Login Join IOPS

More Rupture Plus Slime

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

Andreas Malm uses the term "induced implosion" and quotes Benjamin 'The destructive character has the consciousness of historical man, whose deepest emotion is an insuperable mistrust of the course of things and a readiness at all times to recognize that everything can go wrong...What exists he reduces to rubble- not for the sake of the rubble but for that of the way leading through it....It is Nature that dictates his tempo, indirectly at least, for he must forestall her. Otherwise she will take over the destruction herself."

The title of Malm's book; "The Progress of This Storm", refers to Benjamin's thesis around Angelus Novalis,and it is mostly a broadside aimed at Bruno Latour and other "Hybrid" philosophers (most I had never heard of). Instead he re-enforces the ecosocialist arguments put forth by Bellamy-Foster, Clark and York. My only knowledge of Latour comes from TRYING to read Timothy Morton and understand his OOO Object Oriented Ontology and I now feel better about my confusion.

Malm's text is far more accessible' "Devolution in ecosystems- say,'the rise of slime' in the oceans: the ascent of jellyfish and toxic algae, the descent of coral reefs and apex species- has a fitting counterpart in the current state of Western politics."

He quotes Donna Orange: "Blindness to our ancestor's (colonial) crimes, and the way we 'whites' continue to live from these crimes, keeps the suffering of those already exposed to the devestation of climate crisis impossible for us to see or feel"

Discussion 47 Comments

  • Alex of... 17th Dec 2018



    https://www.newmodelarmy.org/index.php/the-music/lyrics/88-225

  • Boulder Dash 18th Dec 2018

    I never asked for any of it either. In fact, I reckon if you go through history very few people asked for anything...they just got it, good or bad, heaven or hell. It’s just you rarely worry if what you get is good, heaven or even reasonable. I suppose that’s the heart of the matter, not many people ever really get asked...

    Then if you ask them, what are the odds they aren’t even sure what they want, in a specific sense. How could they be when all they know is what they got and what they see and know (Hahn, what they know is what they know...what does that even mean...even knowing is hard...to know or believe...the difference...belief and knowledge...fuck...no one asked for philosophy, it just fucking happens). But if pressed they’d probably admit they want something better than what they got, or they want something better for their children, and that better is probably something filled with more happiness and less anxiety or suffering. Or at the least, more certainty in their material existence, in basic needs rather than uncertainty. And it’s probably a desire based on some comparison or contrast with something else they know is out there or on some sense that the burden of suffering they are experiencing surely the isn’t the be all and end all...but now I’m heading into real problematic areas so I’ll stop.

    I remember watching some doco on Sherpas and Everest. How sherpas needed the money taking people up Everest. There were no other jobs, no work. I was left thinking, so this community, that has probably existed for centuries in the heights of the mountains, supporting itself in whatever ways it did, self sufficient, is now subject to the demands of a market in foreigners wishing to climb a fucking mountain. People risking their lives for others with money, to earn probably a pittance, so they can support their families, educate their kids. So simple an analysis, yet so fucked up, and none of them, I am sure, asked for any of it.

    I never asked for television, radio, vinyl records, bank accounts, mobile phones, computers, cars, bikes, books, roads, to go to school or not, or play sports or not or anything really. I only ever asked for a surfboard...and eventually got one. Then I bought my first guitar when I was twelve. But I never asked for guitars in general, acoustic or electric, or amplifiers, or jazz, or free improvised music, or spaceships, or rockets, or tanks and guns, or ships and planes...all these things were just there when I got old enough to notice. I didn’t ask for comedians yet now they rule the world. I never asked for the blues, both musical and personal, nor heavy metal, or Pilates or yoga nor meditation. I never asked for religion, a belief in this thing called god, or dogs or cats, or clothes and haircuts, or food. It was all there when I woke up.

    I never asked for guilt, but there’s plenty of that now. Piles of it, even for just being human. I certainly never asked for post modernism yet here it all is. I still don’t want it, it tastes awful. I never asked for a Joe Rogan, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Dougles Murray, Bret Weinstein, Eric Weinstein, David Rubin, Ben Schapiro...but there ya go, I woke up one day and there they all were, doing a great PR job for the status quo undervthe pretense of solving difficult problems and issues and it tastes fucking awful too...

    I never asked to believe what I believe but there ya go, I woke up and now I have these beliefs about capitalism and markets and the need for new systems...

    And now I am being asked for money by the Next System Project,

    Dear James:

    In 2018, millions of Americans voted for change.

    In 2019, the dominant question will be: “Change to what?”

    To change an entrenched system to something better, you have to know what that “something better” looks like, how it will work, and why it will be better than what you propose to leave behind.

    That means the work of The Next System Project—to advance systemic solutions to the systemic problems facing people and the planet—will become even more important in the weeks and months ahead.

    That’s why we’re asking you to make a generous end-of-year donation so that we can undertake a bold plan for driving the change agenda in 2019.

    This year, our Next System team:

    Produced a groundbreaking plan to phase out the fossil fuel industry and accelerate the transition to renewable energy.

    Showed how community control of land and housing could counter displacement in urban areas.

    Offered a road map for avoiding the mistakes of the 2008 bank bailouts.

    Worked on both sides of the Atlantic to promote worker ownership and municipalization as an alternative to corporate tax giveaways and privatization.

    And much more...

    We have been preparing to take these and other ideas for systemic change into the front lines of the political debate in 2019. We will be alongside newly energized champions of a Green New Deal and other policies for a more democratic and sustainable economy.

    We will also be working with communities and organizations around the country that are working to build elements of a next system from the ground up. And we will be using a broad range of publications and forums to promote thinking that is both audacious in vision and reality-based in what it will take to make our vision a reality.

    That’s where you come in. Ultimately, challenging the system means having the capacity to challenge the money that fuels it. An organization funded by people can advocate for people—and democratic control of the political economy—without compromise and without fear.

    You can empower us to keep doing that with a generous end-of-year, tax-deductible gift.

    As we enter 2019, let’s make sure that we don’t waste the urgent historic opportunity before us to begin truly transforming the system. In times like this, ideas matter—and so does your support.

    Yours for a better world,

    Dana Brown
    Deputy Director
    The Next System Project

    But I did buy the book by Malm, Dave. I’ll give it a go. But the Jameson quote right at the start pissed me off immediately...haha...I never asked for that, the way I reacted to the quote, it just happened, like autopilot.

    • Dave Jones 18th Dec 2018

      Yeah James, lots of the book- most of it actually- is arguments against post-modernists, mostly Bruno Latour. The only other one I even heard of is Tim Morton. But it lays down a good case for the ecosocialist approach and very little gobbledygook.

  • Boulder Dash 18th Dec 2018

    “We seem to be at a serious methodological disadvantage if we cannot reject that fallacy and affirm that there was in fact nature on Labuan –not in the sense of an idea, but of some objective, extra-discursive reality –in which the British found coal to burn, likewise in nature, with equally real consequences down the road. Understanding the historical phenomenon appears to require realism about the past and about nature.”

    Is this “easy bake oven” thinking, as Morton would say. Don’t much care what Morton actually means by that riff of his. Is this the “uncanny”? Again, don’t much care.

    Get it now, it appears Malm is having a go. Much Like I did directly at Morton who eventually bit back in a fairly expected way. Much like the Intellectual Dark Web folk do perpetually when being criticised by others...they are victims of unwarranted and dishonest abuse (poor souls), when they should be considered heroes, as they bravely discuss the scientific merits of the Bell Curve and IQ against the mass of blinded, ideologically driven assaults that come their way from people unwilling to tread where they are...appropriately, I must say. Let’s not talk of the real victims of social policies and an absurd economy, the poverty, but rather red herrings designed to move the focus to realms that would be comical if the results, that the PR machine of the powerful demand, weren’t so effective.

    There is the same shit going on among some intellectuals, probably of a post modern persuasion, around the word value...like the word nature...to paraphrase Thumpface, “what does it mean”. I mean, even Sam Harris and Poeterson conflate the word value, as in say, equity, or compassion, with the value pertaining to a commodity in the market place, as if it’s all the same and no one in the audience or the moderator picks them up on this. It’s just a discussion about how hard it is to ascertain the meaning of value...for fuck sake.

    If Bishop Johnson kicks the rock with bare feet, he could hurt himself, even break his foot or a toe. It matters not whether one believes the rock actually exists, is merely an idea, or even whether the rock, the foot, Johnson himself or all of those things together constitute nature. There is a consequence that is learnt and enough evidence to suggest that kicking the rock with bare feet, or stubbing you toe is something to be avoided at best.

    Meanwhile the shit continues...

    • Dave Jones 18th Dec 2018

      And the thing about "not asking" for all this shit, having it just appear, is this is the normative, default existence. The choice is go with the flow or swim upstream like a mad salmon.

  • Alex of... 18th Dec 2018

    i've used an analogy before that responds to a libertarian (Americanus brand) argument, and to some degree, the shortcomings of "ethical purchasing power"...

    the free market absolutist tells me that our dollar is our vote. thus, we choose to support those who provide the product we want.. and the way we want it at the best price possible. you know the idea.. entrepreneurs create shit people are asking for, or something new others might want and continue to ask for.. as evident by their purchase. with those choices freely available, the best products win and so does the entrepreneur that provides them, which creates the incentive to innovate and create product.

    this, i respond, is like saying, a couple hundred years back during American chattel-slave days, that if a person wears cotton, it implies they support slavery and slave masters. ridiculous.

    all it really says is that they choose to wear clothing, and cotton clothing is either what was attainable or preferred over other available options. hell, slaves are wearing cotton, too! i could be a northern abolitionist, but still wearing cotton. i can be asking for cotton to be harvested and woven to garment without slavery and still wear cotton. my boycott might leave me naked or force an impractical choice while others still choose cotton enough to maintain slavery's existence. it's just not the correct framework for my true choice, or otherwise.. what i'm asking for.

    yes, we can sometimes choose better options with our purchasing power in a "free market", but the choice that represents an ethical supply chain may not be on the table at all. and it's far from reasonable, or certainly effecient, to think that everyone should need a full assessment of the supply chain for each product that's made available, so they can choose the slightly more ethical choice from a variety of choices at market.

    there's some "blindness" as Dave's chosen quote goes, and it's not limited to "whites". one can dice that up in a few ways. hell, does the average American of any shade or ancestry have a grasp on how our "choices" effect the rest of the world? those effects are not evident in the purchases we choose to make, or as Claire's post alluded to, the choices we HAVE to make just to survive. the true costs are hidden or simply not available. are some folks willfully blind, gluttonous even? sure, but that's only one piece of a complex set of problems. the complexity itself is part of what makes ignorance a bit more blissful.

    we DO need to ASK for means of production that ARE ethical, that ARE sustainable, if we choose to care. to some extent, we need to DEMAND. we need to CREATE the correct framework for our requests.. but i am, of course, preaching to the choir at the moment.

    • Alex of... 18th Dec 2018

      anarchist jobs..

    • Boulder Dash 18th Dec 2018

      I was just extending on the songs point. That not being asked has a history...there’s time attached to it. Maybe that’s Jameson’s point that sometimes history gets ignored in favour of the now.

      It’s a long history of the bewildered herd not being asked about fucking anything...but being told. Being told that freedom of choice in the market is the same as democracy, when it clearly isn’t. That markets is best allocation practice.

  • Dave Jones 18th Dec 2018

    Thing about demands is they need to be backed up with viable threats; with "or else..." That's the only "framework" that matters if we're being real. And it's that lack of leverage that leads me to my rupture position - and believe me, few have de-constructed the romance of the idealist militant as I ( in my fiction, there is almost ALWAYS such a character). Cause I was raised in the era of Weathermen, and Panthers and Bader-Meinhof and Earth First and Symbionese Liberation Army Patty Hearst shit. Tragic efforts at leverage, not unlike ISIS. But desiring that big, historical project, to re-start history.

    The crazy thing is, fellow Montanan Ted Kaszinski was right- his tactics sucked, but read his manifesto. wreckage piling up at our feet.Wind howling. By the way, on Dec. 18 in W Montana it is 39 degrees and raining. This doesn't happen.

    • Alex of... 19th Dec 2018

      in the context of what my human energy affords me to wear for clothing (or what else), the not too incredibly ideological framework is that, through institutional arrangements, i would only have a choice available that is not systematically destroying the planet or produced through human exploitation. that's just practical and fair.

      as far as demands or else.. then it might start with what is being demanded i'd think. what would you demand? no more fossil fuel? no more war? a GND? world Parecon?

      or do you believe that some semi-random direct-actions will push an ecological and economic debate into the mainstream more? and favorably?

      or just fuck it.. tear some shit down and see what happens?

    • Alex of... 20th Dec 2018

      these rates also don't happen.. until somewhat recent..

      http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

    • Alex of... 21st Dec 2018


      https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/tool/nema.html

  • Claire Bruhn 18th Dec 2018

  • Boulder Dash 19th Dec 2018

    Revised.

    I just think there are now a range of options from which to devise strategy. 



    The problem really isn’t whether or not one is better or worse or sub-optimal or optimal. The problem is coherence and numbers.

It is clear those who continue to write about how fucked up our systems are are doing it to enlighten or enrage people into action of some sort. But what action exactly? Organise what? Organise toward what? That action is dependent on the vision or goal...that is what divides the left.



    The left sits back demanding we organise continually and that we need to change, but that is where it ends. All I get is yet another book or essay expounding the views or theories of Joe Blogs, experienced activist number 1067. It signals the need for mass movements but rarely connects that idea to coherent vision and strategy and goes no further than words on a page. 



    If you go through the options, holy fuck, the ideas are already there. From Proudhon and Owen, the Paris Commune, the Spanish Rev, coops, worker owned businesses, commoning, community economics, simplicity, it’s all pretty much the same shit as people have done for decades/centuries...it’s just now there is urgency, which Chomsky, the arch rationalist, always acknowledges. What isn’t there clearly is an end goal, and most of the radical left would agree, if there is to be one, it can’t be overly defined. Parecon fits that bill in my opinion. Not because it’s the one but because it’s the only coherent model so far that offers up an alternative economy to head for that ain’t vague, deals decisively with markets one way or another, which is good regardless of whether one agrees or not, rather than place one’s hope in the direction of on the ground improvisations...most of which are NOT directed or defined by EVERYONE through some democratic process, but by history or a few consultant intellectual types who spend most of their time in Left think tanks much like those surrounding Commons-transition and the NSP.

    

If two decades is a kind of timeline of sorts then something like what Albert describes in RPS/2044 is probably what is needed. What he calls a Bloc and Hahnel some kind of grand alliance of movements, is what most seem to acknowledge is needed, and probably what something like the NSP dreams of. 

But how to do it?????

    So why isn’t the radical left, no matter what their particular philosophical ideological preference doing everything to bring these movements and projects into consciousness, rather than writing endless fucking articles about the possibilities of the yellow vests bringing the whole thing down...which I know and everyone else fucking knows, deep down, will not happen.

    

Not fucking once have I heard Paul Street yell from the roof tops about the existence of the NSP, or commons transition and the need to unite these movements...very rarely does he mention Parecon...sometimes...



    This is the same with so many on the left....

Albert has been trying to unite all these talking heads for years, repetitively, in a big way rather than in some minor way...in a way where strategy and vision blends including transition ideas...ah, but no. 



    Sounds like whinging and whining, and it is to an extent because the ideas are all there and they aren’t that different from those that have been there for centuries...except for more specific visions like Parecon. 



    Theories about nature/society splits or what value is or can be is a waste of time, or small meetings by small groups isolated and hidden locally, unconnected on the internet or any other way with other groups, due to specific ideological differences about what needs to be done and how, hasn’t worked up till now anyway...it’s a constant on the left...it’s a constraint on the Left!



    What isn’t a constant on the left, is a Bloc or grand alliance united in goal and strategy, yet possibly autonomous in tactics and with a coherent clear enough economic vision for the future. 

It’s just numbers and the left cannot do it...

Forcing rupture will mean deaths and violence I have no doubt, depending on specifics. Making demands without clear goals, alternatives, presented rationally and clearly by folks with the ability to do so, with solid support and numbers behind them, will merely elicit the usual scoffs and laughter. 



    Why the fuck don’t the Commons transition folk combine with the NSP. The voluntary simplicity folk combine with them? The degrowthers and ecosocialists and Kovels of the world, the System Change Not Climate Change folk join them? Why don’t the Hahnels and Albert actively push it and loudly in solidarity? Why don’t the basic income folk and green new dealers and DSAers and whoever fucking else get behind it?

I pick them out, the NSP, because its there. Why doesn’t DiEM 25 actively promote or join in with the NSP in Europe, globalising the movement and then reach out to the yellow vests and give them something clear and coherent to lean on?

    

As I say this, write it, think it, I arrive at this point, like right now, where I question my own mental processes. I think, it doesn’t work like that because I’m not smart enough or knowledgeable enough or experienced enough, haven’t been arrested or beaten up, not really seeing the problems or I’m just an idealist for thinking that someone like Russell Brand, if he just started interviewing and promoting people like Alperovitz, or Albert, or Bauwens, or Siefkes, or Fotopoulos or others, so they will get into the heads of his adoring fans and the public over names like Jordan Peterson the left may have a chance. But what also comes to mind is an insistence on the left that somehow, the most democratic way, is for all groups, orgs, movements, activists to just kind of do it themselves, self emergence from the bottom up...it’s a kind of anarchist, or left principle that must not be usurped. 



    Like I know, but I hope I am wrong, that a movie like Albert wants to make won’t be made. And won’t be made quickly, by those capable of doing so. And it’s a fucking travesty that I am more likely to see another Michael Moore humourous critique yet again that leaves everything at the same starting point as before. 



    We can make demands. Demands are easy as are threats. 



    A Bloc, grand alliance, movement of movements, with the intellectual and talking, writing force, of those with great abilities and experience behind it to help pull it together and hold it together is what is needed.



    And that’s just too fucking hard. 



    Most would prefer to write a book and just join in some protest or form or join some local group doing what they can...makes ‘em feel good...and I don’t blame them really...we are after all just human....

    • Alex of... 2nd Jan 2019

      i agree with some of what you be saying.. and some, not so much in the terms expressed. there's a lot of topics within.

      but, to follow a bit of the demand stream...

      Dave say:
      "Thing about demands is they need to be backed up with viable threats; with "or else..." That's the only "framework" that matters if we're being real. And it's that lack of leverage that leads me to my rupture position"

      Alex say:
      "as far as demands or else.. then it might start with what is being demanded i'd think. what would you demand?"

      Boulder say:
      "Making demands without clear goals, alternatives, presented rationally and clearly by folks with the ability to do so, with solid support and numbers behind them, will merely elicit the usual scoffs and laughter."

      "We can make demands. Demands are easy as are threats."

      ok...

      perhaps i'd say that demands could be vague, or clearly defined.
      being vague is probably easier.

      empty threats are likely easy.
      but viable threats? what makes it viable?

      and when does it become necessary? the need for leverage?

      one thought.. consider unions.

      why did people form unions? individually, someone feels exploited but gets no results, or even adverse results if alone they attempt change. people experiencing the same situation instead come together to form a set of collective demands. but does it help? what if big bossman just says no?

      there comes threat-leverage time. now that we've organized demands collectively, we collectively strike.. stop working. how ya like us now?

      but that could come with great difficulty and risk. sure, big bossman needs work done, but a worker now drops all income, in hopes of achieving something. plus, there might be scabs brought in. there might be thugs brought in. the attempt might be crushed and organizers sent packing to send a message. there might be deaths.

      not exactly an easy threat to carry out perhaps.

      but then, is this statement true?...

      "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”

    • Boulder Dash 3rd Jan 2019

      Power generally never concedes anyway...there were huge numbers at the turn of the twentieth century legitimately with good reason threatening and demanding...they killed them, beat ‘em to a pulp and jailed ‘em. And I’m not even sure the labour ‘wars’ around that period changed much ideologically amongbthe bewildered herd. I mean the BDWGHPG developed the Creel Committee which overcsaw the beginnings of the PR industry. Around that volatile time Bernays comes out with Propaganda.

      Reckon you gotta win the ideological war at same time...yeah Power saw a threat, saw the numbers demands and threats and put their heads to the grindstone, after of course they, with sheer force, ‘controlled’ the ‘ratbags’.

      I’m just saying, that sure, demands and threats have worked at times in degrees, but overall, the BDWGHPG just kept going and growing, probably in the end because those making the demands and threats had won enough over....I mean shit, even during the post WW2 economic golden age, social democratic utopia you had the ideological war - anti red - going on early and even the beginnings of the Mont Pelerin Society while demands and threats seemed minimal.

      Power learns better.


    • Boulder Dash 3rd Jan 2019

      Correction. Left a not off.

      “...probably in the end because those making the demands and threats had not won enough over....”

    • Alex of... 6th Jan 2019

      there are plenty of people struggling in the US, but the percentage considered below the poverty line is around 12 or 13 percent. people doing better might vote for what they think helps alleviate or progress from that, but how invested are they really? it's the beauty of the pyramid. which has also become that much more effective by exporting low-wage work. we don't really see the struggle at the bottom tiers.

      similarly, full on fascism will be overthrown in the long run. it may have a bloody run, but the model can't last. it's too obvious. the beauty of manufacturing consent.

      really, i don't think most people in this country have any ideology at all. there's getting a job. there's pursuing a career. there's buying stuff and living each day. i don't think we really have a pissed-off masses enough to pursue a mutual ideology in some kind of classic "us vs power" sense. at least right now.

      there's certainly a moral case to be made. there's certainly a threat to future existence. as i've alluded to before, i think the solutions imply that most people in this country, and many others, would be giving up some of what they are currently accustomed to.

      this may diminish the investment people are willing to make. if true (or not.. do you think?), how then do you convince people to fight? not necessarily on a physical level, but advancing their personal ideology toward choosing how they will pursue it.

      we've seen the starving children on tv. has it helped? has it helped a bit? has it helped just enough to be able to ignore it again? has the herd seen it so much they've become desensitized? should we throw blood on them? blame them? shock them? plead them? sell them on? provide a path for? plant a seed in? water them? drown them? ignore them? fuck them? propagandate them on the toilet?

      all of the above? what's the key to winning the ideological war?

    • Boulder Dash 7th Jan 2019

      Reckon they do have ideology...even if they don’t know it...most people like capitalism and markets, even those who think left or are kind of socialists...Sanders, Corbyn, probably don’t mind capitalism to a degree and markets...don’t know really.

      I don’t what the key is...if there’s no ideolgical battle then it’s got to be a battle for a vision which to me somewhat the same really...I don’t know...got no clue...

      How do you win anything? There’s all kinds of methods or strategies or tactics or actions that people have used for centuries...here we are in 2018 asking the same questions...let’s organise, let’s do shit...but really it ain’t that different and I don’t think Left is winning minds over to anti-capitalism and definitely no anti-market...certainly not winning them over to revolutionary thinking...they wouldn’t even know what it is really...shit, you hear Brahd talking to Rogan and he’s talking anarchism really...Rogan dismisses it all as cultish stuff...who wins between the two funny guys...Rogan does...he’s so much more practical sounding...so much more popular...

      Demands? What demands? How to get people to agree with demands to the point those in power would listen? I got nothing.

      There’s all kinds of moves from electoral, mainstream political down to the revolutionary and the revolutionary generally get short shrift in favour of more moderate moves...tweaking...



    • Alex of... 6th Jan 2019

      oops.. THIS is what i meant to copy/paste from my text doc...

      strikes have worked. they have also failed. there's been lasting changes from those efforts, and potential changes never realized or beat back. unions dismantled over time. job-creator propaganda.

      power has an easier time organizing. a minority with plenty of resources. harder to get the masses on the same page.

      in one sense, i don't think people realize their agency. but then, it also comes back to my question about what one would demand. what's the case being made?

      i mean, as far as embracing an ideology in modern Western society, what is the struggle?

      there are plenty of people struggling in the US, but the percentage considered below the poverty line is around 12 or 13 percent. people doing better might vote for what they think helps alleviate or progress from that, but how invested are they really? it's the beauty of the pyramid. which has also become that much more effective by exporting low-wage work. we don't really see the struggle at the bottom tiers.

      similarly, full on fascism will be overthrown in the long run. it may have a bloody run, but the model can't last. it's too obvious. the beauty of manufacturing consent.

      really, i don't think most people in this country have any ideology at all. there's getting a job. there's pursuing a career. there's buying stuff and living each day. i don't think we really have a pissed-off masses enough to pursue a mutual ideology in some kind of classic "us vs power" sense. at least right now.

      there's certainly a moral case to be made. there's certainly a threat to future existence. as i've alluded to before, i think the solutions imply that most people in this country, and many others, would be giving up some of what they are currently accustomed to.

      this may diminish the investment people are willing to make. if true (or not.. do you think?), how then do you convince people to fight? not necessarily on a physical level, but advancing their personal ideology toward choosing how they will pursue it.

      we've seen the starving children on tv. has it helped? has it helped a bit? has it helped just enough to be able to ignore it again? has the herd seen it so much they've become desensitized? should we throw blood on them? blame them? shock them? plead them? sell them on? provide a path for? plant a seed in? water them? drown them? ignore them? fuck them? propagandate them on the toilet?

      all of the above? what's the key to winning the ideological war?

    • Alex of... 6th Jan 2019

      in one sense, i don't think people realize their agency. but then, it also comes back to my question about what one would demand. what's the case being made?

      i mean, as far as embracing an ideology in modern Western society, what is the struggle?...

    • Alex of... 6th Jan 2019

      this shorter part^ should appear before the longer part..

      1) in one sense...
      2) there are plenty...

      lol

    • Alex of... 6th Jan 2019

      (maybe an admin will clean that up :)

  • Irie Zen 21st Dec 2018

    All in 1: "Everything IS everything"; It is so great to see y'all here. Dave's 4th 1! Alex +1! Claire +1! Blogs by 4 different IOPS members on our front page lawn. In 1 month!! It feels great to stroll* in here and find a new blog with 14! comments. [All in 1 below; AGAIN!] // 1 big jigsaw puzzle full of interesting and/or important/beautiful thoughts, opinions and beliefs; Observations et cetera; I enjoyed surfing through your red reign of rambling roses (and carnations). I'd love to throw in some more stuff now.. comments/vids/music on comments on reactions/comments on comments.. and on and on.. and on.. *Irie is poppin' in; doin' his 'both thumbs up' dance; to celebrate today's kitchen party* (~6000 words) [..] // [COMMENTS BELOW COMMENTS BELOW]


    DAVE:


    More Rupture Plus Slime


    Andreas Malm uses the term "induced implosion" and quotes Benjamin 'The destructive character has the consciousness of historical man, whose deepest emotion is an insuperable mistrust of the course of things and a readiness at all times to recognize that everything can go wrong...What exists he reduces to rubble- not for the sake of the rubble but for that of the way leading through it....It is Nature that dictates his tempo, indirectly at least, for he must forestall her. Otherwise she will take over the destruction herself."


    The title of Malm's book; "The Progress of This Storm", refers to Benjamin's thesis around Angelus Novalis,and it is mostly a broadside aimed at Bruno Latour and other "Hybrid" philosophers (most I had never heard of). Instead he re-enforces the ecosocialist arguments put forth by Bellamy-Foster, Clark and York. My only knowledge of Latour comes from TRYING to read Timothy Morton and understand his OOO Object Oriented Ontology and I now feel better about my confusion.


    Malm's text is far more accessible' "Devolution in ecosystems- say,'the rise of slime' in the oceans: the ascent of jellyfish and toxic algae, the descent of coral reefs and apex species- has a fitting counterpart in the current state of Western politics."


    He quotes Donna Orange: "Blindness to our ancestor's (colonial) crimes, and the way we 'whites' continue to live from these crimes, keeps the suffering of those already exposed to the devestation of climate crisis impossible for us to see or feel"


    ^^ // Irie: I like the fact you're building up on your blogs "Politics of Rupture" and "Winds of Change". Go on. Explore. I gave your 'Let's fast forward to: THE NEXT EVENT' proposal some thinking; but it always turned into some really fucked-up dystopian nightmare. The oceanic slime/western politics analogy isn't working for me. It is as catchy as 'The red apple is as green as this orange.'; The blindness to our (ancestor's) crimes is the 1! I see Brando in Apocalypse Now here: "The blindness.. the horrors; The blindness!" [..]


    1: "I’ve seen horrors, horrors that you’ve seen. But you have no right to call me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that, but you have no right to judge me. It’s impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror. Horror has a face. And you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared."


    "They are truly enemies. I remember when I was with Special Forces, seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate the children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for Polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn’t see. We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile, a pile of little arms. And I remember, I, I, I cried, I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn’t know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized, like I was shot, like I was shot with a diamond, a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought, my God, the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure."


    "And then I realized they were stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not monsters. These were men, trained cadres, these men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love, but they had the strength, the strength, to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling, without passion, without judgment, without judgment. Because it’s judgment that defeats us."


    I: I'm happy you brought feathers to the 'Powwow' Dave. I'll let a code monkey put up Angelus Novalis at our #clubh0u53.


     


    ALEX:


    https://youtu.be/Va2f78H2voE


    New Model Army - 225 (Sullivan/Heaton) 1988


    She stares at the screen, at the little words of green
    Tries to do remember what to do next
    There's a trace of frustration that crosses her face
    Searching for the key she should press
    And I would help her if I only know how
    But these things are a mystery to me too
    And it seems that the Corporate eyes they are watching
    She fears for her job and the moments are passing
    I stare at her nametag and I think to myself
    Both you and I, we never asked for any of this So let's take a walk up past the chemical works
    Where the sky turns green at night
    And we'll talk about getting away from here
    Some different kind of life
    But even in the freshest mountain air
    The jet fighters practise overhead
    And they're drilling these hills for uranium deposits
    And they'll bury the waste for our children to inherit
    And though this is all done for our own benefit,
    I swear we never asked for any of this This golden age of communication
    Means everyone talks at the same time
    And liberty just means the freedom to exploit
    Any weakness that you can find
    Turn off the TV just for a while
    Let us whisper to each other instead
    And we'll hope that the Corporate ears do not listen
    Lest we find ourselves committing some kind of treason
    And filed in the tapes without rhyme, without reason
    While they tell us that it's all for our own protection,
    I swear we never asked for any of this


    ^^ // Irie: Nice 1st comment Alex; Worth more than a 1000 words; Powwow style. :) // 7H3_LYR1C157_L0UN63.exe


     


    BOULDER:


    I never asked for any of it either. In fact, I reckon if you go through history very few people asked for anything...they just got it, good or bad, heaven or hell. It’s just you rarely worry if what you get is good, heaven or even reasonable. I suppose that’s the heart of the matter, not many people ever really get asked...


    Then if you ask them, what are the odds they aren’t even sure what they want, in a specific sense. How could they be when all they know is what they got and what they see and know (Hahn, what they know is what they know...what does that even mean...even knowing is hard...to know or believe...the difference...belief and knowledge...fuck...no one asked for philosophy, it just fucking happens). But if pressed they’d probably admit they want something better than what they got, or they want something better for their children, and that better is probably something filled with more happiness and less anxiety or suffering. Or at the least, more certainty in their material existence, in basic needs rather than uncertainty. And it’s probably a desire based on some comparison or contrast with something else they know is out there or on some sense that the burden of suffering they are experiencing surely the isn’t the be all and end all...but now I’m heading into real problematic areas so I’ll stop.


    I remember watching some doco on Sherpas and Everest. How sherpas needed the money taking people up Everest. There were no other jobs, no work. I was left thinking, so this community, that has probably existed for centuries in the heights of the mountains, supporting itself in whatever ways it did, self sufficient, is now subject to the demands of a market in foreigners wishing to climb a fucking mountain. People risking their lives for others with money, to earn probably a pittance, so they can support their families, educate their kids. So simple an analysis, yet so fucked up, and none of them, I am sure, asked for any of it.


    I never asked for television, radio, vinyl records, bank accounts, mobile phones, computers, cars, bikes, books, roads, to go to school or not, or play sports or not or anything really. I only ever asked for a surfboard...and eventually got one. Then I bought my first guitar when I was twelve. But I never asked for guitars in general, acoustic or electric, or amplifiers, or jazz, or free improvised music, or spaceships, or rockets, or tanks and guns, or ships and planes...all these things were just there when I got old enough to notice. I didn’t ask for comedians yet now they rule the world. I never asked for the blues, both musical and personal, nor heavy metal, or Pilates or yoga nor meditation. I never asked for religion, a belief in this thing called god, or dogs or cats, or clothes and haircuts, or food. It was all there when I woke up.


    I never asked for guilt, but there’s plenty of that now. Piles of it, even for just being human. I certainly never asked for post modernism yet here it all is. I still don’t want it, it tastes awful. I never asked for a Joe Rogan, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Dougles Murray, Bret Weinstein, Eric Weinstein, David Rubin, Ben Schapiro...but there ya go, I woke up one day and there they all were, doing a great PR job for the status quo undervthe pretense of solving difficult problems and issues and it tastes fucking awful too...


    I never asked to believe what I believe but there ya go, I woke up and now I have these beliefs about capitalism and markets and the need for new systems...


    And now I am being asked for money by the Next System Project,


     


    Dear James,


    In 2018, millions of Americans voted for change.


    In 2019, the dominant question will be: “Change to what?”


    To change an entrenched system to something better, you have to know what that “something better” looks like, how it will work, and why it will be better than what you propose to leave behind.


    That means the work of The Next System Project—to advance systemic solutions to the systemic problems facing people and the planet—will become even more important in the weeks and months ahead.


    That’s why we’re asking you to make a generous end-of-year donation so that we can undertake a bold plan for driving the change agenda in 2019.


    This year, our Next System team:


    Produced a groundbreaking plan to phase out the fossil fuel industry and accelerate the transition to renewable energy.


    Showed how community control of land and housing could counter displacement in urban areas.


    Offered a road map for avoiding the mistakes of the 2008 bank bailouts.


    Worked on both sides of the Atlantic to promote worker ownership and municipalization as an alternative to corporate tax giveaways and privatization.


    And much more...


    We have been preparing to take these and other ideas for systemic change into the front lines of the political debate in 2019. We will be alongside newly energized champions of a Green New Deal and other policies for a more democratic and sustainable economy.


    We will also be working with communities and organizations around the country that are working to build elements of a next system from the ground up. And we will be using a broad range of publications and forums to promote thinking that is both audacious in vision and reality-based in what it will take to make our vision a reality.


    That’s where you come in. Ultimately, challenging the system means having the capacity to challenge the money that fuels it. An organization funded by people can advocate for people—and democratic control of the political economy—without compromise and without fear.


    You can empower us to keep doing that with a generous end-of-year, tax-deductible gift.


    As we enter 2019, let’s make sure that we don’t waste the urgent historic opportunity before us to begin truly transforming the system. In times like this, ideas matter—and so does your support.


    Yours for a better world,


    Dana Brown
    Deputy Director
    The Next System Project


     


    But I did buy the book by Malm, Dave. I’ll give it a go. But the Jameson quote right at the start pissed me off immediately...haha...I never asked for that, the way I reacted to the quote, it just happened, like autopilot.


    ^^ // Irie: I can hear* you improvising some spaced out guitar tunes while reading your comments James; This one; is so 1! I love the 'I never asked for..' theme.. followed by Dana's letter (read by a little girl for max pathos(?)+Saxophone!); MUSIC! Autopilot as well. ;P


     


    DAVE:


    Yeah James, lots of the book- most of it actually- is arguments against post-modernists, mostly Bruno Latour. The only other one I even heard of is Tim Morton. But it lays down a good case for the ecosocialist approach and very little gobbledygook.


     


    BOULDER:


    “We seem to be at a serious methodological disadvantage if we cannot reject that fallacy and affirm that there was in fact nature on Labuan –not in the sense of an idea, but of some objective, extra-discursive reality –in which the British found coal to burn, likewise in nature, with equally real consequences down the road. Understanding the historical phenomenon appears to require realism about the past and about nature.”


    Is this “easy bake oven” thinking, as Morton would say. Don’t much care what Morton actually means by that riff of his. Is this the “uncanny”? Again, don’t much care.


    Get it now, it appears Malm is having a go. Much Like I did directly at Morton who eventually bit back in a fairly expected way. Much like the Intellectual Dark Web folk do perpetually when being criticised by others...they are victims of unwarranted and dishonest abuse (poor souls), when they should be considered heroes, as they bravely discuss the scientific merits of the Bell Curve and IQ against the mass of blinded, ideologically driven assaults that come their way from people unwilling to tread where they are...appropriately, I must say. Let’s not talk of the real victims of social policies and an absurd economy, the poverty, but rather red herrings designed to move the focus to realms that would be comical if the results, that the PR machine of the powerful demand, weren’t so effective.


    There is the same shit going on among some intellectuals, probably of a post modern persuasion, around the word value...like the word nature...to paraphrase Thumpface, “what does it mean”. I mean, even Sam Harris and Poeterson conflate the word value, as in say, equity, or compassion, with the value pertaining to a commodity in the market place, as if it’s all the same and no one in the audience or the moderator picks them up on this. It’s just a discussion about how hard it is to ascertain the meaning of value...for fuck sake.


    If Bishop Johnson kicks the rock with bare feet, he could hurt himself, even break his foot or a toe. It matters not whether one believes the rock actually exists, is merely an idea, or even whether the rock, the foot, Johnson himself or all of those things together constitute nature. There is a consequence that is learnt and enough evidence to suggest that kicking the rock with bare feet, or stubbing you toe is something to be avoided at best.


    Meanwhile the shit continues...


     


    DAVE:


    And the thing about "not asking" for all this shit, having it just appear, is this is the normative, default existence. The choice is go with the flow or swim upstream like a mad salmon.


    ^^ // Irie: I the mad koi.. swimming up a waterfall.. to become a (flying) dragon in the end.


     


    ALEX:


    i've used an analogy before that responds to a libertarian (Americanus brand) argument, and to some degree, the shortcomings of "ethical purchasing power"...


    the free market absolutist tells me that our dollar is our vote. thus, we choose to support those who provide the product we want.. and the way we want it at the best price possible. you know the idea.. entrepreneurs create shit people are asking for, or something new others might want and continue to ask for.. as evident by their purchase. with those choices freely available, the best products win and so does the entrepreneur that provides them, which creates the incentive to innovate and create product.


    this, i respond, is like saying, a couple hundred years back during American chattel-slave days, that if a person wears cotton, it implies they support slavery and slave masters. ridiculous.


    all it really says is that they choose to wear clothing, and cotton clothing is either what was attainable or preferred over other available options. hell, slaves are wearing cotton, too! i could be a northern abolitionist, but still wearing cotton. i can be asking for cotton to be harvested and woven to garment without slavery and still wear cotton. my boycott might leave me naked or force an impractical choice while others still choose cotton enough to maintain slavery's existence. it's just not the correct framework for my true choice, or otherwise.. what i'm asking for.


    yes, we can sometimes choose better options with our purchasing power in a "free market", but the choice that represents an ethical supply chain may not be on the table at all. and it's far from reasonable, or certainly effecient, to think that everyone should need a full assessment of the supply chain for each product that's made available, so they can choose the slightly more ethical choice from a variety of choices at market.


    there's some "blindness" as Dave's chosen quote goes, and it's not limited to "whites". one can dice that up in a few ways. hell, does the average American of any shade or ancestry have a grasp on how our "choices" effect the rest of the world? those effects are not evident in the purchases we choose to make, or as Claire's post alluded to, the choices we HAVE to make just to survive. the true costs are hidden or simply not available. are some folks willfully blind, gluttonous even? sure, but that's only one piece of a complex set of problems. the complexity itself is part of what makes ignorance a bit more blissful.


    we DO need to ASK for means of production that ARE ethical, that ARE sustainable, if we choose to care. to some extent, we need to DEMAND. we need to CREATE the correct framework for our requests.. but i am, of course, preaching to the choir at the moment.


     


    https://youtu.be/U5KeXgli768 


    Nofx - Don't Call Me White; BYO Split Series, Volume III


    Don't call me white (x4)
    The connotations wearing my nervous thin
    Could it be semantics generating the mess we're in?
    I understand that language breeds stereotype
    But what's the explanation for the malice, for the spite?
    Don't call me white (x4)
    I wasn't brought here, I was born
    Circumsized, categorized, allegiance sworn
    Does this mean I have to take such shit
    For being fairskinned? No!
    I ain't a part of no conspiracy, I'm just you're average Joe
    Don't call me white (x4)
    Represents everything I hate
    The soap shoved in the mouth to cleanse the mind
    The vast majority of sheep
    A buttoned collar, starched and bleached
    Constricting veins, the blood flow to the brain slows
    They're so fuckin' ordinary white
    Don't call me white (x4)


     


    https://youtu.be/iwX_FsoXQr4


    ^^ // Irie: I remember one of my old pieces*; Twas a NCA* wildstyle* (NON-CUSTOMER ARMY) with a bald Silent Bob* type character next to it; in front of a convenience store; holding a sawn-off double-barreled 12 gauge; a flower growing out of his head. :D


     


    BOULDER:


    I was just extending on the songs point. That not being asked has a history...there’s time attached to it. Maybe that’s Jameson’s point that sometimes history gets ignored in favour of the now.


    It’s a long history of the bewildered herd not being asked about fucking anything...but being told. Being told that freedom of choice in the market is the same as democracy, when it clearly isn’t. That markets is best allocation practice.


     


    DAVE:


    Thing about demands is they need to be backed up with viable threats; with "or else..." That's the only "framework" that matters if we're being real. And it's that lack of leverage that leads me to my rupture position - and believe me, few have de-constructed the romance of the idealist militant as I ( in my fiction, there is almost ALWAYS such a character). Cause I was raised in the era of Weathermen, and Panthers and Bader-Meinhof and Earth First and Symbionese Liberation Army Patty Hearst shit. Tragic efforts at leverage, not unlike ISIS. But desiring that big, historical project, to re-start history.


    The crazy thing is, fellow Montanan Ted Kaszinski was right- his tactics sucked, but read his manifesto. wreckage piling up at our feet.Wind howling. By the way, on Dec. 18 in W Montana it is 39 degrees and raining. This doesn't happen.


    ^^ // [(39 °F = ~4 °C] // Irie: The romance of the idealist militant; yeah; I member! Random ramblings; LIKE! Content +1; Thanks for bringing up Rote Armee Fraktion (RAF); I watched the Netflix series "Manhunt: Unabomber" this year; interesting incident*, yo fellow Montanan Teddy Kay.. XD // IOPS.. conversation'n'correspondence.. yay! Great stuff.


     


    ALEX:


    these rates also don't happen.. until somewhat recent.. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/


    in the context of what my human energy affords me to wear for clothing (or what else), the not too incredibly ideological framework is that, through institutional arrangements, i would only have a choice available that is not systematically destroying the planet or produced through human exploitation. that's just practical and fair.


    as far as demands or else.. then it might start with what is being demanded i'd think. what would you demand? no more fossil fuel? no more war? a GND? world Parecon?


    or do you believe that some semi-random direct-actions will push an ecological and economic debate into the mainstream more? and favorably?


    or just fuck it.. tear some shit down and see what happens?


    ^^ // Irie: I wish I could calculate probabilities like C-3P0. // C-3P0: Sir, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field* is approximately 3,720 to 1! // I: Just a quick reminder of what that means. When odds are presented this way, the claim is that in 3,721 attempts to ****, we would expect 1 to be successful. In probability terms that's 0.027%, small enough to make it effectively* impossible. - 'Let'se go, Mario Bro! Jump'n'run!'


     


     


    CLAIRE:


    https://youtu.be/6RjgVFwmnd8


    ^^ // Irie: "I THIS COMMENT* CLAIRE!" +1! LIKE! LOVE! SPIRIT!



     


    BOULDER:


    I just think there are now a range of options from which to devise strategy. 




    The problem really isn’t whether or not one is better or worse or sub-optimal or optimal. The problem is coherence and numbers.

It is clear those who continue to write about how fucked up our systems are are doing it to enlighten or enrage people into action of some sort. But what action exactly? Organise what? Organise toward what? That action is dependent on the vision or goal...that is what divides the left.




    The left sits back demanding we organise continually and that we need to change, but that is where it ends. All I get is yet another book or essay expounding the views or theories of Joe Blogs, experienced activist number 1067. It signals the need for mass movements but rarely connects that idea to coherent vision and strategy and goes no further than words on a page. 




    If you go through the options, holy fuck, the ideas are already there. From Proudhon and Owen, the Paris Commune, the Spanish Rev, coops, worker owned businesses, commoning, community economics, simplicity, it’s all pretty much the same shit as people have done for decades/centuries...it’s just now there is urgency, which Chomsky, the arch rationalist, always acknowledges. What isn’t there clearly is an end goal, and most of the radical left would agree, if there is to be one, it can’t be overly defined. Parecon fits that bill in my opinion. Not because it’s the one but because it’s the only coherent model so far that offers up an alternative economy to head for that ain’t vague, deals decisively with markets one way or another, which is good regardless of whether one agrees or not, rather than place one’s hope in the direction of on the ground improvisations...most of which are NOT directed or defined by EVERYONE through some democratic process, but by history or a few consultant intellectual types who spend most of their time in Left think tanks much like those surrounding Commons-transition and the NSP.


    

If two decades is a kind of timeline of sorts then something like what Albert describes in RPS/2044 is probably what is needed. What he calls a Bloc and Hahnel some kind of grand alliance of movements, is what most seem to acknowledge is needed, and probably what something like the NSP dreams of. 

But how to do it?????


    So why isn’t the radical left, no matter what their particular philosophical ideological preference doing everything to bring these movements and projects into consciousness, rather than writing endless fucking articles about the possibilities of the yellow vests bringing the whole thing down...which I know and everyone else fucking knows, deep down, will not happen.


    

Not fucking once have I heard Paul Street yell from the roof tops about the existence of the NSP, or commons transition and the need to unite these movements...very rarely does he mention Parecon...sometimes...




    This is the same with so many on the left....

Albert has been trying to unite all these talking heads for years, repetitively, in a big way rather than in some minor way...in a way where strategy and vision blends including transition ideas...ah, but no. 




    Sounds like whinging and whining, and it is to an extent because the ideas are all there and they aren’t that different from those that have been there for centuries...except for more specific visions like Parecon. 




    Theories about nature/society splits or what value is or can be is a waste of time, or small meetings by small groups isolated and hidden locally, unconnected on the internet or any other way with other groups, due to specific ideological differences about what needs to be done and how, hasn’t worked up till now anyway...it’s a constant on the left...it’s a constraint on the Left!




    What isn’t a constant on the left, is a Bloc or grand alliance united in goal and strategy, yet possibly autonomous in tactics and with a coherent clear enough economic vision for the future. 

It’s just numbers and the left cannot do it...

Forcing rupture will mean deaths and violence I have no doubt, depending on specifics. Making demands without clear goals, alternatives, presented rationally and clearly by folks with the ability to do so, with solid support and numbers behind them, will merely elicit the usual scoffs and laughter. 




    Why the fuck don’t the Commons transition folk combine with the NSP. The voluntary simplicity folk combine with them? The degrowthers and ecosocialists and Kovels of the world, the System Change Not Climate Change folk join them? Why don’t the Hahnels and Albert actively push it and loudly in solidarity? Why don’t the basic income folk and green new dealers and DSAers and whoever fucking else get behind it?

I pick them out, the NSP, because its there. Why doesn’t DiEM 25 actively promote or join in with the NSP in Europe, globalising the movement and then reach out to the yellow vests and give them something clear and coherent to lean on?


    

As I say this, write it, think it, I arrive at this point, like right now, where I question my own mental processes. I think, it doesn’t work like that because I’m not smart enough or knowledgeable enough or experienced enough, haven’t been arrested or beaten up, not really seeing the problems or I’m just an idealist for thinking that someone like Russell Brand, if he just started interviewing and promoting people like Alperovitz, or Albert, or Bauwens, or Siefkes, or Fotopoulos or others, so they will get into the heads of his adoring fans and the public over names like Jordan Peterson the left may have a chance. But what also comes to mind is an insistence on the left that somehow, the most democratic way, is for all groups, orgs, movements, activists to just kind of do it themselves, self emergence from the bottom up...it’s a kind of anarchist, or left principle that must not be usurped. 




    Like I know, but I hope I am wrong, that a movie like Albert wants to make won’t be made. And won’t be made quickly, by those capable of doing so. And it’s a fucking travesty that I am more likely to see another Michael Moore humourous critique yet again that leaves everything at the same starting point as before. 




    We can make demands. Demands are easy as are threats. 




    A Bloc, grand alliance, movement of movements, with the intellectual and talking, writing force, of those with great abilities and experience behind it to help pull it together and hold it together is what is needed.




    And that’s just too fucking hard. 




    Most would prefer to write a book and just join in some protest or form or join some local group doing what they can...makes ‘em feel good...and I don’t blame them really...we are after all just human....


     


    ALEX:


    https://youtu.be/T2w8zNe5LeU


    Tool - Ænema


    Some say the end is near.
    Some say we'll see Armageddon soon.
    I certainly hope we will.
    I sure could use a vacation from this


    Bullshit three ring circus sideshow of freaks


    Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call L.A.
    The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.
    Any fucking time. Any fucking day.
    Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona Bay.


    Fret for your figure and
    Fret for your latte and
    Fret for your lawsuit and
    Fret for your hairpiece and
    Fret for your Prozac and
    Fret for your pilot and
    Fret for your contract and
    Fret for your car.


    It's a bullshit three ring circus sideshow of freaks


    Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call L.A.
    The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.
    Any fucking time. Any fucking day.
    Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona Bay.


    Some say a comet will fall from the sky.
    Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves.
    Followed by fault lines that cannot sit still.
    Followed by millions of dumbfounded dip shits.


    Some say the end is near.
    Some say we'll see Armageddon soon.
    I certainly hope we will cause
    I sure could use a vacation from this


    Stupid shit, silly shit, stupid shit...


    One great big festering neon distraction,
    I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied.


    Learn to swim. [3x]


    Mom's gonna fix it all soon.
    Mom's comin' round to put it back the way it ought to be.


    Learn to swim.


    Fuck L Ron Hubbard and
    Fuck all his clones.
    Fuck all these gun-toting
    Hip gangster wannabes.


    Learn to swim.


    Fuck retro anything.
    Fuck your tattoos.
    Fuck all you junkies and
    Fuck your short memory.


    Learn to swim.


    Fuck smiley glad-hands
    With hidden agendas.
    Fuck these dysfunctional,
    Insecure actresses.


    Learn to swim.


    Cause I'm praying for rain
    And I'm praying for tidal waves
    I wanna see the ground give way.
    I wanna watch it all go down.
    Mom, please flush it all away.
    I wanna see it go right in and down.
    I wanna watch it go right in.
    Watch you flush it all away.


    Time to bring it down again.
    Don't just call me pessimist.
    Try and read between the lines.


    I can't imagine why you wouldn't
    Welcome any change, my friend.


    I wanna see it all come down.
    Bring it down
    Suck it down.
    Flush it down.Some say the end is near.
    Some say we'll see Armageddon soon.
    I certainly hope we will.
    I sure could use a vacation from this


    Bullshit three ring circus sideshow of freaks


    Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call L.A.
    The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.
    Any fucking time. Any fucking day.
    Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona Bay.


    Fret for your figure and
    Fret for your latte and
    Fret for your lawsuit and
    Fret for your hairpiece and
    Fret for your Prozac and
    Fret for your pilot and
    Fret for your contract and
    Fret for your car.


    It's a bullshit three ring circus sideshow of freaks


    Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call L.A.
    The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.
    Any fucking time. Any fucking day.
    Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona Bay.


    Some say a comet will fall from the sky.
    Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves.
    Followed by fault lines that cannot sit still.
    Followed by millions of dumbfounded dip shits.


    Some say the end is near.
    Some say we'll see Armageddon soon.
    I certainly hope we will cause
    I sure could use a vacation from this


    Stupid shit, silly shit, stupid shit...


    One great big festering neon distraction,
    I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied.


    Learn to swim. [3x]


    Mom's gonna fix it all soon.
    Mom's comin' round to put it back the way it ought to be.


    Learn to swim.


    Fuck L Ron Hubbard and
    Fuck all his clones.
    Fuck all these gun-toting
    Hip gangster wannabes.


    Learn to swim.


    Fuck retro anything.
    Fuck your tattoos.
    Fuck all you junkies and
    Fuck your short memory.


    Learn to swim.


    Fuck smiley glad-hands
    With hidden agendas.
    Fuck these dysfunctional,
    Insecure actresses.


    Learn to swim.


    Cause I'm praying for rain
    And I'm praying for tidal waves
    I wanna see the ground give way.
    I wanna watch it all go down.
    Mom, please flush it all away.
    I wanna see it go right in and down.
    I wanna watch it go right in.
    Watch you flush it all away.


    Time to bring it down again.
    Don't just call me pessimist.
    Try and read between the lines.


    I can't imagine why you wouldn't
    Welcome any change, my friend.


    I wanna see it all come down.
    Bring it down
    Suck it down.
    Flush it down.


    ^^ // Irie: "I'll archive this conversation* @CLUBH0U53; CONVERSATION PIT. See ya around friendos. // Meanwhile a giant tsunami wave builds up to crush the clubhouse; Lil' Irie: "Mommie!?! Blow up me swimmies!"


    [..]


  • Boulder Dash 22nd Dec 2018

    This cleared things up a lot man! Nails it. Historical materialism is a substance monist property dualism...I fuckin’ knew it!

    “But what is this ‘society’ we are talking about? We already have a working definition of ‘nature’; one for its counterpart is needed too. A pithy, common-sense equivalent can be readily extracted from the Grundrisse: ‘Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.’ 29 That thing has developed properties that cannot be found in nature per se. It should now be clear how the matrix of positions in the philosophy of mind maps onto the nexus of nature and society: historical materialism is a substance monist property dualism. It is opposed to both Cartesian substance dualism and hybridist double monism (considering them two sides of the same coin). 30 We shall stake out the position in more detail below; for now, let us simply reiterate that there is nothing strange about two things being of the same substance and having distinct properties. Exactly as material, the tree and the chainsaw inhabit the same forest: that is why one can fell the other. But they also follow different laws of motion. That, also, is why one can fell the other.

    And so it turns out that double monism has a very pressing causal interaction problem all of its own. If society has no properties that mark it off from the rest of the world –what we insist on calling nature –how can there possibly be such an awful amount of environmental destruction going on?”

    • Boulder Dash 22nd Dec 2018

      A lot of this stuff being critiqued in this book reminds me of the free will debate. Some like Sam Harris think they have nailed it then continue to act and behave as if they have it. In fact, I would go as far to suggest they do not truly believe they do not have free will and their gut continues to pester them constantly...see, you have it, see, you have it, see, you have it, see, you have it...

      In other words, believing you do not have free will doesn’t stop people from behaving as if they have it as we, humans, have done since the year dot. It doesn’t change much at all, one us still left with social interactions and decisions to be made about the actions of others...some will believe it and subsequently behave in negative ways, maybe suicide, going nuts etc., others may just continue as is believing their belief is affecting everything about their lives without realising that all those beliefs and subsequent actions have nothing whatsoever to do with ‘them’ at all. Others will just continue believing in free will, because it is a far easier thing to do. In other words, life goes on.

    • Boulder Dash 24th Dec 2018

      Some like Sam Harris think they have nailed it, that there is no free will, then continue to act and behave as if they have it.

  • Boulder Dash 23rd Dec 2018

    “Now we need not speculate about what new materialism could do to climate politics, for an intervention from a scholar of that creed makes it abundantly clear. In short order, Jessica Schmidt jettisons nature and society, structure and subject, intentional agency and ‘centralised authority’ and ‘effective decision-making’ and other odious categories, leading her straight to the conclusion that climate change is ‘neither intelligible nor meaningfully shapeable’. Just let the mysterious storm rage on. Or, do the most a human being can possibly do and adapt to the thundering matter –and if you fail, then that is something for which you must take responsibility. ‘If we let ourselves be negatively affected’ by climate-induced disasters, ‘then this indicates insufficient reorientation in our ways of thinking and attitudes towards ourselves and our relationship with the world, in the sense that we have not yet become aware enough that disruptions are part of the bumpy process of life.’ Victims take heed: ‘The experience of harm –having been negatively affected –simply means that we are to be blamed for not yet having become sufficiently aware of our attachments’. Now go tell that to the people in Burkina Faso and the Philippines. It is incumbent upon them and us to give up the idea of changing course: what humans are truly ‘responsible for is undoing the political and mental structures that encourage decision-making rather than adaptation.’ 71 Learn to live with whatever matter sends your way.”

    But this is so obvious...who is reading these people anyway...very few...and their theory is so easily debunked if it is at all comprehensible in any useful, valuable way...it is quite clear for instance that Timothy Morton has nothing to say when in his academic/philosophical uniform, about mechanisms for change. He would much rather assert a philosophical position that goes on and on, seemingly honing in on something but never actually doing so, that appears on the surface both enlightening and unique yet offers nothing of value in the realm of practical solutions. This is what I mean by so many of these thinkers just floating above stuff safely and never touching the ground, never collapsing the wave function, placing them squarely next to all other ordinary people and thinkers and having to argue for a definitive position/solution to whatever problem seems to be motivating their theory, like Being Ecological. On that level it is just complete bullshit philosophical navel gazing.

    “76 And it is inanimate matter that has made that happen. Global warming is one of Latour’s many quasi-objects, and all quasi-objects possess ‘action, will, meaning, and even speech’; then it comes naturally for Graham Harman to explain that Latourianism is so much better than any theory of the left, because the latter is ‘unable to conceptualize the climate threat as anything but the inevitable side effect of a more encompassing human problem called Capitalism’. 77 Unlike what the left believes, the threat is not anthropogenic in origin.”

    Harman is Morton’s mentor...along with Buddhist masters.

  • Boulder Dash 23rd Dec 2018

    “Since the bulk of theory bid farewell to historical materialism in the 1970s, it has engaged in an endless cycle of turns –cultural, linguistic, affective, cognitive, performative, material, posthuman, nonhuman: turn, turn, turn, turn, turn, turn, turn, turn –and perhaps it is then not so surprising that a certain dizziness eventually ensues. 82 The only sensible thing to do now is to put a stop to the extension of agency. 83 In this warming world, that honour belongs exclusively to those humans who extract, buy, sell and combust fossil fuels, and to those who uphold this circuit, and to those who have committed these acts over the past two centuries: causing the climate system to spin out of control, they and they alone instigate the paradox of historicised nature. Popular talk of the warming earth as ‘agent of history’ should be discontinued. 84 The dichotomy between human agency and non-human non-agency underpins the whole of climate science, the barrier on which the material turn must founder.”

    In some sense, perhaps the main one, philosophy of this sort, Latourian, postmodern or so much continental, is not dissimilar to the notion of novelty...turn, turn, turn, turn, turn and turn again...and it is a tyranny. When one comes across a Chomskyan view that refers back to philosophers like Hume and Newton which asserts that no one has really come to grips with the problems they were dealing with, like action at a distance and the material/non-material or physical/non-physical split, one feels a little more solid on the ground, a ground of rational and reasonable thought, yet no less curious than before or amazed by the mystery.

    Coming across the postmoderns and this insistence on infinite interpretation and “narrative”, is it any wonder that the language used is as completely incomprehensible as many of the “theories” put forth. Don’t worry about the content, just obscure it in blizzards of bullshit so it appears novel and deep. To me it is just this search for novelty, and nothing more at all, that this era of thinking ushered in. Nothing to do with substance, just fame and celebrity really, within the small community of academia...and it fucking works! It’s a search that could place someone like Morton at the top of the heap, exactly like some rock star, some musician, some creative person trying to carve out new ground with a pretence of depth, like the minimalist composers or a Bjork, as opposed to some substantive and actually interesting/intriguing creative ground.

    It is about how they are perceived, not their constructions. The flowers at the end of the concert are of far more importance, the encores, the adoration...their ideas, their creations, are far more easily forgotten.

  • Boulder Dash 23rd Dec 2018

    “Such humanism, being another version of property dualism, attains some urgency in a warming world. No one would ask CO2 molecules to come down from the heavens or demand that the oil platforms scrap themselves and pay their victims –not even Timothy Morton, for he would not find a way to communicate with the oil. Nor can we expect primates to be of much help in ending the fossil fuel era. Recent posthumanist fetishes –augmented reality, the blades of Oscar Pistorius –will not do the trick either, and if the machines of geoengineering are one day rolled out in an attempt to cool the earth, surely their strings will be pulled by ordinary mortals. Barring the implantation of some ecosocialist chip in our brains, humans of the classical type are the only ones who could possibly rise up and shake off fossil fuels from their economies. It then seems a rather dispiriting and demobilising move to tell them that they are nothing special, that nothing separates them from an animal or a machine, that they have no centrally placed agency on which everything else depends. It is not quite the pep talk for the Herculean task they face. Indeed, if the maximisation of survival prospects now first of all requires that the fossil economy must be dismantled in toto, we are lifted straight up to Perry Anderson’s third level of agency:

    Finally, there are those collective projects which have sought to render their initiators authors of their collective mode of existence as a whole, in a conscious programme aimed at creating or remodelling whole social structures … It is the modern labour movement that has really given birth to this quite new conception of historical change; and it is with the advent of what its founders called scientific socialism that, in effect, for the first time collective projects of social transformation were married to systematic efforts to understand the process of past and present, to produce a premeditated future. The Russian Revolution is in this respect the inaugural incarnation for a new kind of history, founded on an unprecedented form of agency. 98

    Less of Latour, more of Lenin: that is what the warming condition calls for.”

    Agree. But straight up, “more of Lenin” appears problematic and I can see all the members of the “Intellectual-it’s just a joke name-Dark Web” arch up with Gulags, Gulags, Gulags...they dislike the radical left as much as they dislike the postmodern/identity politickers, and hence why their description of the radical Left is unnuanced, but rather a general title they can lambast them all for the uneducated, unthinking, dangerous mob they are.

  • Boulder Dash 23rd Dec 2018

    “Instead, we are interested in the contrast between a Latourian constructionist and a realist epistemology and how the two equip us for our crisis. A realist would say that microbes were already present in the world before Pasteur lifted the veil on them, but Latour would dispute this; a realist would hold that Venus had its phases before Galileo trained his telescope on them, but Latour would deny this; Latour would claim that scientifically observed reality is an assemblage, of which the observations and tools and other objects mobilised by the scientists form necessary components. 5 Tuberculosis, microbes, planetary phases cannot be ascribed real ontological status anywhere but inside these networks. They exist insofar as they accept recruitment into them (where they were prior to that point, or how they go about accepting the invitation, is generally not explained). We can detect the trace of an epistemic fallacy here, but when Latour developed this theory in the 1980s, he was so confident in its integrity that he elevated it into a set of universal philosophical theses, numbered as in a Tractatus, in which much of hitherto existing thought was razed to the ground:

    There is no such thing as superior knowledge and inferior knowledge. 6

    ‘Science’ is much too ramshackle to talk about. We must speak instead of the allies which certain networks use to make themselves stronger than others. 7

    We have to abandon beliefs … in the existence of logic, in the power of reason, even in belief itself and in its distinction from knowledge. 8

    No set of sentences is by itself either consistent or inconsistent; all that we need to know is who tests it with which allies and for how long. 9

    Nothing is more complex, multiple, real, palpable, or interesting than anything else,

    and so on. 10

    This epistemological nihilism boils down to a rather vulgar type of Machiavellianism or Nietzscheanism: what is right is solely a question of might. 11 The networks that successfully resist ‘trials of strength’ come out on top, and that is where something like truth –another category Latour abhors –takes hold. 12 Producing (what is falsely called) knowledge is the art of bonding with the most potent allies, in whose company the producer can convince his audience that he is right. Harman is happy to draw out some implications: ‘We cannot say that neutrons are more real than unicorns, only that they are stronger than unicorns. After all, neutrons simply have more and better animate and inanimate allies testifying to their existence then do unicorns.’ 13 Square circles, asteroids, King Lear and Pepsi bottles are separated by the degrees of strength exercised by the networks in which they partake as actants. 14 No scientist is objectively more right than any other, only hooked up with greater or lesser force, and the battlefield extends way beyond the laboratory: there can be no court of appeal, no external standard against which a power can be measured or censured or rejected. Or, in Latour’s words: ‘We cannot distinguish between those moments when we have might and those when we are right.’ 15 Being right without having might is –that rare thing –a contradiction in terms. 16”

    You know what, there isn’t much difference between this shit and the shit that wafts out of sports radio. The prevalent and ubiquitous notion that everything is just an opinion, and there’s an infinity of them out there, and you can’t argue against an opinion...total fucking hogwash. Yet, here is a postmodern self obsessed philosopher (using the word loosely), standing side by side with those who, with their anti-political correct, anti-identity politics and anti-leftist rhetoric, would dislike, even despise, everything about him.

    It’s not all that much of a push to suggest that those who inhabit the Intellectual-it’s just a joke name-Dark Web are using much the same kind of approach used by those they are obsessed with disputing, and eventually trying to depose from the throne of influential ideas. They speak in riddles often, quietly and in disguise as civil and congenial discussion among themselves (those who stand firm by their opposing views beware) using science and other things (much gobbledygook including data and supposed technical jargon here and there, especially Peterson) to try and support whatever it is they are trying to say, which is quite often unclear or even non-existent other than that Muslims, postmodern social justice warriors and social justice warriors in general are all the same and dangerous. Always talking self obsessively about their intellectual victimhood and trying to draw others out there into commenting on that rather than making substantive claims about anything of real value other than that those whom they oppose are pretty much idiots, wrong, intellectually dishonest or confused about the ideas the Intellectual-it’s only a joke name-Dark Web are proffering. Like a circle of bullshit that goes nowhere but if said enough, over and over and over again, loudly, begins to sound kind of right because it taps into so many populist ideas, fears and prejudices, that it garners substantial support within the general public, not just extreme right wing groups. But I reckon if you pressed anyone who supported Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Douglas Murray or Joe Rogan on what they were really actually saying or believed, and even their supposed scientific basis for their positions (perhaps not so much Rogan!) they probably wouldn’t be able to answer except for some general quip about the left being loony or political correctness as an example of the world gone mad, just like sports commentators do!

    Postmodernism is much the same. They are both a kind of internal circular kind of self perpetuating self obsessed discussion group with their own kind of tribal ideological foundation accompanied by a kind of unique in-group language, self perpetuating rhetorical kind of radiating public relations noise that kind of eats through, overrides or runs roughshod over any kind of reasonable and rational discussion pertaining to any kind of change that may better for everyone in the future, better for, in the words of the world’s worst philosopher Sam Harris, human flourishing and well being.

  • Boulder Dash 23rd Dec 2018

    “For Bhaskar, critical realism is not some high-flown philosophical concoction, but a down-to-earth reflection of what scientists actually do and think: climate science could be his perfect example. ‘The modelers admitted they still had much to learn’, writes Weart. Later: ‘Scientists were finding a variety of new evidence that something truly exceptional was happening.’ Castree and Latour and scholars of their ilk can go on purporting that global warming is an idea or an assemblage, but on the ground the scientists always ‘took it for granted that the future climate is as real as a rock’. 36 Climate science is critical realism in practice.”

    See, it always comes back to Bishop Johnson’s fucking rock.

  • Boulder Dash 23rd Dec 2018

    “7.) Climate science must be questioned, but always from the front, not from the rear. Because it is the result of a process of social production, it has been and will be open to influences from surrounding bourgeois society, impure and questionable. 37 As Weart and a plethora of other sources make clear, the ideology that did most to impede the development of climate science in the twentieth century was gradualism, or the dogma that nature evolves in an immeasurably slow tempo –natura non facit saltum, in the well-worn maxim of Charles Darwin. It took the work of thousands and thousands of scientists to break through this barrier and adapt assumptions to the reality that climate actually can make leaps. But deep-seated gradualism is still a transitive magnet that pulls scientists in the direction of underestimating the speed of global warming: it should be the object of a vigilant critique. 38 There is nothing gradual about the warming condition.”

    Chomsky makes a similar point regard language and its evolution...the gradualist tendency makes for flawed thinking....

  • Boulder Dash 23rd Dec 2018

    “Thankfully, we now possess an extensive body of research on how this works in the general category of literal denial –that is, explicit rejection of knowledge about anthropogenic climate change. 45 In a seminal paper from 2011, Aaron McCright and Riley Dunlap notice the fact that denialists in the American debate –contrarian pseudo-scientists, media pundits, think tank mouthpieces, Republicans –are almost invariably conservative white men. Is that pattern also replicated in the American public? Indeed: in a nationwide poll, 59 percent of conservative white men hold that ‘there is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring’, as against 36 percent of all other adults; 65 percent of the former subscribe to the view that the media generally exaggerates the problem, compared to 30 percent of the latter. ‘Liberals’, women, non-whites are significantly more in tune with the science. In a reflection of the global pattern, lower positions on the economic ladder likewise predict better judgement. Why this should be so is perfectly logical. Conservative white men ‘have disproportionately occupied positions of power within our economic system, controlling stocks and flows of various forms of capital’.”

    And in the above we have confirmation that the term ‘neoliberalism’ should be replaced with the far more direct, simple and factual, Big Daddy White Geezer Hegemonic Power Grid or BDWGHPG, thank you very much!

    • Boulder Dash 23rd Dec 2018

      Sorry left this bit off to the above about Big Daddy Whiter Geezers...

      “They are ‘likely to favor protection of the current industrial capitalist order which has historically served them well’. 46 Climate science throws that order into question, and so the beneficiaries of the status quo will –rationally, in a twisted sense –respond with literal denial: these scientists are denigrating my system? They are lying!”

  • Boulder Dash 24th Dec 2018

    “Some 200 years old and still expanding, the fossil economy has been radiating from its Western centre over its longue durée and sustained into this day by the exceptional concentration of power invested in business as usual. That is why victories such as that over the Keystone XL pipeline remain such fragile exceptions.”

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B6iUfvVb2Ek

    200 Years Old

    I was sittin' in a breakfast room in Allentown, Pennsylvania,
    Six o'clock in the morning, got up too early, it was a terrible mistake...
    Sittin' there face-to-face with a 75 cent glass of orange juice
    About as big as my finger and a bowl of horribly foreshortened cornflakes,
    And I said to myself: "This is the life!" . . .
    She's two hundred years old
    So mean she couldn't grow no lips
    Boy, she'd be in trouble if she
    Tried to grow a mustache
    She's two hundred years old
    Squattin' down & pockin' up
    In front of the juke box
    Like she had true religion, boy
    Like she had true religion
    She's two hundred years old
    Hoy hoy, 200 years old
    Half of this, none of that,
    One-fifty oh squattin'
    Yeah-ah, ain't she got
    Religion now, boy

  • Boulder Dash 26th Dec 2018

    “‘Having known Latour personally for fifteen years’, Graham Harman informs us as he takes on the mission of systematising and popularising his politics, ‘I can safely describe him (qua voter, citizen, and reader of the news) as a politically benevolent French centrist with progressive tendencies’, or as ‘a liberally minded Hobbesian who adds inanimate entities to the political sphere’. 106 How the warming world is crying out for more benevolent French centrists, particularly of the Hobbesian slant.”

    Lol!

  • Boulder Dash 26th Dec 2018

    Must admit Dave, I am enjoying this book...probably because Malm had a couple of goes at Morton and Morton’s mentor, Harman...

    But I like his slant and his humour...I like that he has pulled some of this stuff apart so easily exposing the poor thinking...

    It really does appear to me that postmoderns are under the spell of the tyranny of novelty, rather than just good and useful thinking...maybe it’s a very superficial approach to the tyranny of novelty. One that paradoxically produces a kind of homogenisation of thought (as they all jump on and absorb, even believe in, the language of one another) whilst they look for something unique to separate themselves from the crowd and cultivate their own (tribal) following...


    It’s facinating as I read this and think of the little tribal community called the Intellectual-it’s just a joke name-Dark Web. They tend to rail against the postmoderns with a vehemence that Malm sets aside in favour of a cool head and rational argument. They could do well to follow his lead. The Intellectual-it’s just a joke name-Dark Web, a kind of independent self appointed PR ‘think tank’ promoting intelligent, rational, scientific and civil conversation, (as opposed to everyone who disagrees with them) does much the same to me as the postmoderns whom they hate...they say very little about stuff at all, about solutions to problems economic or ecological really...they spend most of their time talking (bitching) about things and other’s confusion about what they are saying (?), and their victimhood at the hands of the intellectually dishonest other!

    Latour reminds me of Sam Harris and his free will arguments. Harris seems to think that acknowledging we do not have free will could be beneficial to our human flourishing and correcting wrong thinking (prisons, legal systems, punitive judgements, moral behaviour going forward etc.). How he even arrives at that conclusion I do not know. If he has no free will he clearly doesn’t arrive at this conclusion of his own free choice or free thinking. And before he had non-freely elucidated his determinist arguments (merely an accident of the Big Bang) he obviously (according to him) would not have had free will, yet behaved as if he did under the illusion that he had it. Then at some point (accidentally and through no choice of his own) he began to develop some argument (as if from nowhere...where all our thoughts come from) against free will. After he non-freely nailed his determinist position, proving we do not have fee will, I would hazard a guess, he continued and continues to this day, to behave pretty much exactly as he did before, proffering solutions to things - of which some are no different to those proffered by others who haven’t given the free will problem a second or even a first glance, while others based on neurological science are in fact quite troubling and possibly dangerous - as if he has free will, but now with the added and supposed beneficial knowledge that the illusion we have free will is itself, in ‘fact’, an illusion. Ye olde double illusion...watch out for those, they can be doozies.

    You read Harris’s book Free Will and it leaves you nowhere...literally nowhere, like so much postmodern stuff...no better off, no worse off (moot) and thinking (unfreely)...”did Harris just blow the problem thinkers have been tackling for thousands of years out of the water and I just missed it...read it again...nup!”

    Do inanimate things have agency? Fuck, do they have free will? Well, obviously not according to Harris, as we do not...so in some sense Latour and Harris occupy similar ground (along with others ‘who’ also,if we have no free will, had nothing whatsoever to do with ‘their’ doing so)...if we have no free will, if there is no free will to be found anywhere, then perhaps everything is in a sense inanimate...the nature and society binary, in whatever combination or kind, breaks down, as all things, including us, are merely inanimate things being knocked around like billiard balls, as we have been since the beginning. And there ya go. The difference perhaps is that Latour says inanimate things have agency...here, nothing does other than some momentum.

    Will I continue to do stuff? Who knows? Where is the who? There is no who according to Buddhists. There is no who or free will it seems. And yet, here ‘I’ (like an illusion) am banging away at this computer yet what ‘I’ write is not ‘my’ doing at all. Thank god for that. Off the hook.

    Ah well...in the words of the great twentieth century philostopher Frank Zappa....what the fuck?

  • Boulder Dash 27th Dec 2018

    “Needless to say, capital does not thereby become the biologically inevitable destiny of Homo sapiens sapiens. 25 Rather, it should be seen as a process historically promoted by –in the last instance –group agents, who have exploited certain potentialities inherent in the species for their own contingent ends (think of landlords ramming through the commodification of land). What we have crudely outlined here are just some hints at an answer to the question of how humans could possibly generate something as formidable as capital, which no other animals can (thankfully –what would it look like?). Graced with unparalleled ‘technolinguistic plasticity’, radically ‘under-determined by nature’, humans can arrange their metabolism with the rest of nature in almost any way they like, or at least with a historical richness and variety no other species comes close to –it is only that one type of relations has seized hold of them rather firmly (for which they perhaps, at some metaphysical level, have to carry responsibility). 26 But the very same potentialities that made capital possible are the only conceivable sources for its transcendence. Given the abstractness of their minds, humans can evidently come to believe that this is not the way to go about it.”

  • Boulder Dash 27th Dec 2018

    “But, at the very least, it should be somewhat revealing that even in the Western capitalist heartlands, climate activists have so far been indifferent to constructionism, Latourianism, new materialism, posthumanism and the rest of it, while continuing to draw inspiration from Marxism and anarchism and their various converging and diverging currents in slogans, banners, aesthetics, thinking and reading. 40 The fact that the movement is still nowhere approaching the critical mass required for taking down the fossil economy does not diminish its status as benchmark for theoretical utility. It remains weak and scattered –which may have something to do with the fact that most other social movements are too, including, centrally, the organised working class –but these are but so many reasons to join and assist it in every way possible. For if anything is ever going to turn in a better direction, a lot of action will be needed.”

  • Boulder Dash 27th Dec 2018

    “Of late, however, the metabolic rift school has come under sustained fire from Jason W. Moore. In a series of essays culminating in Capitalism and the Web of Life, he seeks to demonstrate that Foster and colleagues repeat the original sin of Cartesian dualism. The proof of their guilt lies, first of all, in their choice of conjunctions: they speak of nature and society, of interaction between the spheres, of capital as having an ecological regime. Moore wants the ‘and’ replaced with an ‘in’. It should be labour-in-nature, capital-in-nature, and so on –never and, the false bridge that betrays a worldview of nature/ society as two hemispheres divided by a chasm. Likewise, one must not talk of metabolism between any two things, but always have to say through –and most essential of all: capitalism does not have an ecological regime, it is an ecological regime. By developing these series of conjunction swaps, in effusions of supposedly non-Cartesian language games of hyphenation and formulae, Moore proposes his ‘world-ecology’ as a superior dialectical framework, to great acclaim from parts of the academic radical ecology community. 3

    What the analytical advantages consist of, beyond a new terminology, is initially unclear. So, for instance, Moore faults Foster and colleagues for using the word ‘interaction’ to describe the relation between nature and society, since this wrongly presupposes that the two can be separated to begin with –for two things to interact, they must first be apart –and proposes that we should instead ask how the two ‘fit together’. 4 But exactly the same critique can of course be levelled against that choice of words. For two pieces to fit together, they must first be two different pieces. Moore himself seems forced to employ the foul conjunction in phrases such as ‘human and extra-human nature’, ‘the soil and the worker’, perhaps because a language of permanent in-hyphenation would be unreadable. 5 It certainly would not solve any real conceptual problems.

    Why all this phraseology? It seems, at a closer look, that Moore has fundamentally misunderstood the requirements for transcending the Cartesian legacy. In a sentence of the kind repeated ad nauseam in Capitalism, he declares: ‘In place of a Cartesian optic –the “exploitation of labor and nature” [words from Foster et al.] –I would begin with two forms of labor-in-nature.’ 6 But there is nothing Cartesian about saying ‘labour and nature’. Foster et al. would be Cartesian if they thought that labour and nature consisted of different substances or inhabited separate spheres, so that the one could be analysed without reference to the other –a very common perception in the history of capitalist modernity but precisely the opposite of what the metabolic rift school teaches. As Foster himself retorts, ‘there is no contradiction in seeing society as both separate from and irreducible to the Earth system as a whole, and simultaneously as a fundamental part of it. To call that approach “dualist”’ –in the Cartesian sense –‘is comparable to denying that your heart is both an integral part of your body and a distinct organ with unique features and functions.’ 7 What Moore does here is simply to succumb to the temptation of substance and property monism.”

    Thank god...this is exactly my frustration with Moore’s book. It seemed more concerned with establishing a unique approach or analysis (the tyranny of novelty forcing Moore’s hand) rather than a useful, practical and understandable one. And I never felt he was saying anything other than what most have said before, irrespective of the language, which to tell you the truth just shat (shitted?)me off more than anything....all that ‘through’ and ‘in’ shit. Pedantic quibbling of a rather useless variety.

  • Dave Jones 29th Dec 2018

    Been out in the desert, just found a computer. Glad you're enjoying, at first it seemed like a long critique I didn't really know existed ( I'm minimally acquainted with Latour and Morton) but being an old eco-materialist I was glad to see Malm defend Bellamy Foster and the boys. Why do we need a more esoteric philosophy just for the sake of depth on depth on depth....More later.

  • Alex of... 7th Jan 2019

    BOULDER DASH:

    "Reckon they do have ideology...even if they don’t know it...most people like capitalism and markets, even those who think left or are kind of socialists...Sanders, Corbyn, probably don’t mind capitalism to a degree and markets...don’t know really.

    I don’t what the key is...if there’s no ideolgical battle then it’s got to be a battle for a vision which to me somewhat the same really...I don’t know...got no clue...

    How do you win anything? There’s all kinds of methods or strategies or tactics or actions that people have used for centuries...here we are in 2018 asking the same questions...let’s organise, let’s do shit...but really it ain’t that different and I don’t think Left is winning minds over to anti-capitalism and definitely no anti-market...certainly not winning them over to revolutionary thinking...they wouldn’t even know what it is really...shit, you hear Brahd talking to Rogan and he’s talking anarchism really...Rogan dismisses it all as cultish stuff...who wins between the two funny guys...Rogan does...he’s so much more practical sounding...so much more popular...

    Demands? What demands? How to get people to agree with demands to the point those in power would listen? I got nothing.

    There’s all kinds of moves from electoral, mainstream political down to the revolutionary and the revolutionary generally get short shrift in favour of more moderate moves...tweaking..."



    this probably represents a pretty good chunk of what is considered "left":

    https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2017/03/07/just-try-that-with-your-bootstraps/

    note the "powerful quote" that seems to sum up the author's point that 'pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps' is impossible, despite contemporary use of the phrase.

    "Expecting the poorest people in the world to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, without access to foreign investment, training, technical skills, or markets, verges on indifference or cruelty."

    what Obama might call 'giving everyone a fair shake'. or Bernie's message that 'America is for everybody, not just the billionaires on wallstreet'

    different shades of how much government intervention or taxes should exist. the right tends to be a bit more about the bootstrap idea. (the boots are made in South East Asia.) but all assumes the same basic game.

    winning? well, you know some of my belief in transformation through cooperatives networked/federated... change some of the rules to the game.. change people in the process.. change the possibilities.

    time and effort involved. maybe a less traveled path to actually start with structure toward a revolution.

    i'm all for some propaganda, dark web critiques, moving pictures, using the internet to bring fuckers together.

    i'll save my own demands till after i've gotten through some more of that work. there's still some shit that needs doing there that also doesn't seem to have been done before. current tools didn't exist. haha! tools.

  • Alex of... 7th Jan 2019

    and today i got an email from 350..

    "We all know that tech is big business in Seattle. We also know that to change everything, we need everyone. Locally, tech workers are beginning to make important headway on climate...and make headlines too.

    This is just the beginning. Do you work in tech? Are you looking to meet other tech workers who care about climate change? Join us on Saturday, January 19th for Tech&&theClimate to learn how workers in the tech industry are wielding their power for climate justice.

    From using your skills directly to support climate justice work, to contributing resources, to organizing with others in the industry, there’s an amazing array of actions you can take to support climate justice. Come hear from our panel of tech workers about how they’re using their positions and skills to push for action on climate change, then stick around for discussion and opportunities to get active yourself.

    This event is open to anyone who cares about tech and climate -- engineers, marketers, business analysts, and anyone in between."


    note linked article.. THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!

    "But tech workers are now starting to use those shares to turn the tables on their employers... some are using the stock as a way to demand changes at their companies.

    At Amazon, more than a dozen employees who had received stock grants recently exercised their rights as shareholders. In late November and early December, they filed identical shareholder petitions asking the e-commerce giant to release a comprehensive plan addressing climate change."

    meanwhile, Trump is still demanding a wall. most recent threat.. he may call a National Emergency.

    maybe i'll demand Amazon hand their distribution centers over to the workers and puts a sustainability rating on every product sold. my threat?...

    ARROW

  • Dave Jones 9th Jan 2019

    Or else we'll run Joe Biden for President and put everyone in a coma! Seriously, it's a great suggestion (liberating Amazon) but until we are in a better position to fuck shit up I would leave it at that. A proposal.

    My friend has been looking at the success of Jordan Peterson in building a following and wondering how we could apply that in our own efforts. I am naturally skeptical. Rather than alienated masculinity, I would rather target some group like west coast surfers, an interesting sub-culture that is probably marginally invested in capitalism. Not sure about the strategic threat but they possess cultural cache. Surfers unite...

    Heard an analyst say Trump's fear of a Market crash has forced him to concede in China negotiations. The Market fucking rules! When the Market gets sick of this shutdown we'll see some bowing and scraping.

    • Boulder Dash 10th Jan 2019

      Surfers ‘marginally’ invested in capitalism!? Only if you’re someone like Wayne Lynch would you be considered marginally invested. You still need the planes and the cars and possibly the jet skis to get to those secret hidden breaks! Not to mention the materials for making the boards...how green are they? Once you’re in the water, the fucking noise of the whole industrial chain that made it possible, is immediately forgotten...you are now ‘at one with nature’...the pulverising weight of twenty foot Teahupoo, the razor reef waiting to tear you to pieces, teaching you a lesson...but you rise to the challenge, win, and gain the respect of your peers, many of whom were in the hundreds sitting to the side in boats with camera, film and video gear, cheering and clapping, watching ‘nature’ do ‘her’ thing and being conquered by humans....

      You know what, you’ll find the same supporters of Peterson among these fuckers...any critique of fucking anything is political correctness gone mad. Peterson speaks to simple things, simple solutions, old remedies and tropes, coming outvof a siege mentality, defending the good old days against the gulags...

      With the Intellectual - it’s just a joke name- Dark Web you can have your surfboard, four wheel drives, plane trips, jet skis, boats, computer technology, camera gear, publications, sponsorships, and still be green and at one with nature man...and chicks are still chicks...

    • Alex of... 13th Jan 2019

      i was considering writing a blog at some point on Jordan P. i have only watched some of his pained explanations as of recent, since he was brought up here.

      in short, it's like much of some others i've watched in that, some of what he's talking about i agree with, but he then applies his arguments non-applicably.

      that is, much of what these "dark web" types are combatting is contemporary liberal behavior, which i often think is pretty goofy too. there's some easy arguments to "win" along those lines. but then Jordan will equate that to 'radical leftism' and start painting with some pretty broad strokes. that's the area he's not really being challenged on.

      it's like sure.. outrage over "wrongly" used gender pronouns, or trying to pass laws to correct that.. gets to be a ridiculous kind of movement in political correctness. but then calling that Marxist and weaving it in as something to do with market freedoms vs government oppression is just as ridiculous.

      you win the one argument about individual freedom to justify the false dichotomy of capitalism vs communist dictatorship (oxymoron anyways). you push liberal's buttons so they freak out about stupid shit, and then argue against that like you've won a completely separate debate. and no one really stops to seriously define any of the terms being used or ask deeper questions.

      i don't honestly know how aware JP is when it comes to his own fallacious arguments. people often aren't. they just fist things into broad categories and leap all over the place. likely we would not want to emulate that, particularly. but, i DO think it could be worthwhile to break down some of the videos floating around.

      take one 10 minute discussion between JP and Rogan, say, and dissect the logic being used. offer agreement on some of the silly liberal shit, but intervene on how that's being applied to ultimately support mega-billionaires as our great innovator-overlords manifested from freedom.

      to really take it to views, i'd guess there then needs to be some video work based on that. but, that was essentially a project idea i jotted down in my banana-blog i called "ROGUE EXPERIENCE - riffing on pioneers of fake frontiers" (being cheeky). i was jotting down a few things i thought might be larger portals of work to be done depending on one's forte or inclinations.

      another portal listed "MICROTRAUMA - disrupt and replace tactics" where ideas about such notions as liberating Amazon could be toyed with. not that ya go online and make specific plans to do something illegal, but you can still work thru historical examples and hypothetical situations from Lakey to Jensen. but ya, current "position" in need of some steps.