine a break in supply chains, a halt to fossil fuel production and distribution. Imagine the point where founding myths, dominant narratives and ideological constructs are no longer tenable. The point where the old order no longer has the energy to preserve itself and a new one can gain legitimacy. If this sounds unreasonable it is because it is.

  Here I am not suggesting we simply wait for Nature’s fury; the Event requires action. The task is to combine agency with contingency and there exist many ways the legitimacy of the current order can be undermined and its hollow ideology exposed. First might be what John Bellamy Foster has called “a shift in tactics towards active non-cooperation with the political-economic hegemony.” The Kubuki theatre which is voting must be actively exposed and denounced while advancing a vision of what a truly political sphere would entail. Through agitation, the vast pool of apathy might be converted to open antagonism while the massive bloc which believes the system corrupt (but which participates anyway) can be encouraged to publicly renounce and boycott all party activity and the election farce. Individually, voting or not means nothing. Collectively not voting eviscerates the ideological underpinnings of the “inverted totalitarianism” of the “soft” power structure. Again, the language of “citizenship” and “civic duty”, upon which the system rests, is the ideological terrain for struggle.

   One popular strategy for undermining capitalist relations is withdrawing from industrial production and consumption and establishing localized nodes of self-sufficiency. For many this coincides with preparation for surviving imminent climate chaos as well. We assert that such economic autonomy can only be partial and fractured at best. As a model for liberation or climate adaptation, it has limited, extremely variable applicability on a global scale. To be sure, labor can be a site for disruption, as can distribution and consumption. But the globalized, digitized nature of late-capitalist work means Marxian categories are shifting and theory must adapt.

   Perhaps a more pragmatic strategy is withdrawing from governance and all forms of “civic engagement” in order to puncture the illusion of “citizenship” which maintains the hegemonic rule of dominant classes. As active participants in cultural jamming, “all that is sacred must be profaned”; property rights exposed as a tool for dispossession and exploitation, exchange value exposed as a tool to maintain power and despoil the planet, laws which place things over beings exposed as morally and spiritually corrupt, dismantling oppressive austerity versus prosperity memes and inserting new, liberating memes; egalitarian, abundance oriented memes that demonstrate intrinsic value and real emancipation. To the extent possible we would want to see “all that is solid turned into air”, for instance stocks, shares, productive property, even currency.

  And finally, the most crucial rupture must serve to actually repair the “ecological rift” between humanity and nature. It is this contradiction which has brought us to the point of existential crisis and it cannot be resolved within capitalist relations. Hence the disavowal, denial and dissociation which characterize modern irrational rationality. We must rupture the illusion of “Man’s” dominance, of humanities separation and alienation from The Whole.  The Integrity of the Ecosphere depends on understanding and then integrating our species-being back into this Whole. Rationally, we know such a “shift” in consciousness, in culture, in relations and institutions should take generations. Unfortunately, as Andreas Malm reminds us, “speed is the critical dimension”. Not only don’t we have generations, we don’t even have decades. To embrace a project of such irreducible, radical indeterminacy requires a leap beyond our conception of “the possible”. This is uncharted territory and to navigate it successfully will take skill, flexibility and more than a little luck.

Discussion 62 Comments

  • Boulder Dash 24th Nov 2018

    My response to this was immediate and unrefined. The kind of thing one would/could expect upon some massive rupture to the system. I do not care about any spelling, grammar or other problems. I am too pissed to care about that shit. Like Hamilton did, just dump shit on top of me, this ablog Dave has elicited an emotional response that will no doubt prove my fucking madness once and for all. One fucking finger typing at breakneck speed to capture my thoughts as they arise, which is fucking impossible.

    INTELLECTUALS ARE FULL OF SHIT.

    “Writing in 1993, Chantel Mouffe warned against the evisceration of the political sphere “and the possibility of its elimination”. It is our contention that her fears have been fully realized. The State is no longer the place of antagonistic contest (if indeed it ever was), nor even the primary site of dominant power. The liberal notion of democratic self-rule has been usurped and replace by its simulacra, an illusion manufactured by a post-modern cultural apparatus, a “many-headed hydra”, as the Zapatistas refer to it, of capitalist media, capitalist law, capitalist education and governance. In other words, capitalist hegemony and its ideological reinforcements/ accoutrements as explained in Mouffe’s other seminal work, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (with Ernesto Laclau). IIf we accept this premise, we must cast a critical eye at efforts to reform the state and its institutions, including the electoral strategy of today’s socialists. It is time to ask whether these efforts only serve to legitimize and further strengthen the very illusion which maintains our oppression. The liberal fantasy of an arc of history bending towards justice, along with an intense aversion to unleashed desire, may only serve to extend that arc into oblivion.”

    Don’t give a shit what Mouffe thinks. What premise? The premise that market capitalism has driven us to despair? Bakunin knew that hundreds of years ago. And it really should be state market capitalism. Bookchin died in despair under failure because he always saw the enemy as capitalism but his solution was political and economically too vague and unprescribed. And also because when it gets down to that kind of thing the Left just fucking fights itself.

    “Meanwhile, those on the Right have embraced an all-too-familiar isolationist, “blood and soil” populism. One side calls for a new Leviathan, a supra-sovereign to manage a desperate, just-in-the nick-of-time realignment. The other clings desperately to the anarchy of “free” markets and an ever-fiercer, hyper-nationalist competitiveness.  We understand there to be greater levels of awareness and anxiety in other nations, but we can’t say what this means nor if it is reason for optimism.”

    “This predictable yet inexorable catastrophe can be traced directly to Capital’s most basic imperative: grow or die. “

    It is not growth at all, it is the accumulation of all businesses accumulating surplus and hence capital to keep going...growth is a general term, an average, that is used to convince people local or national economies are working, nothing more. It is not about growth or degrowth it is about a new set of economic institutions that can foster the sorts of values “we” want.

    “While we agree “there is no blueprint for ecological salvation”,

    No there isn’t because there are no blueprints, but there are significant attempts at coming up with new economic ideas, most vague, unfinished or not enough and at least one coherent model. That one model should stand as a beacon, not as some “blueprint” but a symbol of what is actually needed.

    “It might just be that only through the maelstrom of crisis do the conditions of possibility for true emancipatory change exist; why then not embrace it, fan the flames and use the crisis to advance a radical restructuring? If you have run out of time and options, isn’t the Hail Mary the perfect choice? Must the shock doctrine only be applied by right-wing revolutionaries?”

    And I have a real issue with this...anarcho-primmies want this as well. No, this will not do because this does not tell me how many people will be fucked up by the move. And what arises out of the chaos may be worse, which is an unacceptable outcome. This is where the we becomes clear.

    We are a different animal. Very. We initiated the Anthropocene because of that difference. To fuel it under the hope the circumstances will initiate change for the better is complete guess work and denies the notion that we have a capacity to envision and prescribe a better way of consuming, producing and allocating...which remains always as the fundamental institutions for our species - unless you revert to the status of most other species which is brute nature...the Earth produces, we consume and allocation is survival of the fittest. No, this will not fucking do. And if this is seriously taken up as a possibility, then I will reaffirm my position to my 23 and 29 yr old daughters to NOT have kids...and I will continue to load this fucking website up,with the most inane nullshit and tripe you can think of, including my fucking music...

    “In other words, a rupture in the protective veil which exposes the lacuna at the core of liberal “democratic” capitalism, a rupture occurring simultaneously in the ideological as well as material realms. It is only through this tear in the production and re-production of capital’s current hegemony, in the circuits of capital itself, that a gap may be opened, a wound to make it vulnerable to infection. All other efforts at reform simply reinforce those logics and legitimize the (re)production.”

    Instead of the word lacuna, gap would have done. And this solution does nothing. It is surrender and ignores that no matter what happens after the rupture and the whole thing breaks down, what emerges will, and I mean will, be absolutely no fucking different, in the sense of words like equality, justice, solidarity and the rest.

    “Only through a radical disobedience and refusal to participate at every level can the curtain be ripped away, exposing all the venal, corrupt illusions which hold us enthralled. If, as Walter Benjamin advised, “it is our task to bring about the real state of emergency”, we must embrace the urgency and re-acknowledge the arrow of time. Rapidly.”

    Fuck what all these intellectuals say or have said. Fuck citing them and lauding them with smarts and insight when all those who do so offer ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in return to replace ALL THE SHIT OR THE STATE OF EMERGENCY WITH.

    This is bullshit and merely highlights everything I have been saying...that there is NO left because of the incapacity of ALL those out there writing about the shit that’s about to hit the fucking fan to sit in a room together and seriously nut shit out. And then what they fucking do is hand over responsibility to some vague bullshit notion of participatory democracy as if what happened at Occupy was an example f how it can be done...Occupy was the antithesis of that due to the inane incapacity of all to embrace much needed economic, production, consumption, allocation, prescription because they heads are all so full of the fucking shit they read and the ideas that define their own fucking image of themselves.

    “Here I am not suggesting we simply wait for Nature’s fury; the Event requires action. The task is to combine agency with contingency and there exist many ways the legitimacy of the current order can be undermined and its hollow ideology exposed. First might be what John Bellamy Foster has called “a shift in tactics towards active non-cooperation with the political-economic hegemony.” The Kubuki theatre which is voting must be actively exposed and denounced while advancing a vision of what a truly political sphere would entail. Through agitation, the vast pool of apathy might be converted to open antagonism while the massive bloc which believes the system corrupt (but which participates anyway) can be encouraged to publicly renounce and boycott all party activity and the election farce. Individually, voting or not means nothing. Collectively not voting eviscerates the ideological underpinnings of the “inverted totalitarianism” of the “soft” power structure. Again, the language of “citizenship” and “civic duty”, upon which the system rests, is the ideological terrain for struggle.”

    Oh, I get it, now all the smart people who,others quote start to imagine the future and what could happen. Envisioning the process and how to navigate it. But create a complete coherent clear alternative economic plan like Parecon is fucking idiocy or utopian bullshit. No, it’s wait for the thing to collapse and then this may follow and we do this, or that, then that or this...yeah, and who are the fuckers making these decisions Dave? Bellamy Fucking Foster, because he’s a smart guy...not the fucking brute who lives down the fucking road with the biggest gun...NOW we are predicting the future and offering best solutions...and out of the chaos and brutish existence that follows we begin to envision the future and come up with strategies...who is doing this all.

    The “strategy” completely ignores the fact, the real FACT, that after the rupture the fucking problem, the REAL problem is the fucking same and WORSE, because FEAR will increase along with IRRATIONALITY and on top of all that and the chaos and uncertainty, we will have all sorts of communication problems to deal with which basically means most people will be in the dark and...nah...this is bullshit. I felt as much when Hamilton said what he said to me.

    There may still be rupture further on down the road, but what the supposed CARING AND LOVING LEFT has to do is embrace coherent clear VISION and STRATEGY NOW, and any thought of FAST TRACKING makes this even more urgent.

    “ Perhaps a more pragmatic strategy is withdrawing from governance and all forms of “civic engagement” in order to puncture the illusion of “citizenship” which maintains the hegemonic rule of dominant classes. As active participants in cultural jamming, “all that is sacred must be profaned”; property rights exposed as a tool for dispossession and exploitation, exchange value exposed as a tool to maintain power and despoil the planet, laws which place things over beings exposed as morally and spiritually corrupt, dismantling oppressive austerity versus prosperity memes and inserting new, liberating memes; egalitarian, abundance oriented memes that demonstrate intrinsic value and real emancipation. To the extent possible we would want to see “all that is solid turned into air”, for instance stocks, shares, productive property, even currency.”

    Why are any of these responses mooted here given any credence post rupture when many couldn’t take hold pre rupture. The assumption here is that the chaos will deliver more understanding that pure reasoning, debate and discussion, talk, couldn’t deliver pre rupture. All of a sudden people realise the absurdity of the system.

    “inserting new, liberating memes; egalitarian, abundance oriented memes that demonstrate intrinsic value and real emancipation.”

    Yeah, all of a sudden amid all the fear, turmoil, chaos, irrationality and emotion people will latch onto all these ideas...fucking memes...how will those memes spread in the chaos and even if they do, how will all those words like egalitarian, abundance, intrinsic value and emancipation be realised? Huh? Same fucking place as now. What will be the institutional structure of production, consumption and allocation the future? And if you say you don’t know for sure, which you have to, then why fucking even bother thinking about it now.

    WHY FUCKING BOTHER.

    This just reminds of this place. It started out with all this nervous energy with a few people who seemed to care all in one place, but in the end we just couldn’t get along so everyone just fucking left.

    And I know now why. So that won’t be seen doing what they are there are doing elsewhere by a large number of people. It’s easier to sit among a small number of people who agree rather than a large number of people really trying to nut out how and what the future of our species will produce, consume and allocate. No, that is too fucking hard.

    Michael Albert is fucking right. The Left is afraid to win because winning means working together and it seems this cannot be done.

    Next time you see a Monbiot Dave, tell him to quit working for that fucking piece of mainstream shit called the Guardian and put his own fucking life on the line as the majority of people in the world do everyday, unnoticed. Tell anyone advocating this shit to write up a manifesto stating how rupture makes envisioning or building a better future MORE likely. If you can’t, then they can fuck off.

    “And finally, the most crucial rupture must serve to actually repair the “ecological rift” between humanity and nature. It is this contradiction which has brought us to the point of existential crisis and it cannot be resolved within capitalist relations. Hence the disavowal, denial and dissociation which characterize modern irrational rationality. We must rupture the illusion of “Man’s” dominance, of humanities separation and alienation from The Whole.  The Integrity of the Ecosphere depends on understanding and then integrating our species-being back into this Whole. Rationally, we know such a “shift” in consciousness, in culture, in relations and institutions should take generations. Unfortunately, as Andreas Malm reminds us, “speed is the critical dimension”. Not only don’t we have generations, we don’t even have decades. To embrace a project of such irreducible, radical indeterminacy requires a leap beyond our conception of “the possible”. This is uncharted territory and to navigate it successfully will take skill, flexibility and more than a little luck.”

    A little LUCK? Really? Fuck me. All this shit about ecological rifts and mans irrational rationality and fucking intellectual and philosophical musings is a fucking ruse. Nothing in the above is helpful and nothing in it gives me any hope and ai always had a little. Hamilton’s response to me was similar to this. And when he said it, actually wrote it in an email to me, my heart sank and I seriously wanted to reach into the iPad and rip all his intellectual being out of his fucking body because he was giving me nothing in the most arrogant of ways.

    I do not care about this post and whether it is coherent or not. I care not about whether people think I am a fucking idiot or not. I care not whether my response is seen as a fucking mad man or not. This is the kind of response that this kind of “solution” creates in me. It makes everything I have been trying to fucking deal with for the last decade and a half immersing myself in a learning curve without any fucking help from anyone except maybe Michael Albert here and there. It makes my embrace of the only coherent and clear economic alternative to market capitalism look fucking immature and childish. Oh no James, there are great thinkers out there that have written about the human condition that have far greater insight than you can ever have and if you just read more widely, collated all the information more astutely, you would see that your position is untenable. Even the fucking phrase “ecological rift”is meaningless to me. All the intellectual bullshit peddled within the left just falls away as nothing but meaningless words.

    Fucking rifts, and paradoxes, and contradictions, and dialectics, and negative dialectics, and even growth...it’s all, all of it nothing but a way to reaffirm individual egos repairing the rift between humans and nature? What the funk does that mean...nothing. Nothing without a clear plan, because planning is what makes us different. There is no rift between humans and nature, because nature is just a fucking word. There is only death and nothing more. And millions of people die everyday because we cannot organise production, consumption and allocation in a way that ensures we all wake up with a smile on our faces...it is nothing more than fucking that. It is that or death.

    The thing that Hamilton made me hate was his smug intellectualism. As if he’d fucking nailed it.

    Fucking intellectuals.

    When Patrul Rinpoche was being introduced to the nature of his mind by Do Khyenste, he smelled alcohol on him. Do Khyentse had been drinking some Tibetan beer. Patrul Rinpoche had a thought, oh, so even great masters get drunk and behave in ways. Do Khyenste apparently read his mind, grabbed him around the head and said, you intellectuals are just so full of shit and hit him...apparently with that Patrul Rinpoche’s mind was cleared.

    Once a student asked his master that if the Buddha was so all knowing and powerful,why does he not just wake everyone up from the sleep,of delusion. The master answered, who’s asleep?

    Who indeed? What “who”?

    The fucking a Left is asleep and the above strategy is basically giving up.

  • Dave Jones 24th Nov 2018

    Glad you took the time to read it Boulder. I too want to "organize production, consumption and allocation" in a participatory way and so, far from "giving up", I outline here a strategy of non-participation with the current order so as to undermine it. You know, get from here to there, something IOPS was particularly weak at explaining. Accelerating the crises as opposed to reform or even "non-reformist reform". Events that rupture the flow have happened many times throughout history, events that qualitatively changed the narrative in a moment. Not always pretty: think Emmit Till, Hiroshima, Tet offensive. I admit it is not ideal. Perhaps you would like to take a stab at proposing some method to get from here to a better world? Organizing? Drinking Tibetan beer?

    As for intellectualism, I'm not going to defend my use of abstract language to describe an incredibly complex world. Maybe Workers of the World Unite requires less interpretation but the dense theory behind that slogan reflects all the moving parts Marx had to try to explain.We are working with lots of parts moving incredibly fast.

    If you think tone or melody is a better medium than "fucking words" for explaining things, play us that tune, please. I'm all ears.

    • Boulder Dash 25th Nov 2018

      And I won’t back down from my position as to the use of abstract language, which in fact you did not use much Dave, but you did refer to those who do which, frankly to me doesn’t mean much. If Zizek says something about something, it never means much because I cannot bring myself to trudge through his writings to ascertain why. I often find the citing of these people is to bring more credence to some position.

      That it is a complex world of social relations means even more, that any ideas out there to make this a better world for all MUST be delivered in the simplest and easiest possible way. It is called the Laypersons Problem.

      It is interesting that I have never heard or seen Chomsky use the word dialectic. When he gets complicated it is usually related to the technical aspects of linguistics or philosophy or science. I am fine with that shit.

      My response is perfectly reasonable Dave to the idea of fast tracking systemic breakdown. Fast tracking is directly related to a lack of democracy. Its almost authoritarian. It’s about avoiding the difficulty of being decisive and unified in vision and strategy now, in favour of the possibility of it arising out of immediate need due to rupture, without much consideration for who may or may not be adversely affected by it and that’s putting it mildly. All because those who can see the problems can’t come together on unified solutions...vision and strategy.

      My response was immediate and emotional and perfectly reasonable. Hamilton basically said to me that we are fucked it just depends on how fucked we want to be. And the prescription in your blog Dave, basically says to me much the same thing...we’re fucked so let’s just fast track it and see what happens.

      So the ideas that say Michael Albert pushes in Practical Utopia, basically a reiteration of the Fanfare series are just the worthless musings of an old school deluded left nutter who should be ignored, no longer in the picture...won’t work...in favour of fast tracking crises?

      What, is this the logic like, couldn’t get our shit together before hand, but are more likely to get it together afterwards when everyone feels and sees the actual shit we are in? Like a natural disaster response.

      I took the time to read your blog because that’s what I do. I take the time to read. And then I put in my two cents worth. An honest two cents worth not necessarily garnered from a thousand possible books entitled Hegemony and Whatever but maybe one or two, and most of which I can hardly remember.

      No, it comes from an intuitive sense that we need a new economy for the whole fucking planet, and me noticing that, apart from a few out there, that most dance intellectually around the whole idea which leads me with a feeling, a suspicion, that the intellectual dance around the problem of coherent clear vision has more to do with personal individual intellectual satisfaction than any real desire to actually come up with something solid.

      I’ve read a lot of visionary stuff, and lot that does my head in, particularly when it comes to Marxists in the visionary kitchen...them being all Marxist and intellectual, and yes, complicated. Then I’ve read a whole lot of anarchist visionary shit and find it all at a certain point too principled. Must not go too far. Must get rid of money and we can’t be too specific about stuff. All principled stuff but when pushed about what a future economy may look like they are as vague as fuck or they actually, and this is quite amusing, describe shit in far more detail than anything I’ve read in Parecon.

      Zizek offers nothing solid. He’s pithy and like a continental philosopher go to talking head. Tim Morton offers nothing, not that anyone really reads Morton.. He just riffs on his licks. Two people I’ve been urged to read. Deluded and Guitarist offer nothing. Been urged to read them. Foucault offers nothing. Been urged. And when I read The Anarchist Turn, the whole fucking book, full of post modern signifiers and Object/subject ontology gobledygookology, I got nothing except one small statement by the anarchist exiled from his own country Andrej Grubacic, who was also very helpful when Zi joined that other failed online school thing project of Albert’s,

      “Here too, there is a lesson for anarchist movements, especially those ensconced in places of higher learning and sophisticated discourse. If our politics is to be effective, our language needs to be simple and understandable, as well as beautiful.”

      Well the beautiful counts me out, but the book in which he wrote was full of gobbledygook that offered no help to my simple mind at all. And Zi reckon he noticed it as well!

      I give these people space and time. A whole book that cost 60 odd bucks, Krzysztof Nawratek’s Total Urban Mobilisation: Ernst Jünger and the Post-Capitalist City, that gave me nothing because the author wrote it for an academic audience. Well derr. He told me that personally. I got nothing from it but a language that only the clever can truly decipher and that is designed to hold the layperson at a distance in order that they can maintain their own position as an intellectual within a community of intellectuals. Joe Bageant’s deer hunters would spit at them with utter contempt.

      No, you are right Dave, I have no time for them. Not even Hegel and Marx in any real depth. There is no time for that shit anymore in relation to social change for the better. If you want to do philosophy then go for it.

      You may be right, as may be Hamilton, that we are fucked anyway. But I hold to my own, I cannot condone a fast tracking of system breakdown under some vague hope that maybe something good will come out of it.

      Yes, that breaks my fucking heart and I look at my daughters and say to those advocating it, fuck off...try harder.

      But then, if you want a reasoned well mannered response to such a plan, then perhaps Peter Lach Newinsky or Lambert or Alex should weigh in. You’ll get less swearing and perhaps a more gentle and nuanced attitude to intellectuals.

    • Boulder Dash 25th Nov 2018

      More....

      The Buddhist shit is just as pithy and easy to quote as the intellectual and offers nothing...and nothing is what I want could be seen as a true zen saying...but it really should be nothing is what I do not want. The non grasping and realsation of the twelve links of dependant origination that give rise to samsara. Been around for over a thousand years and the dude, Geezer who started it, always a Geezer, had to desert his family to do so and yet, look where we are now!

      But if a participatory organised economy is what you want then make it clear what that is and how it is to be or can be and then work out a strategy to get there based on the institutional structure of that system. Just fast tracking crisis, by purposely undermining the existing system is not a strategy, it’s just an admission we are already fucked, so bring it on. The the new economy had better be ready in some coherent form before hand or else...

    • Irie Zen 30th Nov 2018

      ECCO! ECCO! ECCO!

    • Irie Zen 30th Nov 2018

      Dave:


      Politics of Rupture


      We start with ecological crisis; both its current unfolding and its immanently exponential threat. Things are bad but we know soon, barring what the IPCC refers to as "rapid, far reaching and unprecedented changes", they will grow worse, much worse. "Rapid" also describes the rate at which each passing moment diminishes available options. It is this tragic reality which conditions any possibility for change or maneuver. Therefore, we must begin with this dreadful understanding.


      We must also acknowledge the terrible fact that this ecological crisis is but one tributary in a confluence of crises; the concurrent de-stabilization of political, economic and ecological systems along with a widely felt spiritual aporia, or crisis of meaning. Marx captured this profound sense of modern alienation in his famous phrase: "all that is solid melts into air, all that was sacred is profaned". We focus here on the ecological due to the existential nature of the consequences, knowing this particular crisis to be embedded within and intertwined with others.


      While liberal "democratic" capitalism may not be the "end of history" as some have claimed, we now understand that it may well portend the end of civilization. The earth's oceans and atmosphere are heating to dangerous levels and the reaction of our global political-economic system is static paralysis. International cooperation has stalled around questions of justice and the various forms of localized mitigation efforts are too little too late. Some rely on technologies which don't yet exist; others depend on enlightened consumption by a privileged few. All treat the symptom rather than the disease. Due to their deleterious effect on the global economy, truly effective measures, such as phasing out the use of fossil fuels, were never viable to begin with. Therefore if, as Margaret Thatcher famously declared, "there is no alternative", to this system, the science is increasingly clear: its continued hegemony will disrupt the "rare earth's" fragile ecosystems to the point where humanity enters a new Dark Age, however that may be defined. Inertia rapidly equals chaos.


      Public reaction to this chilling consensus varies considerably. "Average" Americans (the only country we can speak to) not directly affected by extreme weather events remain oblivious. The procession of increasingly dire scientific reports compel responses ranging from inadequate to incoherent. It is in fact only during times of emergency, be it super storms or raging fires, that fleeting attention is paid. This lack of concern is less denial than disavowal, encouraged and even promoted by hegemonic forms of cultural production and the over-arching imperative to maintain consumption levels. Elites either pooh pooh any notion of "crisis", preferring to categorize the conjuncture as a techno-managerial "problem" ripe with opportunity for increased profit and accumulation, or they simply divert their gaze altogether. On the so-called "political" front, "progressives" and much of what remains of the Left enlist the alarming science to push for a vague political "revolution". While the antithetical nature of democracy and capitalism is studiously ignored, fantasies of market and state forces being marshalled through a "just transition" towards a rational "green capitalism" prevail.


      These fantasies are based on unquestioned orthodoxy, a prime example being the belief that within our system of liberal "democratic" capitalism, the thing we call "politics" is how the will of the people is expressed and policy determined. A critical examination reveals instead an anti-political "politics", a manufactured drama of pseudo-contested beliefs, all of which pre-serve and prop up the status quo. Contained within this liberal conceit are the notions of a "national conversation", debate or "dialogue" between civil society, elites and politicians whereby popular consensus is achieved. Writing in 1993, Chantal Mouffe warned against the evisceration of the political sphere "and the possibility of its elimination". It is our contention that her fears have been fully realized. The State is no longer the place of antagonistic contest (if indeed it ever was), nor even the primary site of dominant power. The liberal notion of democratic self-rule has been usurped and replace by its simulacra, an illusion manufactured by a post-modern cultural apparatus, a "many-headed hydra", as the Zapatistas refer to it, of capitalist media, capitalist law, capitalist education and governance. In other words, capitalist hegemony and its ideological reinforcements/ accoutrements as explained in Mouffe's other seminal work, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (with Ernesto Laclau). If we accept this premise, we must cast a critical eye at efforts to reform the state and its institutions, including the electoral strategy of today's socialists. It is time to ask whether these efforts only serve to legitimize and further strengthen the very illusion which maintains our oppression. The liberal fantasy of an arc of history bending towards justice, along with an intense aversion to unleashed desire, may only serve to extend that arc into oblivion.


      Meanwhile, those on the Right have embraced an all-too-familiar isolationist, "blood and soil" populism. One side calls for a new Leviathan, a supra-sovereign to manage a desperate, just-in-the nick-of-time realignment. The other clings desperately to the anarchy of "free" markets and an ever-fiercer, hyper-nationalist competitiveness. We understand there to be greater levels of awareness and anxiety in other nations, but we can't say what this means nor if it is reason for optimism.    


      And it's not as if global warming is the only ecological emergency on our plate. We are flirting dangerously with other critical "planetary boundaries" which threaten existence (as we know it) every bit as much as climate change, though with differing time lines. Soil fertility, fresh water use, chemical pollution, the list is long. The language of fact and statistic conveys the quantitative loss of biological diversity but not the sadness or danger. The Amazon is disappearing at the rate of 70,000 acres daily. A silent spring amid the roar of chainsaws.


      This predictable yet inexorable catastrophe can be traced directly to Capital's most basic imperative: grow or die. Extraction must generate profit. Market "externalities", such as pollutants, must remain an unquantifiable, hidden cost, allowing distorted prices to create perverse incentives, resulting inevitably in the squandering of our children's future ("cheap" palm oil, "cheap" coal, etc). Some believe prices can be set to reflect "true social costs" (perhaps by a climate czar?). Others believe we can spray aerosols into the atmosphere or cover the oceans with reflective foam. Others believe Jesus can help us out. While a smattering of optimists propose "de-growth" or "de-coupling" growth from emissions, we argue that all these proposals are delusional at best, and in many respects serve a counter-revolutionary reaction. Both the fantasy of continuous growth and the dream of "capitalism with a human face" depends on human subjects willing to pull the wool over their own eyes.


      Despite the optimistic title of Naomi Klein's 2014 book, little has actually changed when it comes to the relentless trajectory of global warming. After a brief levelling, CO2 emissions are once again on the rise, oil production is at an all-time high and hundreds of new coal-fired power plants are in the pipeline. In a strangely perverse relationship, as each new study is produced showing accelerated climate effects and a shortened timeline before irreversible tipping points are reached, less and less ambition to remedy the situation is demonstrated.


      For mainstream climate groups, the reaction to this dark cloud has been to focus on "silver linings". They point to the falling cost/price-point of renewable energy (and ignore their falling market share over-all) They point to a growing "awareness". They point to the "resistance" of progressive "inter-sectional" social movements (Me Too, gun control, Black Lives Matter, etc) and ignore their lack of institutional power. They shift their strategic focus to "local solutions" and ignore the gap in scale with what needs to actually happen ("rapidly"). They send out on-line petitions, organize marches and lobby politicians. Again, too little too late. "Blockadia", the UN process, Bill Mc Kibben, all have been absorbed seamlessly into the Spectacle as investment and accumulation continue apace. No doubt solar powered sweatshops are preferable to climate chaos, but the chance of "renewables" replacing current, much less projected energy needs, are nil to none.


      Such nostalgic, anachronistic strategies will not stop global heating in time. The goal is too complex and the timeframe too short. There is no organizing model which can build a constituency powerful enough, rapidly enough, to challenge the eco-cidal system through political or economic pressure. While we agree "there is no blueprint for ecological salvation", the ideologically fractured climate movement can't even settle on language with which to describe the crisis, much less agree on a general theoretical foundation to guide action. Is it a techno-managerial problem in need of research funding? A market failure in need of investment? A political issue in need of policy and consensus? A movement issue needing more people in the street?


      In the face of this historical crisis we see two choices, and both are "worse". Perhaps Thatcher was correct and the sane course is to join those already headed up the Dark Mountain. But our argument here is that for these Spectacular times, there is but one other spectacular possibility for realizing a more emancipatory, egalitarian future; attend to and accelerate the unravelling. This we might call the politics of rupture, where efforts are directed towards "heightening the contradictions" and encouraging the current order to implode or self-immolate as swiftly as possible. Rather than work to ameliorate or mitigate or adapt to the damage, we act as if our house is on fire. Which it is. When "everything under heaven is in utter chaos" it might just be that "the situation is" if not exactly "excellent", at least open to some degree. It might just be that only through the maelstrom of crisis do the conditions of possibility for true emancipatory change exist; why then not embrace it, fan the flames and use the crisis to advance a radical restructuring? If you have run out of time and options, isn't the Hail Mary the perfect choice? Must the shock doctrine only be applied by right-wing revolutionaries?


      In our view, the only possibility for radical structural change then is for an "Event" to occur which radically displaces the dominant discourses and logics and thoroughly undermines the legitimacy of the current order. In other words, a rupture in the protective veil which exposes the lacuna at the core of liberal "democratic" capitalism, a rupture occurring simultaneously in the ideological as well as material realms. It is only through this tear in the production and re-production of capital's current hegemony, in the circuits of capital itself, that a gap may be opened, a wound to make it vulnerable to infection. All other efforts at reform simply reinforce those logics and legitimize the (re)production.


      Many serious voices will argue that this is a path to violent conflict and increasing misery. And they are probably correct. Given a wide array of options, it is certainly not a path one would choose. But that luxury is not our reality. And it is not as though violent conflict can somehow be avoided; we exist in its midst and with every passing day it only increases. The ecocide and murder and savage injustice are real; they are simply occurring at a convenient remove, out on the easily-ignored periphery. That we in the Center remain, however temporary, in comfort and privilege within our increasingly fragile bubble should not be cause for celebration nor hesitation when it comes to recognizing our moral duty to subvert, dismantle and replace the ruling order. This argument rests within an undecidable, indeterminate paradox; though we live in an age that knows no time, time pressures us to act expediently. That is, while the Catastrophe lies at the edge of our under-theorized, dystopian imaginary, now is the perfect Moment to demand the impossible; to precipitate the Event. Only through a radical disobedience and refusal to participate at every level can the curtain be ripped away, exposing all the venal, corrupt illusions which hold us enthralled. If, as Walter Benjamin advised, "it is our task to bring about the real state of emergency", we must embrace the urgency and re-acknowledge the arrow of time. Rapidly.


      What will a rupture look like? What form could such an event possibly assume? This type of conjuncture, one capable of inflicting such a lethal wound, would be both qualitatively and quantitatively unprecedented. It would disrupt material flows, undermine the legitimacy of the ruling order and demonstrate the fragility of current management. Imagine a series of storms followed by migration, breakdown of services, a freeze on all investment, a run on banks, the insolvency of the re-insurance system, etc.. yet not to the point of collapse. Imagine a break in supply chains, a halt to fossil fuel production and distribution. Imagine the point where founding myths, dominant narratives and ideological constructs are no longer tenable. The point where the old order no longer has the energy to preserve itself and a new one can gain legitimacy. If this sounds unreasonable it is because it is.


      Here I am not suggesting we simply wait for Nature's fury; the Event requires action. The task is to combine agency with contingency and there exist many ways the legitimacy of the current order can be undermined and its hollow ideology exposed. First might be what John Bellamy Foster has called "a shift in tactics towards active non-cooperation with the political-economic hegemony." The Kabuki theatre which is voting must be actively exposed and denounced while advancing a vision of what a truly political sphere would entail. Through agitation, the vast pool of apathy might be converted to open antagonism while the massive bloc which believes the system corrupt (but which participates anyway) can be encouraged to publicly renounce and boycott all party activity and the election farce. Individually, voting or not means nothing. Collectively not voting eviscerates the ideological underpinnings of the "inverted totalitarianism" of the "soft" power structure. Again, the language of "citizenship" and "civic duty", upon which the system rests, is the ideological terrain for struggle.


      One popular strategy for undermining capitalist relations is withdrawing from industrial production and consumption and establishing localized nodes of self-sufficiency. For many this coincides with preparation for surviving imminent climate chaos as well. We assert that such economic autonomy can only be partial and fractured at best. As a model for liberation or climate adaptation, it has limited, extremely variable applicability on a global scale. To be sure, labor can be a site for disruption, as can distribution and consumption. But the globalized, digitized nature of late-capitalist work means Marxian categories are shifting and theory must adapt.


      Perhaps a more pragmatic strategy is withdrawing from governance and all forms of "civic engagement" in order to puncture the illusion of "citizenship" which maintains the hegemonic rule of dominant classes. As active participants in cultural jamming, "all that is sacred must be profaned"; property rights exposed as a tool for dispossession and exploitation, exchange value exposed as a tool to maintain power and despoil the planet, laws which place things over beings exposed as morally and spiritually corrupt, dismantling oppressive austerity versus prosperity memes and inserting new, liberating memes; egalitarian, abundance oriented memes that demonstrate intrinsic value and real emancipation. To the extent possible we would want to see "all that is solid turned into air", for instance stocks, shares, productive property, even currency.


      And finally, the most crucial rupture must serve to actually repair the "ecological rift" between humanity and nature. It is this contradiction which has brought us to the point of existential crisis and it cannot be resolved within capitalist relations. Hence the disavowal, denial and dissociation which characterize modern irrational rationality. We must rupture the illusion of "Man's" dominance, of humanities separation and alienation from The Whole. The Integrity of the Ecosphere depends on understanding and then integrating our species-being back into this Whole. Rationally, we know such a "shift" in consciousness, in culture, in relations and institutions should take generations. Unfortunately, as Andreas Malm reminds us, "speed is the critical dimension". Not only don't we have generations, we don't even have decades. To embrace a project of such irreducible, radical indeterminacy requires a leap beyond our conception of "the possible". This is uncharted territory and to navigate it successfully will take skill, flexibility and more than a little luck.


       


      James:


      My response to this was immediate and unrefined. The kind of thing one would/could expect upon some massive rupture to the system. I do not care about any spelling, grammar or other problems. I am too pissed to care about that shit. Like Hamilton did, just dump shit on top of me, this ablog Dave has elicited an emotional response that will no doubt prove my fucking madness once and for all. One fucking finger typing at breakneck speed to capture my thoughts as they arise, which is fucking impossible.


      INTELLECTUALS ARE FULL OF SHIT.


      Don't give a shit what Mouffe thinks. What premise? The premise that market capitalism has driven us to despair? Bakunin knew that hundreds of years ago. And it really should be state market capitalism. Bookchin died in despair under failure because he always saw the enemy as capitalism but his solution was political and economically too vague and unprescribed. And also because when it gets down to that kind of thing the Left just fucking fights itself.


       


      It is not growth at all, it is the accumulation of all businesses accumulating surplus and hence capital to keep going.. growth is a general term, an average, that is used to convince people local or national economies are working, nothing more. It is not about growth or degrowth it is about a new set of economic institutions that can foster the sorts of values "we" want.


      No there isn't because there are no blueprints, but there are significant attempts at coming up with new economic ideas, most vague, unfinished or not enough and at least one coherent model. That one model should stand as a beacon, not as some "blueprint" but a symbol of what is actually needed.


      And I have a real issue with this.. anarcho-primmies want this as well. No, this will not do because this does not tell me how many people will be fucked up by the move. And what arises out of the chaos may be worse, which is an unacceptable outcome. This is where the we becomes clear.


      We are a different animal. Very. We initiated the Anthropocene because of that difference. To fuel it under the hope the circumstances will initiate change for the better is complete guess work and denies the notion that we have a capacity to envision and prescribe a better way of consuming, producing and allocating.. which remains always as the fundamental institutions for our species - unless you revert to the status of most other species which is brute nature.. the Earth produces, we consume and allocation is survival of the fittest. No, this will not fucking do. And if this is seriously taken up as a possibility, then I will reaffirm my position to my 23 and 29 yr old daughters to NOT have kids.. and I will continue to load this fucking website up, with the most inane nullshit and tripe you can think of, including my fucking music..


      Instead of the word lacuna, gap would have done. And this solution does nothing. It is surrender and ignores that no matter what happens after the rupture and the whole thing breaks down, what emerges will, and I mean will, be absolutely no fucking different, in the sense of words like equality, justice, solidarity and the rest.


      Fuck what all these intellectuals say or have said. Fuck citing them and lauding them with smarts and insight when all those who do so offer ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in return to replace ALL THE SHIT OR THE STATE OF EMERGENCY WITH.


      This is bullshit and merely highlights everything I have been saying.. that there is NO left because of the incapacity of ALL those out there writing about the shit that's about to hit the fucking fan to sit in a room together and seriously nut shit out. And then what they fucking do is hand over responsibility to some vague bullshit notion of participatory democracy as if what happened at Occupy was an example f how it can be done...Occupy was the antithesis of that due to the inane incapacity of all to embrace much needed economic, production, consumption, allocation, prescription because they heads are all so full of the fucking shit they read and the ideas that define their own fucking image of themselves.


      Oh, I get it, now all the smart people who, others quote start to imagine the future and what could happen. Envisioning the process and how to navigate it. But create a complete coherent clear alternative economic plan like Parecon is fucking idiocy or utopian bullshit. No, it's wait for the thing to collapse and then this may follow and we do this, or that, then that or this...yeah, and who are the fuckers making these decisions Dave? Bellamy Fucking Foster, because he's a smart guy.. not the fucking brute who lives down the fucking road with the biggest gun.. NOW we are predicting the future and offering best solutions.. and out of the chaos and brutish existence that follows we begin to envision the future and come up with strategies.. who is doing this all.


      The "strategy" completely ignores the fact, the real FACT, that after the rupture the fucking problem, the REAL problem is the fucking same and WORSE, because FEAR will increase along with IRRATIONALITY and on top of all that and the chaos and uncertainty, we will have all sorts of communication problems to deal with which basically means most people will be in the dark and.. nah.. this is bullshit. I felt as much when Hamilton said what he said to me.


      There may still be rupture further on down the road, but what the supposed CARING AND LOVING LEFT has to do is embrace coherent clear VISION and STRATEGY NOW, and any thought of FAST TRACKING makes this even more urgent.


      Why are any of these responses mooted here given any credence post rupture when many couldn't take hold pre rupture. The assumption here is that the chaos will deliver more understanding that pure reasoning, debate and discussion, talk, couldn't deliver pre rupture. All of a sudden people realise the absurdity of the system.


      Yeah, all of a sudden amid all the fear, turmoil, chaos, irrationality and emotion people will latch onto all these ideas.. fucking memes.. how will those memes spread in the chaos and even if they do, how will all those words like egalitarian, abundance, intrinsic value and emancipation be realised? Huh? Same fucking place as now. What will be the institutional structure of production, consumption and allocation the future? And if you say you don't know for sure, which you have to, then why fucking even bother thinking about it now.


      WHY FUCKING BOTHER?


      This just reminds of this place. It started out with all this nervous energy with a few people who seemed to care all in one place, but in the end we just couldn't get along so everyone just fucking left.


      And I know now why. So that won't be seen doing what they are there are doing elsewhere by a large number of people. It's easier to sit among a small number of people who agree rather than a large number of people really trying to nut out how and what the future of our species will produce, consume and allocate. No, that is too fucking hard.


      Michael Albert is fucking right. The Left is afraid to win because winning means working together and it seems this cannot be done.


      Next time you see a Monbiot Dave, tell him to quit working for that fucking piece of mainstream shit called the Guardian and put his own fucking life on the line as the majority of people in the world do everyday, unnoticed. Tell anyone advocating this shit to write up a manifesto stating how rupture makes envisioning or building a better future MORE likely. If you can't, then they can fuck off.


      A little LUCK? Really? Fuck me. All this shit about ecological rifts and mans irrational rationality and fucking intellectual and philosophical musings is a fucking ruse. Nothing in the above is helpful and nothing in it gives me any hope and ai always had a little. Hamilton's response to me was similar to this. And when he said it, actually wrote it in an email to me, my heart sank and I seriously wanted to reach into the iPad and rip all his intellectual being out of his fucking body because he was giving me nothing in the most arrogant of ways.


      I do not care about this post and whether it is coherent or not. I care not about whether people think I am a fucking idiot or not. I care not whether my response is seen as a fucking mad man or not. This is the kind of response that this kind of "solution" creates in me. It makes everything I have been trying to fucking deal with for the last decade and a half immersing myself in a learning curve without any fucking help from anyone except maybe Michael Albert here and there. It makes my embrace of the only coherent and clear economic alternative to market capitalism look fucking immature and childish. Oh no James, there are great thinkers out there that have written about the human condition that have far greater insight than you can ever have and if you just read more widely, collated all the information more astutely, you would see that your position is untenable. Even the fucking phrase "ecological rift"is meaningless to me. All the intellectual bullshit peddled within the left just falls away as nothing but meaningless words.


      Fucking rifts, and paradoxes, and contradictions, and dialectics, and negative dialectics, and even growth.. it's all, all of it nothing but a way to reaffirm individual egos repairing the rift between humans and nature? What the funk does that mean.. nothing. Nothing without a clear plan, because planning is what makes us different. There is no rift between humans and nature, because nature is just a fucking word. There is only death and nothing more. And millions of people die everyday because we cannot organise production, consumption and allocation in a way that ensures we all wake up with a smile on our faces.. it is nothing more than fucking that. It is that or death.


      The thing that Hamilton made me hate was his smug intellectualism. As if he'd fucking nailed it.


      FUCKING INTELLECTUALS!


      When Patrul Rinpoche was being introduced to the nature of his mind by Do Khyenste, he smelled alcohol on him. Do Khyentse had been drinking some Tibetan beer. Patrul Rinpoche had a thought, oh, so even great masters get drunk and behave in ways. Do Khyenste apparently read his mind, grabbed him around the head and said, you intellectuals are just so full of shit and hit him.. apparently with that Patrul Rinpoche's mind was cleared.


      Once a student asked his master that if the Buddha was so all knowing and powerful,why does he not just wake everyone up from the sleep,of delusion. The master answered, who's asleep?


      Who indeed? What "who"?


      The fucking a Left is asleep and the above strategy is basically giving up.


       


       

    • Irie Zen 30th Nov 2018

      ^^ I'm working. Doing my part.

    • Irie Zen 30th Nov 2018

      I love NEON textmarkers.

      @James "And if this is seriously taken up as a possibility [..] I will continue to load this fucking website up, with the most inane nullshit and tripe you can think of, including my fucking music.."

      Noooooooo.... XD

    • Irie Zen 30th Nov 2018

      The brain police.. Run!

    • Irie Zen 30th Nov 2018

    • Irie Zen 30th Nov 2018

       


      KRS1: "This is the problem with the United States; there's no leadership. A leader would say Police brutality is an oxymoron. There are no brutal police. The minute you become brutal, you're no longer the police. So what we're dealing with out here.. we're not dealing with police. We're dealing with a federally authorized gang."


       

  • Dave Jones 25th Nov 2018

    Bro, I appreciate your passion and intellect and arguments around communicating in ways that can make a difference. And I may be overly alarmist when it comes to the time frame; maybe less convulsive ways of raising awareness do exist and will be found (soon). But I also know there are lots of good people headed up the Dark Mountain, that is, already focused on grieving and constructing ways to live through the end times. There are also lots of people, techno-accelerationist types, gearing up for major geoengineering projects. So this post is just a fuck no to both these camps.

    As for Bageant's Deer Hunters (the people I live among here in rural Montana), I probably can't reach most of them but their children are pissed and have no great allegiance to capitalism. Shit is going to start unravelling faster and faster no matter what we do. So we can just wade through the flooded streets and stumble through the smoke and keep slouching towards Bethlehem for another lost decade or...what?

    Here is what Richard Smith proposes:

    "retrench and in some cases completely shut down hundreds if not thousands of downstream fossil fuel-dependent companies in transportation, petrochemicals and plastics, manufacturing, construction, agribusiness, tourism and more. In some cases such as plastics, disposable products, and others, we would have to virtually abolish entire industries because there’s just no other way to suppress their emissions and make them sustainable"

    But of course any legislation containing this sort of language would be laughed at. So then we all go get arrested at the Extinction Rebellion, thousands filling the jails, and then they stop laughing? They nationalize the commanding heights of the US economy? Because there is a general strike? Which scenarios can we imagine, as long as we are visioning?

    • Boulder Dash 25th Nov 2018

      And I appreciate your passion Dave. We are all passionate about something.

      Strategies to get arrested but to what ends. Disrupt that with thousands (seems like a lot) but for what? For what?

      The top end talent of left thinkers, excluding the gobbledygookers ,cannot really agree on anything definitive other than let’s see as we go...how do you get thousands to have themselves arrested for that? What institutional structural replacements for the current system are in the bag? It’s easy to protest and get arrested for a children’s school crossing but for system change based on vague notions?

      The reform/revolution thing hasn’t been solved. That boundary between action/direct action and a continued march toward system change has not been traversed it seems to me. How on earth is fast tracking rupture to solve that while people would have to deal with all sorts of other life issues simultaneously when in their heads new economic institutions hardly exist...”What, no markets?” “What’s a planned economy? How would that work?”

      And Albert AND Hahnel sit in a dark corner because too many on the left get hung up on detail. Parecon is the planned economy Smith goes on about, but never mentions exists. If it isn’t then what’s he talking about? What planned economy does he have in mind, mixed with markets? Par Devine? Erik Olin Wright? If so, elucidate like fuck and put them out there in simple words.

      And they all sound more often than not, like market socialist varieties that probably could be accommodated within some transitional reformist strategic program in conjunction with a green new deal. But you still gotta know where it’s all going to land? No? But then, one may get behind such an initiative, kind of like the NSP, only to find the Left is divided on this. No, it’s too slow, won’t do this, this will happen, thecruling classes will coopt it all, we need more rioting, the language is not strong enough, they are ignoring the ecology too much, etc..

      Meanwhile the planned economy a hardcore like Smith wants sits alone over in the dark ZNet cubicle being ignored because most are too afraid to embrace it and a possible strategy to achieve it.

      What’s the point of fast tracking because you think all strategies occurring now are not gonna work, because we’re already fucked, but you have nothing to replace anything with other than what people are already offering, which you debunk as ineffective and which most people have never heard of, so its a kind of non democratic forcing of the issue?

      “But of course any legislation containing this sort of language would be laughed at. So then we all go get arrested at the Extinction Rebellion, thousands filling the jails, and then they stop laughing? They nationalize the commanding heights of the US economy? Because there is a general strike? Which scenarios can we imagine, as long as we are visioning?”

      Are we visioning here or just talking strategy that leads where? All question marks it seems. They nationalise the commanding heights of the economy and then? Do they stop laughing with thousands arrested? Do they? Are all those arrested clear and up on the reasons for being arrested and the direction the strategy is taking us all? Are the top end talent, who most listen to and rely on for guidance, and they do, who do not include the gobbledygookers, are they clear, are they really together? re Zizek, Negri and Hardy, Timmy Morton, and a host of thousands there, holding hands, getting arrested? Or are they off to the side writing about it, peeeling back the layers, deconstructing? Do we need leaders? Are they united on vision? If so what is it? Are we making it all up as we go along?

      Are we really visioning here or panicking?

  • Dave Jones 25th Nov 2018

    Hey, reminds me of this book on my shelf : Chomsky- Foucault debate on Human Nature where Noam says he hates all the post-modern gobbledygook that tells you nothing about what to do and Foucault is like "Monsieur Chomsky, you must de-construct the many layers" and Chomsky says the workers are getting screwed by the boss, Just as reported in the NYTimes" and nobody asks Michael Albert, huddled in a dark ZNet cubicle, a damn thing.

    • Boulder Dash 25th Nov 2018

      Exactly, seen the video of the book Dave...That’s why I like Chomsky better...I understand him. Although I must admit that Noam’s old voice could be bottled and sold as a sedative! But further, if you are going to gobbledygook, then do it with fun and humour like a Ben Watson does.

      “It is a peculiarity of thought that it never remains by itself, but always digresses to other things. The thought is the point to which I should stick, but it is the nature of this point, not to be able to stick to it. Thinking is a thing full of contradictions, a dialect secret."(Joseph Dietzgen, 'Letters on logic', II, 1880-1883, in Art, Class & Cleavage: Quantulumcunque Concerning Material Esthetix, Ben Watson 1998)

      See, I can handle this shit and piss all over it at the same time!

      I like Frank better because he’s easy to understand.


    • Boulder Dash 25th Nov 2018

      If Hedges is right and the US only has a decade or so before collapse, rather than sell rupture and bring it on, use that short time to sell solid vision, solid economic vision, because thats where the argument is...economics...production, consumption and allocation.

    • Irie Zen 30th Nov 2018

       


      Dave:


      Bro, I appreciate your passion and intellect and arguments around communicating in ways that can make a difference. And I may be overly alarmist when it comes to the time frame; maybe less convulsive ways of raising awareness do exist and will be found (soon). But I also know there are lots of good people headed up the Dark Mountain, that is, already focused on grieving and constructing ways to live through the end times. There are also lots of people, techno-accelerationist types, gearing up for major geoengineering projects. So this post is just a fuck no to both these camps.


      As for Bageant's Deer Hunters (the people I live among here in rural Montana), I probably can't reach most of them but their children are pissed and have no great allegiance to capitalism. Shit is going to start unravelling faster and faster no matter what we do. So we can just wade through the flooded streets and stumble through the smoke and keep slouching towards Bethlehem for another lost decade or...what?


      Here is what Richard Smith proposes:


      "retrench and in some cases completely shut down hundreds if not thousands of downstream fossil fuel-dependent companies in transportation, petrochemicals and plastics, manufacturing, construction, agribusiness, tourism and more. In some cases such as plastics, disposable products, and others, we would have to virtually abolish entire industries because there's just no other way to suppress their emissions and make them sustainable"


      But of course any legislation containing this sort of language would be laughed at. So then we all go get arrested at the Extinction Rebellion, thousands filling the jails, and then they stop laughing? They nationalize the commanding heights of the US economy? Because there is a general strike?


      Which scenarios can we imagine, as long as we are visioning?


       


      James:


      And I appreciate your passion Dave. We are all passionate about something.


      Strategies to get arrested but to what ends. Disrupt that with thousands (seems like a lot) but for what? For what?


      The top end talent of left thinkers, excluding the gobbledygookers, cannot really agree on anything definitive other than let's see as we go.. how do you get thousands to have themselves arrested for that? What institutional structural replacements for the current system are in the bag? It's easy to protest and get arrested for a children's school crossing but for system change based on vague notions?


      The reform/revolution thing hasn't been solved. That boundary between action/direct action and a continued march toward system change has not been traversed it seems to me. How on earth is fast tracking rupture to solve that while people would have to deal with all sorts of other life issues simultaneously when in their heads new economic institutions hardly exist..."What, no markets?" "What's a planned economy? How would that work?"


      And Albert AND Hahnel sit in a dark corner because too many on the left get hung up on detail. Parecon is the planned economy Smith goes on about, but never mentions exists. If it isn't then what's he talking about? What planned economy does he have in mind, mixed with markets? Par Devine? Erik Olin Wright? If so, elucidate like fuck and put them out there in simple words.


      And they all sound more often than not, like market socialist varieties that probably could be accommodated within some transitional reformist strategic program in conjunction with a green new deal. But you still gotta know where it's all going to land? No? But then, one may get behind such an initiative, kind of like the NSP, only to find the Left is divided on this. No, it's too slow, won't do this, this will happen, the (cruelin'/RULING) classes will coopt it all, we need more rioting, the language is not strong enough, they are ignoring the ecology too much, etc..


      Meanwhile the planned economy a hardcore like Smith wants sits alone over in the dark ZNet cubicle being ignored because most are too afraid to embrace it and a possible strategy to achieve it.


      What's the point of fast tracking because you think all strategies occurring now are not gonna work, because we're already fucked, but you have nothing to replace anything with other than what people are already offering, which you debunk as ineffective and which most people have never heard of, so its a kind of non democratic forcing of the issue?


      Are we visioning here or just talking strategy that leads where? All question marks it seems. They nationalise the commanding heights of the economy and then? Do they stop laughing with thousands arrested? Do they? Are all those arrested clear and up on the reasons for being arrested and the direction the strategy is taking us all? Are the top end talent, who most listen to and rely on for guidance, and they do, who do not include the gobbledygookers, are they clear, are they really together? re Zizek, Negri and Hardy, Timmy Morton, and a host of thousands there, holding hands, getting arrested? Or are they off to the side writing about it, peee(eeeeeeee)ling back the layers, deconstructing? Do we need leaders? Are they united on vision? If so what is it? Are we making it all up as we go along?


      Are we really visioning here or panicking?


       


      Dave:


      Hey, reminds me of this book on my shelf : Chomsky- Foucault debate on Human Nature where Noam says he hates all the post-modern gobbledygook that tells you nothing about what to do and Foucault is like "Monsieur Chomsky, you must de-construct the many layers" and Chomsky says the workers are getting screwed by the boss, Just as reported in the NYTimes" and nobody asks Michael Albert, huddled in a dark ZNet cubicle, a damn thing.


       


      James:


      Exactly, seen the video of the book Dave.. That's why I like Chomsky better.. I understand him. Although I must admit that Noam's old voice could be bottled and sold as a sedative! But further, if you are going to gobbledygook, then do it with fun and humour like a Ben Watson does.


      "It is a peculiarity of thought that it never remains by itself, but always digresses to other things. The thought is the point to which I should stick, but it is the nature of this point, not to be able to stick to it. Thinking is a thing full of contradictions, a dialect secret." (Joseph Dietzgen, 'Letters on logic', II, 1880-1883, in Art, Class & Cleavage: Quantulumcunque Concerning Material Esthetix, Ben Watson 1998)


      See, I can handle this shit and piss all over it at the same time!


      I like Frank better because he's easy to understand.


       


      [..]


       


      If Hedges is right and the US only has a decade or so before collapse, rather than sell rupture and bring it on, use that short time to sell solid vision, solid economic vision, because thats where the argument is...economics...production, consumption and allocation.


       

    • Irie Zen 30th Nov 2018

      2nd sheet.. XD

    • Irie Zen 30th Nov 2018

      ^^ helps me crossread..

    • Irie Zen 30th Nov 2018

       


      @ Dave, James and Alex:


      I appreciate your passion and intellect AND MUSIC and arguments and communication in ways that can make a difference.


       


      @ Dave:


      Headless | Upwards | The Dark Mountain | Headless | Into | The Black Mirror | Grieving | Preppin' | The End of Days | Techno-Accelerationist | Major Geoengineering Projects | Fuck Yeah | Yo Trigger | My Trigger Finger


      RUN D33R_HUN73R_18.EXE | Rural Montana '22 (Far Cry 5)


      We will retrench and in some cases completely shut down hundreds if not thousands of downstream fossil fuel-dependent companies in transportation, petrochemicals and plastics, manufacturing, construction, agribusiness, tourism and more by 2022! In some cases such as plastics, disposable products, and others, we will abolish entire industries because there's just no other way to suppress their emissions and make them sustainable!


      +++ Any legislation containing my language would be laughed at! 4 got arrested at the (Extinction-)*Rebellion* ::: 42,000 more terrorists in the gulag; And they keep on laughing! Episode V: "The Empire Strikes Back" because there is a general strike! +++


      Which scenarios can we imagine, as long as we are visioning? Muy-muy-many! Yes mese can.


       


      @ James:


      What? For what? Who? The brain police? Negan? The top end talent of left thinkers primo gobbledygook (IOPSwordoftheyear2018). System change based on what? Who? Echo? Ecco!


      go | reform | go | revolution | go | action | go | direct | action


      +++*run*toward*system*change*+++


      "What, no markets?" | "What's a planned economy? | How would that work?"


      It must put dem out dear in simple words. I guts no tyme and mad in bed with bad and bat. Dash! Evasive maneuvers?


      Gobble; gobble; die; die; gook; gook; market socialist varieties probably echo'sedated wit'nin tranzional refoamist strategeez in conjunKKKtion with a Green New Deal (GEE'N'DEE) (?) (I. Z. Nessuno-Raskolnikov, 'Letters from the colony', Episode 1492, 1983-2022, in RedCatBlack: Funk Is A Mother Fucker, 2018)


      ^^ Fuck ZNet cubicles. But repost their shit'n'stuff here if it triggers you somehow. Like! +1!


      Yeah; what's the point of fast tracking; we're already fucked.


      ^^ Are we visioning here or just talking strategy that leads where? All. And. Nothing. Zen. Breathe. Let go. And Back Again. Keep; Keep; Keep prepared for the battle. BREAK!


       


      [..]


       


      ^^ Peee(eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee)ling back the layers; de-con-template! Do we need leaders? Are they united on vision? If so what is it? Are we making it all up as we go along? IDK, nope, whazzup? U good 2day? YES! WE! CAN!


       


      @ Dave again:


      "Chomsky was here."


      MUST re-construct the de-construction of many layers and INTERFERENCE


      *meanwhile workers are getting screwed*


       


      @ James again:


       


      ^^ See, I can handle this shit and piss all over it at the same time! Yo the man bro!


      I like Frank better because he's easy to understand. Zappa? I agree XD XD XD LOVE!!


       


      [..]


       


      +++ The World Collapsed in 2028 +++ 


      ::: Economics 101 :::


      ::: Production, Consumption, Allocation :::


       


       

  • Alex of... 25th Nov 2018

    i already can't keep up! sort of..

    there's three blogs with related content since i recently posted comments on one of.. based on the piece by Monbiot. i've taken a number of notes, as there's multiple topics within each set of content/comments. and each time i've come back, there's more comments! so now, i'm whittling down to make a choice of what to comment on. i may attempt, as time allows, to break down some of those pieces, as i perceive at least, in a separate blog. dude, i can't predict the future.

    at least know, i'm just choosing a couple things to weigh in on. i'm a bit taken-aback at the notion i might be "a reasoned well mannered" sort. that's probably not what most get out of me, lol. maybe i'm getting better at constructing and communicating my thoughts, or maybe.. i've been pacified! what i think i know, is that a topic like "so what is it that you propose we do?"..when it comes to solving global disparity and ecological crisis, is not going to lead to simple yes or no, this or that answers, if being seriously pursued (as all here are). all in all, i don't claim to know jack-shit, but i'm not exactly some black-clad kid running around screaming "smash the state" either.

    for the sake of any others reading.. the other two blogs:

    http://www.iopsociety.org/blog/the-earth-is-in-a-death-spiral
    http://www.iopsociety.org/blog/dreams

    "Are we visioning here or just talking strategy that leads where?"

    first, i'll say a short bit about my interpretation of the Rupture strategy. i am instantly reminded of Derrick Jensen's question "what's your threshold?" this is part of his recognition that we have already been collapsing ecosystems and destroying entire species, while there is also much agreement we are headed for much larger collapse(s). so at what point would you fight back?

    fighting back could mean a lot of things, a lot of different strategies, including arguing for a more unified strategy. Jensen's frustration comes from first trying conventional means and seeing very little results. seeing only the same faces at organized meetings. seeing protective gains get rolled back. seeing very little interest from the culture at large. seeing us daily sink further into a pit we will eventually not be able to climb out of at all. it leads to an exploration of other means that may be necessary. if people are not willing to face our self-destructive course in mass, but we are headed to a place of collapse that will wipe out much/most/all of human and non-human existence, then perhaps we can actually save lives by inducing collapse before that, which would not require as much consensus.. could be carried out by smaller numbers (hypothetically).

    Rupture sounds a bit more like a cross between Adbusters and Hedges, but with similar thinking. culture jamming and mass civil-disobedience. though, i do not read that as giving up. i read it more as an acknowledgment that we are simply running out of time to get "everyone" on board, and may have to accept that transition is not going to be as smooth and planned as would be preferred.

    i don't think any of it implies not working toward better consensus on what kind of world can actually be just and sustainable, or other related actions. i'm reminded now of a strategic idea i had many many moons ago i called microtrauma, based on the fact that muscles develop from small tears that the body repairs, but stronger. what you are doing if you lift weights, for example. tear it too much, and it's just fucked. on the flip-side, that body might just be the state. tear it a bit, it reinforces itself. this might be a matter of the shock-doctrine concept. you need to have some of your vision in hand with the strategy, knowing ahead what you hope to build immediately once a wound is inflicted.

    i do understand the objection to some of this rationale of induced collapse or rupturing. for one, we live in a highly weaponized global society.. fucking nukes. and! i've seen the Walking Dead. remove the zombies, and some of it is not that unrealistic. i have a few doubts about the efficacy of some of the pursuits mentioned, though i don't disqualify some of the possibilities either.

    but, i would also ask.. if say, Parecon is the vision being worked toward, is it at all reasonable for me to think it likely we can avert a decade-away "point of no return" with CO2 levels, through pursuit of that kind of vision? even with substantial consensus by leading lefties? the institutional changes required are enormous, no?

    and yes, i also recognize what Dave called the "looming elephant in the room" in the other post. our ecological crisis is not just climate change, for one part. i'm not actually heading down that road at the moment here. it leads me to ask what one believes a sustainable, equitable future for 8 billion people actually looks like.

    the question is more like, are there means (rupture or not) we need to utilize more immediately to avert the worst of the climate change issue, while also building support and foundation toward a more egalitarian society?

    • Boulder Dash 26th Nov 2018

      My point really is yeah, you need to have some vision to head for or what’s the repair? Again it’s not the Parecon is the answer, it’s thatbit is a vision, and a planned economy, and as Dave says below, it’s been ignored. So bring on the rupture...then what? There may be consensus as to repair bit who knows if there isn’t anything strong. As Alex says, it can possibly be brought on without consensus so how do you get it after the shit hits the fan? Even with Hedges, it seems he doesn’t have any replacement for what needs stopping...he just kind of says it needs to be stopped.

      I’m calmer now, but shrugging my shoulders...seems like most existing strategies don’t work, aren’t working and something like Parecon is out too far into the future. Maybe it’s not giving up,e a toy but it’s kinda close...throwing the hands up in the air and caution to the wind with some vague notions as to what to do afterwards, if you can get enough on board...

    • Boulder Dash 26th Nov 2018

      I really gotta proof read my shit!

    • Alex of... 27th Nov 2018

      you break it, you buy it

  • Dave Jones 25th Nov 2018

    Hey, isn't anybody else going to weigh in in in in...? Hello hello hello? Anyway, knowing how enthralled I am with rubbing elbows with lefty celebrities, check this out: I had post-lecture drinks with Hedges about a month ago up in Missoula. He (rightfully) focused more on the younger student-types so I didn't get to wow him with my rupture rant. I appreciate his passion, man doesn't hedge one bit ha ha.

    So then, "use that short time to sell solid vision"... I do talk about agitation and education, for instance, with advocating mass boycotting of voting, but after Albert trying to sell his vision for 15 years, after me trying to sell it for 10, after Occupy and Standing Rock, after our climate symposium and standing in front of coal trains and sitting in all over the place I have come to see the remarkable durability of the super-structure. You can pry away at John Holloway's "cracks" but it's more like shale that just peels off in endless thin layers.

    The 07/08 financial meltdown was an opportunity and I prayed the contagion would spread but alas...Obama..still, many folks were radicalized through the event. And carbon emissions dropped big time. This is why I say the sooner the better, while there is still something to salvage, still a few patches of living coral here and there.

    We keep hearing about "stranded assets" and a "carbon bubble" and I ask: wouldn't it be better to pop the thing and use the collective dismay and disgust to gain entry, to fill the void and insert a new, rational, humanist narrative? Have you read ( or seen the film The Take) about the economic collapse of Argentina 2001? How people self-organized and recouped factories in a more or less spontaneous manner? (and I'm aware of all the complexities and the aftermath but it was a moment) As I wrote, I only see two options and they are both worse and getting worser by the second.I'm all done marching. Managed shock or anarchic collapse my friend. make history or let it make you.

    • Irie Zen 26th Nov 2018

       


      People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones; Commonly misinterpreted as being a proverb warning against hypocrisy. This is incorrect. The actual meaning is closer to that of "if you can't take it, don't dish it out". If you are a type of person who is easily offended, do not go around offending people unless you can handle being offended yourself.


      Here we go. Five intellectual monkeys.. no offense.. walk into a bar.. sounds like the beginning of a joke.. is it going to be one? I hope not.. but if.. let's make it a good and understandable one.. here at the ITPOSO.. XD


      Rightyright then. It appears to me like the 5 of us could form a coalition of the willing. I'm indeed willing to push things forward here. This cell of comrades and fighters was born 10 days ago. That's nothing. 54 comments below 3 blogs is something. Who would have thought that.. btw.. I really enjoyed reading your stuff'n'shit. All of it! You guys are great. Let's find out if we can keep up the spirit.


      I agree with Alex. It's getting hard to keep up but we started a lively brainstorming session which is exactly what I would have proposed. A creative process/project needs that; an incubation period/phase where ideas, thoughts and random statements or arguments "fly". We shouldn't restrict ourselves yet. Visioning is good. Talking about possible strategies is good too. Let's give this stage at least eight more weeks; Yeah. Take notes. We'll need 'em later. A little bit of structural improvement might help to refine our first steps as well. That's why you ALL should come to:


      7H3_CLUBH0U5E


      *Projects* good *because* create *Topic* there *easy* follow *flow* improv *et cetera* quote *stuff* and *END*


       

    • Boulder Dash 26th Nov 2018

      The hello, hello, hello...

      Do you hear that echo?

      What echo?

      The echo.

      What?

      The echo, echo, echo...

      Oh, there it is.

    • Alex of... 27th Nov 2018

      "The Take" i have not seen, but i'll check it out. i do have a book, Horizontalism: Voices of Popular Power in Argentina, which itself is constructed in a particpatory, creationary, autonomus sort of style that emobodies the subject as living work (even if a bit dead now). heck, might be of interest to check out for some considering putting a book together. to be honest, i have not read it from front to back, but read various sections in a non-linear fashion (a few years back). i am also a bit of a slow reader. part of which, is just that a single line or paragraph can sometimes send my head spinning into thought, exploration and connections.. and i just need to come back later to soak up the source again. now, skimming through it, i just noticed the first chapter is titled Context and Rupture. go figure. go fish!

      part of my take reading it before is similar to my impression of the famed Spanish Civil War.. that people indeed have a natural capablility for cooperative assembly, though a little guidance helps, particularly as hierarchical forms are more familiar. and, as production goes, that it is likely easier when it comes to simpler needs.. clothing, furniture, food etc. when you get into "higher" tech, there is also a higher degree of need for special knowledge and tools, and resources that can only be extracted from the deepest wells just north of Shangri-LaLa Land by small children with unusually long fingers, which to be productive, must be genetically engineered.

      there is something to be said about that trap of dependence, not unlike overly complex legal and financial structures that only a few have the key to. i've said before there and over-there, that if petroleum had not entered the picture, the American template may very well have led to more anarcho-socialist structuring by now. but that easy-energy led to hyper-acceleration of technology and accumulation of wealth.. the durable "super-structure" and its entitled culture lapping at the trickle.

      this last year, i have spent a portion of my time observing behavior in the Trump era, both leftish and rightish.. some online, some in the street. it's a bit disheartening to see so many friends of mine being shaped by the news cycles, many of whom have not really paid attention before, so understandable.. but also more seasoned activists. don't wanna write about that right now but i'll also mention, since i've posted a couple clips, that i've attended a number of right wing rallies.. mostly nice folks, working class, and buying way too hard into the American Dream shtick.. which is not at all the way their activites are reported in the media. not going far with that at the moment either, but i'll say at least that there's a difference between a gun-toting libertarian and a neo-nazi. i've lots of video.

      and despite some of my feelings on timelines as well, i would still encourage my libtard friends to get their lazy wine-drinking asses into 350 meetings or DSA or SA and push for a GND. grab what political tools are available and meet some people. it's accessible and more than they've thought about before. all hands on deck. (or did Trump create all our problems?)

      personally, my main current aim is to make some movies about worker-ownership models. first, i'd like to do a short piece about a small local coop, likely focused on roles and decision-making processes. often when i talk to the average cat, such as service-industry workers, about cooperative models, they seem to find it unimaginable or even impossible. again, the familiar hierarchy. ideally, i can use that to help solicit some funding toward an exploration of the Cleveland Model stuff. with that, i'd be seeking an answer to "How can than this be replicated?" for whatever the future holds, it can only be a good thing to have more people experienced in cooperative work. i've more expanded thoughts on all that of course.

      and no, i don't have film-making experience. actually, i need to scrape some cash together for a computer that can run pro-editing software so i can start fuckin with it. see what a luddite i am?

      Zen... i just sent a request to join your clubhouse
      (i've been waiting my whole life to say that)

    • Dave Jones 27th Nov 2018

      A while back we kicked around the idea of making a film about what a Participatory allocation process might really look like, the whole iteration process that Albert describes,like acting it out to see how practical or burdensome it might be. My wife uses Final Cut on her Mac computer BTW.
      Sympathize with your frustration at how Trump has sucked every last oxygen molecule out of the air. A Master Showman, maybe the best ever. It's like nothing else exists. And we've also attended some right wing gatherings, a thing here called Celebrating Conservatism where they bring in dolts like Joe Arpio and shit, totally wack with guns and flags and crosses.Here they want to take over all the public land. Kind of admire their spunk!

    • Boulder Dash 28th Nov 2018

      The planning process of Parecon freaks everyone out when they look at it in and as one big hit...but it misses the point.

      Alperovitz wants to plan around anchor institutions...hospitals and universities and the like. Ok. Fine, it’s planning at some level and people can see it working now. Now push it out and ask, well what about planning at a town level, or city level then regional level? You just ask the question and look at how it could be done. Why? To see if you can get rid of markets that seem to be very problematic.

      Hahnel and Albert have done that work and constantly challenged others to come up with other ways which no one has. They keep markets to make life easier for themselves or they leave the system a little vague or thin institutionally, if you ask me.

      Then you can go the other way. Ask what about planning at a smaller business level, and and down to the burbs, and neighbourhoods and then smaller still. Start thinking about what consumers want and at the family and individual level. How can it be done?

      And this shit is really fucking important because market prices can really fuck up planning systems and allocate production and consumption in inefficient ways and ways that can discriminate against coops doing it tough.

      And the more you think about it, you ask, well, who’s making the planning decisions inside hospitals and universities? Which goes to self management of those workplaces and divisions of labour. Who are they asking for their products and services? Why? Is it because the services or goods are cheap? Made from best materials, which a market place may be real expensive etc..What businesses are signing on and why? Are they better at bargaining? How are they making those decisions? Etc.

      If you ask me, it’s not about Parecon as a whole NOW, it’s about how do you get there from here and what do the institutions inside a Parecon offer right now that could inform how we do shit that then produces the necessary relations for later down the track. Strategy connected to vision.

      Like, are all these coops and worker owned businesses structuring up in ways that reaffirm hierarchies and foster disparate pay? If so, maybe some attempt at balancing empowering tasks within them is worth attempting.

      What about just asking workers about how they get remunerated? How is their access to the social pie determined and is it morally fair. Have they ever really thought about effort and sacrifice? Even just thinking about it theoretically, on effort. 100% effort at the management level vs 100% effort at the shop floor level? 100% effort at the smarts/thinking level and 100% effort at the fucking doing it, putting it together level? Why should the management or smarts/thinking level get paid more (and they do) when they are working no harder than someone working at the bottom level, who’s working equally as hard over the same amount of time? Just a thought experiment. Throw it into the workplace. Get them thinking about it.

      A good one is the theoretical physicist. They write an equation on the board and try and solve it. They start thinking for eight hours straight, without wandering off. The solve it and it has huge ramifications for the future of mankind. Meanwhile, I’ve made x picture frames working at 100%effort as well for eight hours straight, no distractions. My output has little effect on humanity by comparison. As far as actual work goes, effort and the like, it’s the same and I personally reckon that both should gat access to the social pie by the same amount. The physicist can get the accolades and a good feeling, maybe a prize, but by fuck, I deserve as much access to the social pie as they do.

      How are decisions being made within work places? Self-management as described in Parecon or one person one vote regardless of unbalanced divisions of labour that disempower some?

      These aren’t future things, these are things that can be done now, introduced now and are things I talk to Jason Chaplin about now because he has just spent two years starting a cleaning coop and he notices stuff because he knows about Parecon.

      And shit as far as reading goes, book clubs and the like, try reading Anarchist Accounting by one of IOPS’s own, Anders Sandström. Jesus. What a job. Yeah, ok, boring as batshit as far as literature is concerned (sorry Anders!) but people here should read it out of solidarity because he took the time write it.

      If someone asked me what’s a more important book, Assemly by Negri and Hardt, Hedges latest, or Anarchist Accounting, I’d say the latter because we need people to do that shit.

    • Alex of... 28th Nov 2018

      "And the more you think about it, you ask, well, who’s making the planning decisions inside hospitals and universities? Which goes to self management of those workplaces and divisions of labour. Who are they asking for their products and services?"

      i give up.. who?

      if talking about surgeons cleaning bed pans and orderlies stepping in on surgeries, i really am not too interested in that discussion at the moment, though i'd certainly read a blog with your outline on how it should work, or be approached.. methods of transformation you see as steps. as for worker-owned coops in general, task mixing and paths to other roles is common, though i do not know much about the inner workings of some of the larger-scale experiments. surely, individuals have some personal preferences, different capabilities, and some roles take more extensive training than others. balancing work is also about balancing ability, interest, education. balancing people.

      as for the product and services needed to run a hospital, that is of course part of the whole deal of creating coops to provide. i'm sure you've read some about it or watched some vids, but i'll say some basics for the sake of discussion. these "anchor institutions" are open to, or seeking more ethical and green sources, which are typically being sourced out to whatever is currently available, likely lining the pockets of shareholders mastering over rented labor. this is true of much of our economy, so why target hospitals or universities, besides just their receptiveness?

      these institutions tend to stick around, and also have very consistent needs which don't really flux due to market shifts. that is, a hospital needs Xish-amount of laundry that needs laundering in a given month or year, a number which isn't swinging wildly. it's not like they lose interest in laundry, suddenly become enthralled by it, or find some shit they like way better than laundry. "people keep coming here and now there's blood and sweat and poop all over this stuff.. please clean and send back." so, a non-profit acting as a facilitator can approach the hospitals on that service to attain a set of numbers and ask "hey, if we had a greener, local, worker-owned coop to provide that service and fits your budget, would you source with us?" ok, now with a guarantee on those numbers, the facilitator can secure a loan from a credit union, and build the coop.

      obviously, that method of financing is not applicable to everything. the anchor institution model is not assumed to be an end-all by its creators. it says, here's a consistent flow of money we can utilize to build a foundation of cooperative work with minimal risk of failure. with more of that going on, we can potentially expand how this works. greenhouse farming is another coop-model that can contract with grocery stores with minimal risk. start getting into clothing or furniture, then you either need to guess, based on trends, what to stock in a store, or have people pre-order. start getting into toys, electronics.. ok, where does this shit actually come from?

      sure, what do consumers want? it seems that most people want as much as they can have, and want it available in the easiest manner possible whenever they choose (at least in the culture i see around me). not necessarily sustainable. it's not exactly a new idea that you can only take as much from the land as it's willing to give. part of our difficulty comes from having a global economy with massive disparities, on all levels. we are not sustaining within our landbase, or even from basic regional trade. so, the iPhone is capitalism, say some. ok, remove any notions that it required extra monetary incentives to make it exist, and suppose i wave a magic wand to wave so that everyone on the planet is remunerated at relative equality. can everyone (billions) have an iPhone? is there enough resources? what is the environmental damage required? would there be enough labor? how many credits will it run me? if supply is limited, should it be choice or just distributed to firefighters for essential communications or whatever? and sure, a global Pareconish set of institutions would try to determine that against all the other requests, right? asking the residents of one city will not necessarily mean much.. "yes, i want an iPhone, i'm planning on buying one after my next paycheck, why do you ask? and who the fuck are you? get off my lawn."

      that is not say that i don't think there SHOULD be better planning at local levels asap. more coops, more public ownership, more understanding of ecological constraints and labor sources.. potentially federating between communities. of course not everyone in town will agree.. helpful to pack the city council with Sawants and have a base of worker-ownership that represents a substantial amount of the local economy and people. but what, it's not like a city can tell you that you can't have an iPhone. seem to recall some smaller towns have rejected letting Walmart set up shop, or the like. there's some pretty major obstacles trying to transform a city into some kind of unique intentional community. and, it is of course ridiculous when i see city plans that claim a goal of 100% sustainability by some year, when it will still be reliant on all the shit that needs to be produced elsewhere and imported each day. to further, how much will any of that really take into account as far as the global community is concerned?

      see, this is where i also have some difficulty with national GND plans. so, we're going to eliminate fossil fuel from the grid (not necessarily all transportation and products). sounds great. hop past the corporate, political, and cultural obstacles (which are massive).. where does it all come from, and is there enough of it? is there enough lithium for energy storage, for example? some say no, some say there will just need to be more mining, much of which will not be domestic. host of other materials. cheap foreign labor for manufacturing. and why do we get to have that while people are starving to death, dying from water borne illness, fleeing regions we've helped destroy to build what we now depend on. who will we have to bomb to make sure we get our solar panels? we "need" it. "we" don't want to give up jack-shit we're accustomed to. if anything, we seem to want everyone in our nation to have at least an American middle class lifestyle, which is far from what most people on the planet are getting. like the iPhone question, could everyone on this planet have an energy grid that matches our grand new plan for sustainability? this doesn't seem to enter into the equation when i've looked over Stanford's 50-state plan, or the GND, or most discourse. IPCC? i don't claim to have read everything on the subject, but no one ever seems to be able to point me to much that's trying to assess that. from what little i do know, it seems more like we've built Rome from fossil fuel, and now we just feel entitled to maintain the living standard it has provided. and with that comes many other forms of over-consumption that could never be close to sustainable for a global population. what would the global Parecon say? how many solar panels do we each get? also, they degrade over time. people never talk about that either.

      on the other hand, shit is all kinds of fucked already. creating coops and trying to incorporate better local planning will not, i don't think, do much for climate timelines. and as much as it's not globally fair, it is also possibly a better option to mine the shit out of the world and exploit foreign labor to maintain Rome with so-called renewables, since we're already doing that with fossil fuel, which is leading us off the cliff in worse ways. at least we could take it down a notch and work toward admitting we can no longer have all the shit we've come to expect and rely on.

      why i personally want to focus on coops if i think we're that fucked? it can help fix some of the cities that got fucked by uprooted factories, areas largely inhabited by the black communities who have a history of being fucked over in this country. it could be applied to a GND in rural communities to help shift the perceived paradigm of ecology vs labor (don't matter if you believe in climate change if you gotta good job combatting it). anchor coops can provide a foundation to build from while generating actual experience. that experience, when normalized as part of daily work, can translate into what people come to expect in politics and community. change our relationships. shifting wealth into worker ownership can diffuse some of the accumulation of wealth and the power it comes with. with economic, ecological, political collapses, induced or not, cooperative workforces provide more resilience to keep us from spiraling into savagery. fuck Negan.

      again, timelines, timelines.. points of no return. dealing with the different cultural swaths of humans in this country. dealing with a weaponized world. and sure, we have some domestic issues, and horrifying foreign policy.. but there's some pretty depraved shit going on outside of western civilization too, where i would assume creating nice little green coops is not on the immediate list. they might not be able to key-in their product requests on the macbook, eh.

      simple enough?

    • Alex of... 28th Nov 2018

      also, since i imagine millions will be reading this.. don't want to assume they have any idea what this shit about anchor institutions comes from, so here's the happy little promo..

    • Boulder Dash 29th Nov 2018

      Kind of went through your post Alex like Michael Albert does, bit by bit. My shits in the square brackets. Hope it makes sense. Found it to be easier for me otherwise I get all lost. Not saying you only wanted me to respond. Hopefully others will, but what good would that bring anyway? Took me ages...now got headache.


      And the more you think about it, you ask, well, who’s making the planning decisions inside hospitals and universities? Which goes to self management of those workplaces and divisions of labour. Who are they asking for their products and services?"

      

i give up.. who?

      [I don’t know? I’m asking. Is it worth asking? I’m not dissing on Gars idea, merely pushing it further for the future]

      

if talking about surgeons cleaning bed pans and orderlies stepping in on surgeries,

      [and you know that’s not what it’s about at all]

      i really am not too interested in that discussion at the moment,

      [neither am I, but perhaps it’s not about what you or I can be bothered doing. It may be about planting more radical ideas for the future. Why not? Can’t hurt.]

      though i'd certainly read a blog with your outline on how it should work, or be approached..

      [I’t would be a mess. Anything I touch becomes a mess. Look what I’ve done to this blog. I’m always trying to keep,the Parecon flame lit in my own dicky way. Albert and Hahnel have already done it, and it’s about putting the question out there pertaining to hierarchical divisions of labour, remuneration and self management in ways that I rarely hear about except by Hahnel and Albert]

      methods of transformation you see as steps. as for worker-owned coops in general, task mixing and paths to other roles is common, though i do not know much about the inner workings of some of the larger-scale experiments. surely, individuals have some personal preferences, different capabilities, and some roles take more extensive training than others. balancing work is also about balancing ability, interest, education. balancing people.

      [surely you are right, and I am sure Hahnel and Albert would have been aware of this as well. It would also require a willingness to recognise that balancing on some scale may be necessary...not a perfect science at all]



      as for the product and services needed to run a hospital, that is of course part of the whole deal of creating coops to provide. i'm sure you've read some about it or watched some vids, but i'll say some basics for the sake of discussion. these "anchor institutions" are open to, or seeking more ethical and green sources, which are typically being sourced out to whatever is currently available, likely lining the pockets of shareholders mastering over rented labor. this is true of much of our economy, so why target hospitals or universities, besides just their receptiveness?

      [not sure what you are saying here Alex.]

      

these institutions tend to stick around, and also have very consistent needs which don't really flux due to market shifts. that is, a hospital needs Xish-amount of laundry that needs laundering in a given month or year, a number which isn't swinging wildly. it's not like they lose interest in laundry, suddenly become enthralled by it, or find some shit they like way better than laundry. "people keep coming here and now there's blood and sweat and poop all over this stuff.. please clean and send back." so, a non-profit acting as a facilitator can approach the hospitals on that service to attain a set of numbers and ask "hey, if we had a greener, local, worker-owned coop to provide that service and fits your budget, would you source with us?" ok, now with a guarantee on those numbers, the facilitator can secure a loan from a credit union, and build the coop.

      [I was merely pointing to the fact the the idea of participatory planning that Gar is on about pertains to and is limited to anchor institutions. I was merely suggesting, why stop there and Parecon is a reasonable guide as to what may be needed if you wish to push further and r get rid of markets completely. That’s all. Not dissing the idea of anchor institutions, it’s a good idea, but trying to point to the limitations of it. Perhaps there aren’t any]



      obviously, that method of financing is not applicable to everything. the anchor institution model is not assumed to be an end-all by its creators. it says, here's a consistent flow of money we can utilize to build a foundation of cooperative work with minimal risk of failure. with more of that going on, we can potentially expand how this works. greenhouse farming is another coop-model that can contract with grocery stores with minimal risk. start getting into clothing or furniture, then you either need to guess, based on trends, what to stock in a store, or have people pre-order. start getting into toys, electronics.. ok, where does this shit actually come from?

      [again, got no problem with it at all, just pushing it out and saying that Parecon offers up ideas for pushing further with planning. The coop model as you call it could adopt the idea of workers councils, depending on how big the coop is, or how many workers there are, all relating to decision making within the workplace in proportion to the degree one is affected by the decision. Why? To push further than just one worker one vote. I don’t want to complicate matters, but just to think about the idea and maybe try to implement it. Who knows? And to maybe connect directly with groups as consumer councils.]



      sure, what do consumers want? it seems that most people want as much as they can have, and want it available in the easiest manner possible whenever they choose (at least in the culture i see around me).

      [well, that is this culture with this economy as you say, which is market based and which most seem to want to keep in some form, including Gar. Something like a Parecon may be quite different.... as Graeber says about future markets...they may be different than what we know as markets now...but to me that just means they aren’t markets...they’re different...maybe they would be like what’s in a Parecon because some still think or say the planning procedure of Parecon is a market...which it isn’t, according to Hahnel, and Albert.]

      not necessarily sustainable. it's not exactly a new idea that you can only take as much from the land as it's willing to give. part of our difficulty comes from having a global economy with massive disparities, on all levels.

      [still reckon we are going to need a global economy anyway of some sort, because so much stuff is global..but that’s me guessing and I’m a dumb cunt. But if we are going to have to go mainly local with very little global trade because it’s problematic, then we will probably need to see people die]

      we are not sustaining within our landbase, or even from basic regional trade. so, the iPhone is capitalism, say some. ok, remove any notions that it required extra monetary [state] incentives to make it exist, and suppose i wave a magic wand to wave so that everyone on the planet is remunerated at relative equality. can everyone (billions) have an iPhone? is there enough resources? what is the environmental damage required? would there be enough labor? how many credits will it run me? if supply is limited, should it be choice or just distributed to firefighters for essential communications or whatever? and sure, a global Pareconish set of institutions would try to determine that against all the other requests, right?

      [well, through the planning procedure based on social costs versus social benefit, yeah]

      asking the residents of one city will not necessarily mean much.. "yes, i want an iPhone, i'm planning on buying one after my next paycheck, why do you ask? and who the fuck are you? get off my lawn."

      [ not sure again what you are getting at here. Parecon doesn’t work like that, I don’t think, and no one else, including the NSP, is dealing with this problem of future technology post cap unless they are assuming a kind of regulated type of market socialism, like most of the NSP stuff probably really is. And the simplicity folk ignore it completely. I mean this is a problem the left hasn’t really solved very well, it’s relationship with technology, the means to keep,it, maintain or develop it which will require mining and heavy industry which seems problematic ecologically. The left dirsn’tvreally address it much, unless you are a hardcore degrowther, simplicity dude or anarchy-primmie, then you say just fuck it all off, or as much as possible. Gut string guitars only...no amps dude...fuck, it’s acoustic round the camp fire bullshit then...shit . ]



      that is not say that i don't think there SHOULD be better planning at local levels asap. more coops, more public ownership, more understanding of ecological constraints and labor sources.. potentially federating between communities. of course not everyone in town will agree.

      [ they never do] .

      helpful to pack the city council with Sawants and have a base of worker-ownership that represents a substantial amount of the local economy and people. but what, it's not like a city can tell you that you can't have an iPhone.

      [no but in a Parecon the info/intell, cost benefit ratio on its production may put its price into the stratosphere making it less likely people will want one. And if they do, they will have to take less of something else or arrange in their workplace, through worker council discussion, whether it is possible for them to work longer or take on jobs requiring greater sacrifice in order to make up the extra needed to procure it because taking extra work or working longer affects others in the work place]

      seem to recall some smaller towns have rejected letting Walmart set up shop, or the like.

      [similar could easily happen in a Parecon]

      there's some pretty major obstacles trying to transform a city into some kind of unique intentional community. and, it is of course ridiculous when i see city plans that claim a goal of 100% sustainability by some year, when it will still be reliant on all the shit that needs to be produced elsewhere and imported each day. to further, how much will any of that really take into account as far as the global community is concerned?

      [in a Parecon, presumably all of it eventually, but obviously not all if not all countries are operating as a Parecon, which Albert and Hahnel have talked about] 



      see, this is where i also have some difficulty with national GND plans.

      [i have trouble with them, but shit, they’re a start...ok maybe a crappy one which makes Dave cringe, but...]

      so, we're going to eliminate fossil fuel from the grid (not necessarily all transportation and products). sounds great. hop past the corporate, political, and cultural obstacles (which are massive).. where does it all come from, and is there enough of it? is there enough lithium for energy storage, for example? some say no, some say there will just need to be more mining, much of which will not be domestic.

      [well in any, even radical, economy, no matter what, if we want certain technology then there will have to be mining and hopefully NOT of the type that extracts the minerals for iPhones and computers from the Democratic Republic of Congo!]

      host of other materials. cheap foreign labor for manufacturing. and why do we get to have that while people are starving to death, dying from water borne illness, fleeing regions we've helped destroy to build what we now depend on.

      [another reason why certain shit in a Parecon will have a hefty price...qualitative social costs ]

      who will we have to bomb to make sure we get our solar panels?

      [well, if we are doing that then it’s a GND with a pretty fucked caveat]

      we "need" it. "we" don't want to give up jack-shit we're accustomed to. if anything, we seem to want everyone in our nation to have at least an American middle class lifestyle, which is far from what most people on the planet are getting. like the iPhone question, could everyone on this planet have an energy grid that matches our grand new plan for sustainability?

      [ well, probably not if we also want equality and we want an economy that fosters that as well as possible]

      this doesn't seem to enter into the equation when i've looked over Stanford's 50-state plan, or the GND, or most discourse.

      [ yeah, because none of them have ever fucking read about Parecon!!!]

      IPCC? i don't claim to have read everything on the subject, but no one ever seems to be able to point me to much that's trying to assess that. from what little i do know, it seems more like we've built Rome from fossil fuel, and now we just feel entitled to maintain the living standard it has provided. and with that comes many other forms of over-consumption

      [ because markets are inefficient at allocating resources and everything else...in a Parecon consumption and production are equaled ...in fact your consumption is your remuneration, equated with production, of which you are involved and which is the real cost of your consuming, the amount of which is mutually decided upon with everyone else, unless incapacitated, in which case you still get what everyone else gets]

      that could never be close to sustainable for a global population. what would the global Parecon say?

      [its worked out, as above, comsumption(remuneration) is married with production]

      how many solar panels do we each get? also, they degrade over time. people never talk about that either.

      [ I agree with you in general Alex, and even Dave in regard to the current situation and proposed GNDs . And I agree to some extent with Samuel Alexander and Clive Hamilton...I do...really...but what else is there at the moment...there isn’t anything but little bits and pieces of shit in disparate disconnected regions all being talked up by some or many, notions of commoning and partner states, anchor institutions, varieties of market socialism and not much else and even they are all too radical for most so they can only handle basic incomes or green new deals...Parecon? Just forget it James, you’re on your own with that one...I know but it’s still essential to know about, look at, consider and discuss etc..]



      on the other hand, shit is all kinds of fucked already. creating coops and trying to incorporate better local planning will not, i don't think, do much for climate timelines.

      [of course, unless the timelines are off considerably, which is unlikely...so yes we need a radical plan...what’s it to be? Will it take? Will the layperson handle it, understand it? Probably not, so Dave reckons just break it now and see what happens when people can’t use their fucking iPhone because communications are down...which kind of makes it hard for people to communicate good ideas. But radical plans about serious alternative economies for the future that foster other values aside from just ecological concern, or along with, still need to be in the minds of all, not just shit that needs to done right now because we will all die if we don’t]


      and as much as it's not globally fair, it is also possibly a better option to mine the shit out of the world and exploit foreign labor to maintain Rome with so-called renewables, since we're already doing that with fossil fuel, which is leading us off the cliff in worse ways. at least we could take it down a notch and work toward admitting we can no longer have all the shit we've come to expect and rely on.

      [ you’d like to think, as I mooted just above, that even any GND may contain shit that doesn’t exploit others or lessens it, with a view to eliminating it...and with a view to progressing further toward a genuinely revolutionary and better just and equitable economy...hence the need for a model out front there to consider rather than just winging it...albeit, winging that is guided by better minds than mine, like Alperovitz. Should just leave it to them, what would I know?] 



      why i personally want to focus on coops if i think we're that fucked? it can help fix some of the cities that got fucked by uprooted factories, areas largely inhabited by the black communities who have a history of being fucked over in this country. it could be applied to a GND in rural communities to help shift the perceived paradigm of ecology vs labor (don't matter if you believe in climate change if you gotta good job combatting it).

      [i do not see why a GND cannot include coops or many ideas coming out of commoning and the NSP, in fact it should. Those movements should be pressing hard any political party or politician advancing a GND and those politicians and parties should/must - at risk of being told to fuck off if they don’t - be looking and listening to those movements and others outside the electoral game]

      anchor coops can provide a foundation to build from while generating actual experience. that experience, when normalized as part of daily work, can translate into what people come to expect in politics and community.

      [ yeah, and within those places ideas about remuneration, workplace hierarchies and ways of balancing empowering tasks and self management can be discussed]

      change our relationships. shifting wealth into worker ownership can diffuse some of the accumulation of wealth and the power it comes with. with economic, ecological, political collapses, induced or not, cooperative workforces provide more resilience to keep us from spiraling into savagery. fuck Negan.

      [ who or what is Negan? If induced, savagery may just be one of the results.]



      again, timelines, timelines.. points of no return. dealing with the different cultural swaths of humans in this country. dealing with a weaponized world. and sure, we have some domestic issues, and horrifying foreign policy.. but there's some pretty depraved shit going on outside of western civilization too, where i would assume creating nice little green coops is not on the immediate list. they might not be able to key-in their product requests on the macbook, eh.

      [and no one ever talks about modern medicine which is a pretty big deal I reckon. Hard to go back to blood letting and leeches or letting some of those diseases back in. But the anarchy-primmies would be all for it. Let people die, there are too many of us anyway...Malthus does indeed live among us, and Dave’s idea could cause a bit of that too...who knows?]



      simple enough?

      
[I know, it’s a fucking mind fuck]

    • Dave Jones 29th Nov 2018

      I'm actually getting more used to the idea of seeing what they actually mean by GND before I totally diss it. As you say, it is a start.

      And I think the idea of "job complexes" is brilliant and should be getting as much attention as reduced work weeks or basic income. Parecon will be getting more attention if we hang in there or I'll eat my computer.

      As for letting people die, the thing is, they are already and it will only get worse as mass migration increases, droughts and famine, Syria, Philippines you know the litany.

      Coops are great as far as they go, but having to compete in the global market with mega-exploiter corporations is bitch, so how do you push it further, to democratic planning of production and allocation?
      The bit about technology and modern consumer goods for all is a tough one. When I heard about all the concrete and steel that goes into wind turbines ( and the emissions to produce them) I was staggered. Iphones have coltan, the new batteries weigh a shit ton and are toxic, no easy answers but part of it is a cultural shift to less is more.

    • Alex of... 30th Nov 2018

      GND and people dying...
      try to pry the iphone
      from my coal-tanned hands

      whose culture is this, man?

    • Alex of... 30th Nov 2018

      "Coops are great as far as they go, but having to compete in the global market with mega-exploiter corporations is bitch, so how do you push it further, to democratic planning of production and allocation?"

      is way bitch. hopefully it was understood that i AM interested in seeing that pushed further. i would suggest there's more possibilities if there is first an actual foundation of connected coops in multiple major cities.

      that doesn't of course stop anyone from outlining some of the potential paths from that. to reiterate, the anchor model is NOT being pursued as an END-ALL by its creators, or me. it does however provide an opportunity for financing large-scale coops that don't carry much market risk.

      it IS already showing success, but has not yet been replicated in multiple regions. with more connected replication comes MORE ability to think-tank and finance beyond that model.

      and yes, as i hinted.. having socialists in government surely helps. note, creating the Cleveland coops was partly made possible by connecting with, and bringing together some existing nonprofits, as well as working with the city gov.

      none of this is IDEAL. its about working with what you got to lay some initial tracks. yes, you need some VISION and potential PATHS, but i think you need to keep coming back to the table to assess how that's actually WORKING on the ground. as far as i see it, vision(s) provide direction, not a destination.

      i agree with plenty of PARECON and yet find some of it DEBATABLE.

      also to reiterate, i suggest that we need more people actually experienced as coop worker-owners to have a chance toward a more participatory economy, polity, culture. otherwise, it's just IDEAS. we NEED a tangible BREEDING ground for SELF-MANAGEMENT.

    • Alex of... 30th Nov 2018

      "i do not see why a GND cannot include coops or many ideas coming out of commoning and the NSP, in fact it should."

      i've long argued for coops as part of a Green Jobs program. i would hope the Next System Project folks have proposals for that already lying around. but..?? ..maybe someone ought ask.

      also, besides getting rural climate deniers to do some of our undirty work, we are also secretly turning them into commies.. everything they thought they hated.. and yet, paying the bills with no asshole boss breathing down their necks. (well, that's one possible scenario)

      there's been http://www.labor4sustainability.org/about/voices-for-a-sustainable-future/

    • Boulder Dash 1st Dec 2018

      I ain’t asking, I’ve already pissed Joe Guinan off enough!

      Maybe we can call them agrarian soviets to really piss them off...but we probably don’t want to piss the, off.

      And just to the above post about Jason. We have spoken about those ideas being introduced to co-ops because Jason is knowledgeable about Parecon. It’s kind of cool. He was the first person I ever heard mention it on radio years back when he phoned in to a talk back radio show hosted by a local anarchist Joe Toscano. This was before he joined IOPS, so before we met when forming the Melbourne chapter. I remember telling him, Steve his friend, Nick Delvino, and Reg Tydell, the others at that first meeting, that I heard some guy ring up on radio and talk to Joe Toscano about Parecon and Jason replied, oh, that was me! He also was taught music by the bass player in a band I was in in the nineties and guitar at some point by an x student of mine...fuckin’ funny world. Now we still get together for coffee and a chat...think he keeps me honest...more hardcore than I!

    • Boulder Dash 1st Dec 2018

      It’s funny I posted the one just above this ne, after the post below that starts, “Agree with all that”, so what reads as “and just to the above post” should now be “and just to the below post”. Weird.

    • Boulder Dash 1st Dec 2018

      Agree with all that. Also agree that anchoring is not an end-all. And that Parecon is debatable implies continued debate which means it’s in the picture always because it’s a legit possibility...not forgotten, ignored or ushered away into no mans land.

      Jason Chaplin, all the way down here, is getting that co-op experience, and also knows how long it took to get the thing up, as he was one of the initiators. Two years. They are connected to Earth Workers down here.

    • Alex of... 29th Nov 2018

      and... spunky indeed Dave. i did not of course suggest all their ideas are top-notch! fortunately, no crosses at what i've been attending. big on first and second amendment. preaching no to big gov and taxes. too many laws bro! in a sense, looking to rupture politics. but why not just as much disdain for the corporations, the super-rich? see, strange they go on about politicians bought off by corporate money, yet...? i would prefer to see alignment on class issues between city and rural. not this identity/race game being fueled by party politics and media and two-bit cult leaders, and the fact there really are neo-nazi groups. and i'm not ignorant to the fact that there's gradients and cross-over been happening. seems to me all the more reason to connect with these people, rather than isolate them or push them further weird.

      i actually find it pretty bizarre that i've been the only leftish mofo that simply shows up to hear what they have to say, to find out myself who they are as human beings instead of trusting some shit i saw online. apparently, you go find out for yourself as well. no Arpaio coming out to these. they did however do a "Free Alex Jones" rally in Austin, which i would have gone to if closer...lol. largely younger crowd. that spunk needs to be channeled by better influences.

    • Alex of... 29th Nov 2018

      sidenote: speaking of influences.. it is actually a reason i appreciate Joe Rogan. while he may have more capitalistic views than i, he has also supported the idea of public health care, spoke out against separating children, does believe in climate change... he reaches a lot of young right wingers with some sane and humane shit. that's a good thing. as he was quoted in an article: "I am the link between the potheads and the meatheads"

    • Boulder Dash 29th Nov 2018

      So hopefully he may take up my idea to interview Michael Albert...hopefully before the great acceleration toward rupture!

  • Dave Jones 26th Nov 2018

    Yeah, I'm digging this immensely y'all, thanks for inviting me in. As Frank wrote: "what would you do if they made you go home? And the plastics all melted and so is the chrome". We all gotta get home. And I need to make sure my grandkids have a home to go to. Hope there are more than just white males willing to participate here, however.We could use a couple poets.

    I really like the microtrauma concept, and believe healing and care is a big part of the revolution. I mean, think of how damaged we are, and yet resilient, in the way we are willing to put it all on the line using any means necessary.

  • Boulder Dash 27th Nov 2018

    I think everything is going to be alright...Sanders just did an op ed and it looks as if it’s going to be all good and on the go. Hedges can catch a breath and chill now, put his feet up. It feels like Hilary Wainwright was onto it in her New Politics From The Left, which I read but really can’t remember much. And Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin in The Socialist Challenge Today: Syriza, Sanders, Corbyn, which I read after or before the Wainwright, I really can’t remember, and about which I also can’t really remember much. But anyway...

  • Boulder Dash 28th Nov 2018

    She going earlt?

    “And yet here’s the truly strange thing: I feel more optimistic about our collective chances of averting climate breakdown than I have in years. For the first time, I see a clear and credible political pathway that could get us to safety, a place in which the worst climate outcomes are avoided and a new social compact is forged that is radically more humane than anything currently on offer.

    We are not on that pathway yet — very far from it. But unlike even one month ago, the pathway is clear. It begins with the galloping momentum calling on the Democratic Party to use its majority in the House to create the Select Committee for a Green New Deal, a plan advanced by Ocasio-Cortez and now backed by more than 14 representatives.

    The draft text calls for the committee, which would be fully funded and empowered to draft legislation, to spend the next year consulting with a range of experts — from scientists to local lawmakers to labor unions to business leaders — to map out a “detailed national, industrial, economic mobilization plan” capable of making the U.S. economy “carbon neutral” while promoting “economic and environmental justice and equality.” By January 2020, the plan would be released, and two months later would come draft legislation designed to turn it into a reality.”

    https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/the-game-changing-promise-of-a-green-new-deal/

    • Boulder Dash 28th Nov 2018

      That’s meant to be she going early...shit.

  • Dave Jones 28th Nov 2018

    Went 50 miles through the winter sleet (heroic) to listen to a panel of "progressive"/center left? NGO types talk about the post-election climate movement locally. So think of the most boring, least imaginative talk you've ever been to and multiply it by ten. Oh yeah, fortunately I had a vodka tonic smuggled in (double) but it didn't last.
    Somebody did finally mention Extinction Rebellion but the panelists were more into signing petitions. They even passed one around! Then there was a mention of this Green New Deal and, knowing I should be more open to the idea and less cynical, still, I cringe. As I mentioned in the essay ( so long ago) to think of capitalist state as the potential savior is to set oneself up for a blow. So who remembers the Charlie Brown gag with Lucy and the football?

    So I'm gonna let the perfect be the enemy of the good? Heroine Alexandria Occasio Cortez ( hereby AOC) includes problematic language praising entrepreneurialism and "bringing in business partnerships". As you know, I want a rupture to crush that discourse and those punks and the whole shiteree. So I'm gonna look into this and see what DSA folks are saying and others whose opinion I value. But something rotten in Denmark...

  • Boulder Dash 28th Nov 2018

    I don’t have much faith in all this shit either Dave, but really, the DSAers gonna have something hidden away that no one knows about already...a surprise...let me guess, absolutely nothing much different than everything that has been put forward so far...someone may say Parecon but they’ll be beaten to a pulp as quickly as possible, labelled some sort as f closed minded Albertarian and told to stand in a dark corner out of sight.

    Ok, go ahead, muster up enough people to break shit, speed up the unravelling, and see what happens. But first, maybe ask Zizek, and others of similar persuasion they probably got some great ideas about what to do afterwards considering those types are so familiar with deconstruction and constructionism or whatever it’s sll called. Maybe Bellamy Foster too, see if he and his mates are into it. Probably plenty of others you could ask smarter than me...maybe Paul Street, sure he’s got plenty of friends. What about that Moufe person you mentioned.

    “On the so-called “political” front, “progressives” and much of what remains of the Left enlist the alarming science to push for a vague political “revolution”.”

    What exactly would not be vague political revolution? What would a non vague revolutionary economy look like exactly?

    I’m losing it.



  • Dave Jones 29th Nov 2018

    Now I see, that's a quote from Naomi Klein, and while the dilapidated Left tends to flock like moths to any tiny little flickering flame, I respect her judgement. She was here in Missoula when we tried to stop Mega-loads so she walks the walk. So as I say,I'll check this out.

    "Political revolution" seemed to me to be Bernie's way of avoiding economic revolution, suggesting we can vote our way to emancipation leaving Capital intact. And this all goes to my point about the political sphere being a hologram which I get from reading Mouffe ( The Return of the Political -Verso 1993) who with her husband Ernesto Laclau wrote Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, a monumental and controversial break with orthodox Marxism (which includes just enough Lacanian gobbledygook to fry a lizard). And Laclau and Zizek and Judith Butler wrote Contingency,Hegemony Universality and May the Circle Be Unbroken by and By Lord. Laclau also has a piece in Mapping Ideology, edited by Zizek.

    You mentioned Tim Morton a while back, talk about convoluted, wow, I tried some of his Hyper- Objects and had to eat that fried lizard - and chased it with some Jameson. Which reminds me, I haven't eaten yet.

    • Boulder Dash 29th Nov 2018

      I got Morton from Jason Chaplin. He doesn’t mind a bit of Zizek as well. But Morton started an uneasy relationship with me...almost an obsession, but not really, in fact not even close, trying to get it. He sounds like someone trying to say something (???) but can’t quite commit. He wants to remain in some quantum state of probability rather than make some decision (or maybe that’s just me demanding it of him, goddamn it!). I can’t read his take on OOO, and can’t be bothered much with where OOO comes from or actually what it is at all. Read shorter essays and his latest book Being Ecological all the way through (points) and came out with nothing much. Lot of licks that he riffs with and a feeling he’d like to tie his own philosophy, whatever it is, in with Buddhism...which apparently he practises.

  • Dave Jones 29th Nov 2018

    Now I see, that's a quote from Naomi Klein, and while the dilapidated Left tends to flock like moths to any tiny little flickering flame, I respect her judgement. She was here in Missoula when we tried to stop Mega-loads so she walks the walk. So as I say,I'll check this out.

    "Political revolution" seemed to me to be Bernie's way of avoiding economic revolution, suggesting we can vote our way to emancipation leaving Capital intact. And this all goes to my point about the political sphere being a hologram which I get from reading Mouffe ( The Return of the Political -Verso 1993) who with her husband Ernesto Laclau wrote Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, a monumental and controversial break with orthodox Marxism (which includes just enough Lacanian gobbledygook to fry a lizard). And Laclau and Zizek and Judith Butler wrote Contingency,Hegemony Universality and May the Circle Be Unbroken by and By Lord. Laclau also has a piece in Mapping Ideology, edited by Zizek. Mouffe has just written a piece calling for a new Left populism but I agree with the criticism of Thea Riafrancos that you can find in N+1 ( I would link to it but can't figure out how it is done her)

    You mentioned Tim Morton a while back, talk about convoluted, wow, I tried some of his Hyper- Objects and had to eat that fried lizard - and chased it with some Jameson. Which reminds me, I haven't eaten yet.

  • Alex of... 30th Nov 2018

    "what DO you look like?"

  • Alex of... 30th Nov 2018

    "who are you?"

  • Dave Jones 30th Nov 2018

    I'm just an old fishing guide surrounded by folks who were left behind by modernity and are now embedded in a post-modern myth they could never hope to imagine. These are slow people in a hyper world and they carry the subconscious baggage of genocide, something that manifests in workaholic/alcoholic rage and oxy abuse and spousal abuse and landscape abuse. Fight Club minus the philosophy basically. Hillary would get her throat slit like the dude in the video because the Deplorables have decided this neck of the woods is the new American Redoubt, the last white sanctuary for Chevy trucks and bumperstocks and liberty. But hey, there is still some awesome trout fishing.

  • Bat Chainpuller 1st Dec 2018

    I went with this because it has Rock N Roll Doctor in it.





    And Shark Fin Blues is totally gratuitous. Except, the lyrics are wonderful...see below



    Standing on the deck watching my shadow stretch
    The sun pours my shadow upon the deck
    The waters licking round my ankles now
    There ain't no sunshine way way down

    I see the sharks out in the water like slicks of ink
    Well, there's one there bigger than a submarine
    As he circles I look in his eye
    I see Jonah in his belly by the campfire light

    See the albatross up in the windy lofts
    He gets to beating his wings while he sleeps it off
    I hear the jettisoned cries from his dreams unkind
    Gets to whippin' my ears like a riding crop

    The captain once as able as a fink dandy
    He's now laid up in the galley like a dried out mink
    He's laying dying of thirst and he says or I think
    Well, we're gonna be alone from here on in

    Well you are all my brothers, and you have been kind
    But what were you expecting to find?
    Now your eyes turn inwards, countenance turns blank
    And I'm floating away on a barrel of pain
    It looks like nothing but the sea and sky remain

    A harpoon's shaft is short and wide
    A grappling hook's is cracked and dry
    I said, why don't you get down in the sea
    Turn the water red like you want to be?

    Cause if I cry another tear I'll be turned to dust
    No the sharks won't get me they don't feel loss
    Just keep one eye on the horizon man, you best not blink
    They're coming fin by fin until the whole boat sinks

  • Boulder Dash 1st Dec 2018

    Everyone still talks about Hendrix, Joplin, Morrison and Kurt dying young...but no one talks about Lowell George, and they fucking should...one of the best, grooviest, hippest, coolest slide players to ever grace this planet.

    Earth needs a doctor coz the ship is sinkin’

  • Irie Zen 1st Dec 2018

    1 can hear the cries of the dead
    maybe it's your neighbour beating his dog in the basement
    1 can hear the cries of the dead
    muffled by the ground but still loud enough to make it out


    Monkey-webs of concrete road disappear in time
    Weeds and trees that grow from seed will cover us in time
    Swallowing all of the buildings
    And every single piece of trash


    1 can hear the cries of the dead
    maybe its your neighbour playing his trumpet in the basement
    1 can hear the cries of the dead
    muffled by the ground but still loud enough to make a sound


    You went to the mountains true and painted what you saw
    You came back late and hid the painting underneath our couch
    And I wasn't there when you made it
    But I feel like I'm there when I'm lookin' at it


    1 can hear the cries of the dead
    Maybe its your neighbour beating his dog in the basement
    1 can hear the cries of the dead
    Muffled by the ground but still loud enough to make it out


     







     

    • Irie Zen 1st Dec 2018

      TMNT MASK


      I think I'll go sit by the river
      Just to get away for a while
      Like jumping off of the water
      And time, it aligned, is swirling and swimming
      Clouds rolling over themselves
      Twisting and boiling and growing out of nothing
      The hills bitten off at the edge
      And the whiskers and the tails
      Running round
      Running running round


      I think I'll go sit by the river
      Just to get away for a while
      Listen to the conversations
      Eavesdropping on the whiskey jacks and wax men


      Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle mask
      Sunk into the rocks plastic face half buried
      The stone bottom bumps out a rhythm
      It sings the same song
      That its always been singing


      Think I'll go sit by the river
      Just to get outside of my mind
      I'm wishing I could stay here forever
      But the river won't stay that long
      It's moving on
      Shopping cart stuck on an island
      Stranded in the middle getting hotter and thirsty
      Not really moving just waiting
      For this water to rise up again
      And pull me along