Summer reading lists

[gorski]

1) The birth of autonomous critical self-reflection is historically inseperable from the birth of instrumental reason

2) it is entirely possible that the former can find its scope of operation increasingly circumscribed by the latter.

3) The ethical demand posed by the existence of the Other must be articulated/objectified through mediating social structures.

If society is so instrumentalised to make that articulation extremely difficult (nb. I do not say absolutely impossible) then

4) it is no good offering a voluntarist picture whereby a historical agent can "choose" one or other 'way in' to theorising social relationships.

5) Unfortunately, history has seen instrumental reasoning emerge much more powerfully than intersubjective communication (nb not necessarily inevitably, but has happened nevertheless), and whilst we might try to recover from this situation, we need to recognise the extent of the task we face.

1) You mean that you have seen all the options from all the angles [Absolute Knowledge] and that there were no other options whatsoever when the Revolutions were happening?

If that were so, why did we ever bother to fight Slavery or heavily limited right to vote or to serve etc.?!?

I put it to you: for as long as we're Human there are always more options and determinism in all things Human does NOT exist!!! Else we're not Human!!

2) Sure, it certainly is possible - but so is to do it another way! That is the principle, isn't it? You must accept this or you can not claim what you are claiming,namely that retrograde changes are happening.

The bulk of your arguments drive to this "inevitability" and I can sense a heavy breath of despair in it, I must admit... I hope I am wrong but the whole timbre of your posts is quite clear in this regard...

3) It sure is. From Universal Rights to progressive taxation and the Welfare State onwards. The Solidarity and Equalibertas are bult into the very foundations of Modernity! It is NOT possible to "instrumentalise" the potential our Epoch has by a bad analysis, jumping to conclusions with 7 mile magic boots, on the one hand, and on the other hand neglecting all the enormous achievements we have fought for and won[!!!] - that's for sure!

In short: if the potential was there with the tricolour flag, to paraphrase Bloch, and then 2 out of 3 were dumped unceremoniously by the wayside, in a hurry - did it stop us from fighting to put them back where they belong? Did we ever abandon the struggle? Did we manage all manner of things in that regard? Are we suddenly all gonna start suffering from amnesia and total lack of will and power to realise anything for ourselves? All except the Neocons, of course, who have the inexplicable gene that resists any change - the only change that is ever gonna happen is the change to the Socialists?!? Honestly, how do you arrive to this "vision"?

Btw, moreover: it is NOT only ethical but based in [self]interest, too!

4) Blimey, so some historical forces/figures/groups choose the neocon shite but all the other groups/forces/figures are - what exactly? Without the will to act in their best interests? Deaf, dumb and blind, numb and powerless, no Reason to see an alternative? Not only a "utopian" one but an ALREADY "REALLY" EXISTING and very INFLUENTIAL AND SUCCESSFUL ONE?!? I say...

5) If it is difficult - so what? Was our Epoch given to us on a silver platter?

I don't understand your need to have it all going smoothly somehow or there's Hell coming - [almost] inevitably!!! The bulk of your arguments are driving in that direction. For the life of me I can not understand, from such reasoning, how it was ever possible to come out of Slavery or Feudalism?!? And much more!

Where did our Freedom to create New Relations disappear?!?

Well, what is this "instrumental reasoning"? For once, can you please give us some good, detailed example? And then we can take it from there.

As for myself, I have this to say, as to the grounds on which I claim all this: I know [not "believe"!] what Humans can do when facing the unthinkable, unbearable, insufferable etc....

Methodically speaking, I repeat: it is not possible to bastardise Reason like this, as there is no grounds from which to claim any such stuff, if we accept such a proposition! That comes from a complete forgery that was foisted upon the Notion of Reason we had until some clever dick thought this was "cool", against the "tradition" - but now we are supposed not to question the "tradition" he established?!? Your argument is falling apart at the seams right there!

Reason is the ultimate instance, when it comes to our capacity to think critically, and it is NOT reducible to current machinations in the power world.

That is what we call "Understanding" and "Common Sense", "Received Wisdom" but not Reason! Hence, these notions should be used in the analysis properly!

 

[articul8]

I think we're both beginning to find this pretty exasperating. I don't see any evidence whatsoever for your faith that the EU is somehow protecting a social democratic alternative to neoliberal capitalism. Quite the contrary - the election of Merkel and Sarkozy shows that the European social democratic parties have been exposed for their manifest political bankruptcy and, sad to say, neoliberal reforms on the march across mainland Europe - including, though at slightly slower pace, in Scandanavia and the Benelux countries. Nor - given the immediate threat of competition from India and China - is this process likely to cease anytime soon - quite the reverse!

And still you fail to acknowledge the historical ties that bind the emergence of critical autonomy to the idea of mastery over oneself and one's environs - so much was already clear to Max Weber! For you it seems, the question of what material conditions are necessary for the historical emergence of Kantian philosophy is meaningless, since the capacity to Reason inheres in human nature?! Hello - the caveman does not "reason" like subject of modernity!

It's not a question of me being pessimistic, deterministic, despairing or otherwise. My observations are based on an analysis of our history and our society. You point to a historical event like the repeal of slavery as though it were some transcendent proof of the triumph of human hope and imagination over material circumstance. But (quite apart from pointing to modern day instances of neo-slaveries), the abolition of the slave trade was motivated, at least in part, by the belief of the British mercantile capitalists that - having stolen a march on foreign competitors in the race to accumulate capital - they would gain a competitive advantage by suspending the legitimacy of slavery as a practice! ie. progress is all the while tied up with further - if different - modes of exploitation!!

This is not an argument against attempts at liberation - far from it!! - but an attempt to a) appreciate the depth of the scars which history has already inflicted upon us and b) to avoid reproducing logics of oppression even as we try to realise our freedom.

 

[articul8]

Oh, and re "purchase" - you seem, stragely, to assume it is automatically a consumerist term.

Actually it has rather a lot of meanings

pur·chase /ˈpɜrtʃəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pur-chuhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -chased, -chas·ing, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to acquire by the payment of money or its equivalent; buy.
2. to acquire by effort, sacrifice, flattery, etc.
3. to influence by a bribe.
4. to be sufficient to buy: Twenty dollars purchases a subscription.
5. Law. to acquire (land or other property) by means other than inheritance.
6. to move, haul, or raise, esp. by applying mechanical power.
7. to get a leverage on; apply a lever, pulley, or other aid to.
8. Obsolete. to procure, acquire, or obtain.
–verb (used without object) 9. to buy something.
–noun 10. acquisition by the payment of money or its equivalent; buying, or a single act of buying.
11. something that is purchased or bought.
12. something purchased, with respect to value in relation to price; buy: At three for a dollar they seemed like a good purchase.
13. Law. the acquisition of land or other property by means other than inheritance.
14. acquisition by means of effort, labor, etc.: the purchase of comfort at the price of freedom.
15. a lever, pulley, or other device that provides mechanical advantage or power for moving or raising a heavy object.
16. an effective hold or position for applying power in moving or raising a heavy object; leverage.
17. any means of applying or increasing power, influence, etc.
18. the annual return or rent from land.
19. a firm grip or grasp, footing, etc., on something.
20. Obsolete. booty.

I was using it in the senses of 7/16/17. "Purchase" in the sense of having effective power. The irony of consumerism is that all our purchases strip of political purchase!

 

[gorski]

I have mainly a series of Q's, I'm afraid...

I think we're both beginning to find this pretty exasperating.

Maybe a little, when a point is not dealt with but ignored, hence no progress can be made... No talk - no gain... I can see how not having to make any changes to one's position, under a serious set of questions which are then ignored, may be a much easier proposition - but not necessarily more valuable. [I'd call it a reality check.]

I don't see any evidence whatsoever for your faith that the EU is somehow protecting a social democratic alternative to neoliberal capitalism.

Even if they wanted to dismantle it - they couldn't do it quickly. Structurally it's close to impossible! Practically, it'd take ages - we built so much of it into the system. I see no evidence that it'd be taken away from us in a hurry and without us noticing or protesting. I repeat: in the UK/US maybe - but not over on the Continent! It does not work like that! Again: the last such attempt at EU level fell flat on its face as the voters in France rejected the new EU proposal in a referendum. For instance. There is no determinism in any of it!

Even Liberals today accept the many tenets of the late Capitalism, heavily laden with Marx -> Keynes "interventionism", planning, as it were, as in purposefully reaching into the economy, managing it carefully, in a more balanced manner, then was the case before the Big Crash etc.

The only real difference in that regard is how much of the huge cut that goes towards the redistribution is going to various groups. Cons want more "back to the owners", forgetting we all created it and sometimes even neglecting the possible consequences of a seriously nasty society. The Left, overall speaking, wants the progressive taxation larger [up to a point] and going to the society at large. You could see it that way, too - but you completely ignore it... Why?

Or are you claiming that the fact they met each other somewhere around 40 - 50% taxes, Cons agreeing it must be higher than 10 - 15% and Left coming down from 80%, so then quibbling about a few percentages up or down, means that there is a "neolib consensus"?

Quite the contrary - the election of Merkel and Sarkozy shows that the European social democratic parties have been exposed for their manifest political bankruptcy and, sad to say, neoliberal reforms on the march across mainland Europe - including, though at slightly slower pace, in Scandanavia and the Benelux countries.

Not at all: quite the opposite is the case. In Germany they partially embraced such shite and the electorate told them to piss off and find their own credentials... "We know who these guys are, so we are going with them until you remember who you are and where you're coming from!" Sent them soul searching, for sure - but not for neolib values! Wanna take a bet?

Besides, it was tight. It was tight in the US when Bush got it. And they were caught cheating and playing power games of the most despicable sort!!! So, what do you conclude from that?

In France, as I mentioned, the proposed "reforms" on the EU referendum were beaten off and the electorate told them not to bother coming without a much better proposal and no such nonsense again! We had enough, was the message!

Why Sarkozy? That's another debate altogether and I think quite a complex one. Maybe another thread, plus some help from France, please? I am not sure I understand it properly and would like to hear more from some really competent people in the area, but with some proper analysis, not quickly running over it, presuming a hellualot...

Nor - given the immediate threat of competition from India and China - is this process likely to cease anytime soon - quite the reverse!

Once again, I beg to differ - but a big theme for another thread. A very important one, for sure but not a simple one! And I really wouldn't wanna jump to conclusions in it...

And still you fail to acknowledge the historical ties that bind the emergence of critical autonomy to the idea of mastery over oneself and one's environs - so much was already clear to Max Weber!

Ties are one thing - necessity/determinism ["this is the only possible way" - and without a proper historical, economic, political etc. analysis... ahem...] quite another. It would seem you presume no other options were possible at the time when a direction was taken... A brave stance, if I may say so...

Are we having another ideologue, with Weber now? No can question him either? Well, I must say I have no such idols...

For you it seems, the question of what material conditions are necessary for the historical emergence of Kantian philosophy is meaningless, since the capacity to Reason inheres in human nature?! Hello - the caveman does not "reason" like subject of modernity!

Hmmm... No idea how you arrived at such a "considered conclusion". Baffled.

I merely stated there were always other possibilities, other options in those circumstances, and the fact we took a certain one does not mean that no other was possible! For instance, the Terror might have been escaped. The leaving behind of Egality and Fraternity was not written into the Milky Way immediately since the Big Bang, I would wager... [I shudder to think what this sort of reasoning would mean today: no other options but neoCons with Neolib agenda? Oh, well...]

Also, that our capacity to Reason is not reducible without any "residues" to the merely existing. Not reducible to the current political machinations, I said. Not deducible from the sum of our social and economic relations, either. It seems you either didn't understand what I said or you do not understand this point in general or maybe even disagree with it. Dunno....

Well, put simply, it [our capacity to Reason] goes beyond all that and it is ingrained in us, yes. Otherwise we wouldn't have made a move from the caves! [Speaking methodically, of course!]

At the beginning there was future! Else, we are animals.

It's not a question of me being pessimistic, deterministic, despairing or otherwise. My observations are based on an analysis of our history and our society.

Forgive me, I must change my glasses and quite possibly my prescription... Could you point me to the [careful?] analysis you just mentioned, where you took all the liberating processes into account, please? I can see only wild jumps to conclusions from almost anecdotal stuff of some interest, sometimes even potential grave danger - but no serious analysis at all which would take the emancipating potential of Modernity or Humanity in general... "Our" society reads to me as a very specific kind of society at a very specific point in time, too... But that's just me...

 

[gorski]

Part II

You point to a historical event like the repeal of slavery as though it were some transcendent proof of the triumph of human hope and imagination over material circumstance. But (quite apart from pointing to modern day instances of neo-slaveries), the abolition of the slave trade was motivated, at least in part, by the belief of the British mercantile capitalists that - having stolen a march on foreign competitors in the race to accumulate capital - they would gain a competitive advantage by suspending the legitimacy of slavery as a practice! ie. progress is all the while tied up with further - if different - modes of exploitation!!

They [the "non-conformists" at the time, shall we say] took a "practical" approach to stop it ASAP, rather than do it the hard way, absolutely properly and maybe prolong it that way - but rather start the ball rolling and keep up the pressure, working from the inside, as it were, bit by bit according to their assessment of what was possible at the time. We may quibble what may have been a better solution but... They did make it ever more difficult and they did eventually break it!

Can you see yourself seeing only the "emancipating side of Modernity and liberating processes within it" by insisting and debating only those elements of the whole story?!? How did we ever managed, I wonder, if the "proponents of emancipation of Mankind" think and debate it like this and only like this? Pointing out to the difficulties is one thing but seeing nothing else all the time...???!!!??? Whoa...

Also, we may debate the nature of "race for dominance and exploitation", sure. A very pertinent one, too! But that's just one of the possible strands and processes in Modernity. The very essence, the very promise Modernity brings is the Emancipating one! And that WE ARE OUR OWN MAKERS!!!

Still a long way to go to make it really work - as Kant already puts it forward in his Kleine politische Schriften - but I am not ready to give up on it just yet, thanx a bunch! Quite the opposite: seeing how far we've come and how much we built into the system - from mutual recognition written into the fundamental laws to working on it on the level of the Planet - I think I'll keep on doing what I can to see ALL the aspects of Modernity and Humanity, the Emancipating one being in the forefront, not at the back of the debating chamber, here "just in case", somewhere in the deep background, almost "at the back burner", so to speak [heh] - so the whole scene is quite dark... And then I'll do whatever I can, too, to promote those values and insights!

This is not an argument against attempts at liberation - far from it!! - but an attempt to a) appreciate the depth of the scars which history has already inflicted upon us and b) to avoid reproducing logics of oppression even as we try to realise our freedom.

I would appreciate and believe you on that point, if, for once, you'd:

a) appreciate the enriching and strengthening aspects of the self-liberation of Humanity in Modernity

b) avoid telling us of the inevitability of the frightening and petrifying march of the neocon/neolib logic, encroaching mercilessly and us [everywhere!] being mere spectators in the power arena, that strangely has nothing to do with us, except, of course, the will of the neocons, whereas the rest of us have none - the scary and fiery neocons may and indeed can wish/want/will/desire and act upon such desires/primal urges and we have the freedom to do nothing, wish nothing but what they serve us and just take it all in, as that's best for us anyway and we have such a freedom to wish what can be wished [only!!! - see Spinoza, for instance]...

For the life of me, I can't see how pointing out only to the potential enslaving elements of our time - and almost despairing over it, never showing one possible aspect of us resisting - liberates?!?!?!?

 

[gorski]

Oh, and re "purchase" - you seem, stragely, to assume it is automatically a consumerist term.

Actually it has rather a lot of meanings

I was using it in the senses of 7/16/17. "Purchase" in the sense of having effective power. The irony of consumerism is that all our purchases strip of political purchase!

Strangely? I think not!

I think this is the case of having too much PoMo...

Jokes aside: indeed, money and power come together in a strange and convoluted way in late Modernity, as it [the direct link/relationship between the two] is severed. However, in language we can see clearly what is being expressed, even when a manifold of meanings is potentially present...

Effective power does coincide with loadsa money these days, non? At least that is what you've been advocating. They are coming. Not much we can do. And so, whoever has it has the effective power... They can purchase it and then - consume it. Brill! We're there! [And it hurts... ]

 

[articul8]

I don't see what questions I'm ducking - I just object to some of your empirical claims eg.

Even if they wanted to dismantle it - they couldn't do it quickly. Structurally it's close to impossible! Practically, it'd take ages - we built so much of it into the system. I see no evidence that it'd be taken away from us in a hurry and without us noticing or protesting. I repeat: in the UK/US maybe - but not over on the Continent! It does not work like that! Again: the last such attempt at EU level fell flat on its face as the voters in France rejected the new EU proposal in a referendum.

Not true - the very fact of global competition, outsourcing, lowering of labour costs in developing economies is putting a downward pressure on wages, undermining trade union power, seeing a serious challenge to manufacturing jobs etc. and at the same time the power of multinational corportations is seeing state monopolies broken up and privatised, welfare provision privatisied, public service provision eroded. This is not just the UK. This is happening across the EU - albeit at varying rates. The traditional welfare economies are simply not capable of withstandign the global dynamics of capital flows. And of course, far from being beaten back, the EU constitution proposals have been resurrected almost entirely through the new constituional treaty (as people like Giscard-D'Estaing readily admit!)

Even Liberals today accept the many tenets of the late Capitalism, heavily laden with Marx -> Keynes "interventionism", planning, as it were, as in purposefully reaching into the economy, managing it carefully, in a more balanced manner, then was the case before the Big Crash etc.

Bollocks! Keynesianism is dead. Rather than add liquidity to the market via state macroeconomic management, today's capitalist relies on the spending and credit of the individual consumer. Which is why the global economy is so vulnerable to a credit crunch - precisely because growth had been bought through unsustainable borrowing in an unplanned, barely regulated environment.

Even the concept of progressive taxation is being eroded. Look at how much financiers and chief executives of European corporations make in comparison to the average worker. Do you really think this wealth is being systematically redistributed? No chance - inequality is on the rise throughout Europe - as manifested in the GINI coefficient data. Governments across Europe are being drawn into competing to provide a low tax economy, so that to attract overseas investment.

I think if you are trying to rehabilitate social democracy - which may or may not be worth doing - you at least need to face the fact that its post-War incarnation is being utterly smashed.

 

[gorski]

I don't see what questions I'm ducking - I just object to some of your empirical claims eg.

Really, you should know better: there is no such thing as "empirical claims" in these matters. Or strictly speaking in all matters Human. We must understand for ourselves. It means interpret. That depends on so many things. That's the whole point of Critical Theory. Honestly...

Besides, you ducked a huge amount of stuff that doesn't fit your perception of "reality" [read prejudices], built on semi-analysis, seeing only the most crap part, only the potential for disaster but none of the potential for any emancipation. It tells a story on its own...

Not true - the very fact of global competition, outsourcing, lowering of labour costs in developing economies is putting a downward pressure on wages, undermining trade union power, seeing a serious challenge to manufacturing jobs etc. and at the same time the power of multinational corportations is seeing state monopolies broken up and privatised, welfare provision privatisied, public service provision eroded.

And where is the flip side of the coin? The knowledge based economy? The exploitation of others due to technological and scientific advantage etc. etc. Talk to those guys and see just how much they resent the "new age colonialism and imperialism by the rich and powerful, done by non-violent means, built into the very nature of the system of global economy and commerce"...

You're doing it again. Never having a proper analysis, talking in huge moves with very little proper, comprehensive thinking, abstracting from a helluvalot, and all that from a certain prism that is so dear to your heart... Not a very lively one, I must say... It all looks absolutely bleak and dark. One wonders why and where it comes from...?? [Duck this one, I dare you!]

This is not just the UK. This is happening across the EU - albeit at varying rates. The traditional welfare economies are simply not capable of withstandign the global dynamics of capital flows. And of course, far from being beaten back, the EU constitution proposals have been resurrected almost entirely through the new constituional treaty (as people like Giscard-D'Estaing readily admit!)

Oh, it's gonna come whatever we decide, whatever we do, is it? Interesting... I rest my case...

Bollocks! Keynesianism is dead. Rather than add liquidity to the market via state macroeconomic management, today's capitalist relies on the spending and credit of the individual consumer. Which is why the global economy is so vulnerable to a credit crunch - precisely because growth had been bought through unsustainable borrowing in an unplanned, barely regulated environment.

Right, we have given up on our Reason completely, have we? We have somehow stopped [and "completely"!!!] "purposefully reaching into the economy" to "manage it in a balanced manner, for the benefit of the whole" and we have, once again "gone down the free for all that landed us in two World Wars and serious social upheaval, have we? The State is no longer the biggest investor and mover of markets, not to mention a very sophisticated legislator and under scrutiny from all sides, internally and externally? All the institutions of Solidarity and Equalibertas are all but gone and we are in... the dark ages? You're doing it yet again!!!

I think it's time to take your dark, dark shades off, m8... It all looks [in your interpretation/vision] like a bloody self-fulfilling prophecy... no way out, we can not envisage anything new, anything better, from now on it's just going to be the eternal return of the "same/has been"; moreover, we can NOT actually DO anything, so brace yourselves for impact... We may have had History - alas, no more!!

At the same time, you keep telling us how it's historically necessary that it all goes tits up ["the emergence of instrumental reason" was the only way to the stage at which we may develop Reason] for the "Real Reason" to emerge. It's just that I can't see, for the life of me, how is that POSSIBLE in such a bleak vision of Humanity of yours, sorry... Where are the elements that make something of the sort [Emancipation] possible? Nowhere! Well in your "assessment"... None! Correct me, please! Show me where you did any such analysis, anything of the sort?

["Would Mr Real Reason please stand up from the crowd, let us identify the one we have been wondering about for so long... and kept missing him..." ]

Even the concept of progressive taxation is being eroded. Look at how much financiers and chief executives of European corporations make in comparison to the average worker. Do you really think this wealth is being systematically redistributed? No chance - inequality is on the rise throughout Europe - as manifested in the GINI coefficient data. Governments across Europe are being drawn into competing to provide a low tax economy, so that to attract overseas investment.

Yes, it has been and it still is "systematically redistributed". Sure, down from 80 or even 90% we once had in some countries, for the top earners but... You see, that's the whole point why we pay anything from 40 - 50% of taxes, instead of 10 or 15% or no taxes at all in some countries. Solidarity in action, institutions and processes you have no idea what they are and you don't care, as they don't fit your "predictions".

The fact that inequality is on the rise means it will never be redressed, whatever we do? I don't know about you but I haven't seen the future...

I think if you are trying to rehabilitate social democracy - which may or may not be worth doing - you at least need to face the fact that its post-War incarnation is being utterly smashed.

"Rehabilitate"? When was it jailed? "May or may not..." "Smashed"?

My word... What BOLLOX!!! No wonder I told you to take off your... - wait, "dark glasses"? No, no, noooo: you have built yourself into a room with no doors and windows, hence... Ochhhh, never mind...

I'll now do the English thing and say something like: "let's wait and see, shall we", provided we act towards preserving and strengthening our achievements and act in accordance with our better, adventurous, creative, thirsty for knowledge and self-improvement, Freedom loving and Recognition hungry Nature...

I'm sure you'll buy dinner and drinks... one day... happily... I'm sure you're warmly hoping I'm right and you've utterly missed the point of what it means to be a Human Being!!!

 

[gorski]

This, I propose, is the core of the problem:

Originally Posted by articul8
So we don't have a free choice as to which "strand" of modernity we take up - one strand - the alienation/reification of the subject's own capacities as a commodity - simply IS the core of modernity. Insofar as other 'strands' emerge they are all parasitic on this one. Maybe this involves hitting a wall. But better to face a real impasse than to imagine a false way out of one.

And my answer/challenge:

Most interesting. Would you say that you might be thinking differently seeing all this from a Scandinavian/EU, rather than the US, perspective? Maybe?

You see, Freedom begins with being able to choose from at least 2 options [priests/priestesses in Ancient Greek rituals, for instance] but it doesn't stop there. Modern notion of Freedom not only presupposes the possibility of choice but also, more importantly, our capacity to CREATE NEW OPTIONS, NEW CHOICES! Here, I find your stance most conservative and anti-Modern, formulated in such a characteristically unqualified manner!

 

[articul8]

my answer/challenge:

Most interesting. Would you say that you might be thinking differently seeing all this from a Scandinavian/EU, rather than the US, perspective? Maybe?

No! In case you hadn't noticed we now live in a GLOBAL economy where capital flows with relatively little impediment across continental borders, and where an international race to the bottom is driving down working conditions and living standards - whether you are in Stockholm, Seattle, Seville, Shanghai or Sao Paulo.

our capacity to CREATE NEW OPTIONS, NEW CHOICES! Here, I find your stance most conservative and anti-Modern, formulated in such a characteristically unqualified manner!

But so far you've only come up with the tried-and-failed option of sticking to the old models of social democracy. I agree that the task set for our own and future generations is to develop new forms of social relation not predicated upon the accumulation of capital - but this means breaking not only from the current neoliberal hegemony, but also all the failed oppositional politics of the past like Stalinist blueprints or the wish to see a nicer kind of capitalism.

To be honest, millennia of human evolution have given us a climate well on the way to being wrecked, the capacity for total nuclear meltdown, genoicide on an unprecedented scale, grotesque inequalities in wealth, and a society in which people are mostly miserable, over-worked, self-medicating on drugs and alcohol (hence the "binge drinking" scares) and where our social relations are increasingly atomised and broken.

This is part of modernity. It isn't the only part, but historically it appears to be the dominant thus far. This is not just conservative anti-modernism though because it in no way disputes the positive aspects of modernity - critical reflection, solidarity, new possibilities opened up by technology etc. Indeed it is precisely because I value these things, that it concerns me when they are in peril. I'm very well aware that there is no "golden age" to turn the clock back to. As Brecht said, "Don't start from the good old things, but the bad new ones"!

 

[gorski]

No! In case you hadn't noticed we now live in a GLOBAL economy where capital flows with relatively little impediment across continental borders, and where an international race to the bottom is driving down working conditions and living standards - whether you are in Stockholm, Seattle, Seville, Shanghai or Sao Paulo.

Funny, as you clearly do not understand this is not a serious, careful, methodical and comprehensive analysis...

How so?

Well, piling up the nastiest aspects of it all ONLY is just not "it".

I thought this also had many beneficial characteristics in all of those places. Like job creation, science and technology flow across borders, the know-how [if too slowly in some places but nevertheless] is crossing them, too [from "internet is your friend", in terms of freely available knowledge onwards, even though some of it is wholly dangerous, as potentially seriously destructive], efficiency is growing, accumulation of capital is gathering pace and so investment is rising and on and on and on. Not that it only has good impact in all directions but this OUGHT TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, non? If you are thinking globally...

You see, on another point, when the French educated the "locals" in their colonial territories in Asia they were beaten out of there, amongst other things, by their own emancipating ideas. It's a two way street, A.!!! Knowledge can not be just "technical"!!!

Sure, for some it's not so good and there are many sides to it we do not appreciate, especially here, if we lose "our" jobs in the West. But other jobs are created, which are not so labour intensive and imply highly trained and educated workforce etc.... Capital is pushing for it and with it new possibilities are rising. Remember when women earned their independence? So, the need for education and training is growing and with it new opportunities.

You can do such an analysis but you chose not to. Oh, well...

But so far you've only come up with the tried-and-failed option of sticking to the old models of social democracy.

How is Sweden, for instance, a failure? Or Finland, with the most balanced development in the world? The best places on Earth to live in are "failures"? BLIMEY, A!! How is their example something to be ashamed of? How is it not an example to follow, by comparison to, say, the UK or the US, when one takes the whole of those societies into consideration?

OK, here is the historical perspective and a bit of a compass for you: it's the UK/US who are stuck with the OLD, TRIED and TESTED, CONFLICT BASED, ADVERSARIAL MODEL , AND IT FAILED US, as it LANDED US IN MANY WARS AND A LOT OF MISERY FOR MANY HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, in a variety of ways, from colonialism/imperialism to neocolonialism and imperialism by other means!!!

The Social Democratic one, by comparison, is a fairly NOVEL and not really tried and tested model - on a global level, that is. We are only trying that one now and bit by bit, struggling like hell, sure, but nevertheless - starting to make some inroads into the same old same old. Do you understand how that is the NEW MODEL that is VERY SUCCESSFUL and a PRIME EXAMPLE TO ALL THAT THERE ARE OTHER POSSIBILITIES and it has a helluva fight on its hands with the old, adversarial nonsense everyone knows and most are at ease using but...?

That is what this is all about: which model will prevail! Social Darwinistic, adversarial one [US/UK], Social Democratic [Scandinavia/Germany/France/Benelux countries] or a demi-feudal Japanese/Far Eastern one. Well, ever since the catastrophic failure of sur-real "Socialism" the only game in town is this. Sorry if you can't see it but there are options in the world, even if they are not radically different, in terms of how we reproduce our life [Capitalism still, indeed, unfortunately] - I know which one I'd chose...

How about you? [Don't tell me you'd play the silly ticket Social Democrats and parts of the Left played in Germany when faced with the WW I or with the Nazi danger etc. and chose the utterly stupid options, never seeing the wood for the trees...?!?]

I agree that the task set for our own and future generations is to develop new forms of social relation not predicated upon the accumulation of capital - but this means breaking not only from the current neoliberal hegemony, but also all the failed oppositional politics of the past like Stalinist blueprints or the wish to see a nicer kind of capitalism.

??? Please elaborate. Most interested in what you have in mind.

To be honest, millennia of human evolution have given us a climate well on the way to being wrecked, the capacity for total nuclear meltdown, genoicide on an unprecedented scale, grotesque inequalities in wealth, and a society in which people are mostly miserable, over-worked, self-medicating on drugs and alcohol (hence the "binge drinking" scares) and where our social relations are increasingly atomised and broken.

Agreed! However, is that the same on the Continent, do you think? A wholly universal experience? I fear that is not the case, so here one needs to notice the differences and learn from one another, I hope...

This is part of modernity. It isn't the only part, but historically it appears to be the dominant thus far.

Where? Dominant in Scandinavia? I think not. The US and UK? Yes, agreed, no doubt about it. But thankfully not everywhere. There is a bit of a stronger solidarity feeling, more such institutions and processes, even built into the system of economy, on the Continent. Not the same old same old. Give credit where credit is due. They tried new options, developed them and are keeping it up, doing the best they can. So, at the very least, we need to notice and acknowledge it. Fair play and all that?

This is not just conservative anti-modernism though because it in no way disputes the positive aspects of modernity - critical reflection, solidarity, new possibilities opened up by technology etc. Indeed it is precisely because I value these things, that it concerns me when they are in peril.

Thank fook for little mercies! I was beginning to despair, never mind you seemingly despairing 24/7...

I'm very well aware that there is no "golden age" to turn the clock back to. As Brecht said, "Don't start from the good old things, but the bad new ones"!

OKI, in a given context I can see how that can be meaningful!

However, "Let's leave pessimism for better times" is perhaps a better one right now...

 

[articul8]

maybe you are right - Utopia is alive and well and flourishing in Scandanavia and the Benelux countries and the world's oppressed population will soon see the light and rally to a fairer form of capitalism.

Forgive my skepticism

 

[gorski]

No, no, it's the Zimbabwean shining example... Economically, politically and socially! Or is it Brasil? Sorry, forgot.

Just don't tell me it's the USA, plllleeeeaaaaaase...

Seriously speaking: what's wrong with Scandinavia - why should they be ashamed of what they have done? How are they not light years ahead of the rest of the world, the US included?

Power games the only thing you understand? How is the EU weak in all aspects of influencing the world other than the military one?

Who mentioned utopian anything? We are talking about a very real example ON Earth, not elsewhere, not nowhere.

Ignore at your own peril...