a radical pessimist's guide to the next 10 years

[bcbm]

article (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/a-radical-pessimists-guide-to-the-next-10-years/article1750609/page1/) from douglas coupland. who needs a drink?

[Omi]

The frightening thing is that this is actually possible and not only possible but highly likely. This article made me feel so f*cked up.

[Pavlov's House Party]

i call bullshit on his point about the disapperance of the middle class, it sounds awfully like capitalist & 3rd worldist types who argue that there isn't a working class in 1st world countries. so long as capitalism exists, there will always be significant class divides.

but i do agree with his point on the "balkanization" of the americas. the canadian federation is held together by a thread, and provinces like quebec, newfoundland and alberta would jump ship at the first opportunity. the same thing in the US too with states like texas, vermont, california etc.

[Omi]

Isn't the part you mention a confirmation of the existence of a working class, while most workers in first world country's would label themselves middle class? This in contrast with the theory's of third-worldism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Disasterbation (http://everything2.com/title/disasterbation).

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The most terrifying "future":
Tomorrow will be the same as today, and so on.

[bcbm]

Disasterbation (http://everything2.com/title/disasterbation).

certainly some of his predictions are a bit catastrophic, but i think in general they're a pretty well grounded extrapolation of what is happening now economically, socially, etc. i certainly don't think the continued existence of capitalist society and its development of ever more controlling and alienating systems to keep us in line bodes well for our future. there are, at the least, certainly some items worth examining instead of posting some stupid link (way to stimulate discussion).

[Ele'ill]

The more systems of control that are implemented the more options there are for resistance. For every new cog coupling I have a wrench. Let them continue to build- it will all come down to the ground- if they think a full systemic collapse is going to hurt me I've got 25+ years on them already.

[bcbm]

how do you propose to sabotage increasing social atomization and the ever expanding amount of control exercised subtly through things like social networking and rfid chips? i don't think power can simply be monkeywrenched anymore, at least not in easy, straightforward ways. even monkeywrenching has been integrated into its sphere.

[Ele'ill]

I think it's likely that they'll make mistakes. That someone will be clever enough to use their advances against them and it will spread. I believe that we have not even come close to seeing a social flashpoint of resistance. Essentially I think they're playing with fire.

[Salyut]

This would have been good if it wasn't loaded with Kunstler bullshit and strong AI gibberish. How the christ are you going to develop something that radical in under a decade with post-apocalyptic suburbia and everyone eating pickled vegetables?

[Ravachol]

While it certainly doesn't make me wanna jump up and down with joy, I think I can't feel more pessimistic than after reading nihilist communism and parts of 'Against Leviathan, Against his-story" in one evening...

As for the predictions, I think it can get even worse. I don't think most cyberpunky scenario's are that far-fetched. A world where Capital has penetrated every aspect of life and interaction, where omnipresent observation and discipline manifest themselves not only in it's violent form (with highly assymetric technology enabeling small groups to control far larger populations) but in it's hegemonic form as well (through the complete and utter integration of all life into the biopolitical framework of state and Capital), where most human interaction is digitally enhanched and thus susceptible to both observation and the necessity for authentification of given human interactions.

But hey, there's still RevLeft right? :(

[bcbm]

I think it's likely that they'll make mistakes. That someone will be clever enough to use their advances against them and it will spread. I believe that we have not even come close to seeing a social flashpoint of resistance. Essentially I think they're playing with fire.

capital has shown a remarkable ability to integrate all actions against it into its framework and as its grasp reaches ever further into our lives i think the possibility of using advances "against them" becomes less and less likely because there is less and less room that can even be considered against them. taking down some of the bosses will strengthen the others, using their technology against them will given them a new market to expand in to and neutralize or simply be a release valve for some social pressures. i don't think the opening up of "a way out" will come about because of conscious action.

[Plagueround]

article (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/a-radical-pessimists-guide-to-the-next-10-years/article1750609/page1/) from douglas coupland. who needs a drink?

Fuck...a lot of that is depressingly truthful. Make your way to Washington State and drinks are on me.

[Pavlov's House Party]

i remember reading some article about how this will be the first time since the 1940s where the younger generations will have a lower standard of living than their parents, but i can't find it.

still messed up to think that the "future" that we always imagine in sci fi movies will not look like the future we're going to live through. just the fact that by the time i die we'll still probably be driving gas powered cars instead of hovercrafts and jetpacks is saddening:(

[bcbm]

i remember reading some article about how this will be the first time since the 1940s where the younger generations will have a lower standard of living than their parents, but i can't find it.

still messed up to think that the "future" that we always imagine in sci fi movies will not look like the future we're going to live through. just the fact that by the time i die we'll still probably be driving gas powered cars instead of hovercrafts and jetpacks is saddening:(

actually i would be surprised if we're still driving gas powered cars by the time we die.

[#FF0000]

My friend pointed out that reading this in Droopy Dog's voice makes it a lot better.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that the fact that (supposedly) Americans have less friends that they can actually talk about their problems to today as opposed to decades ago (despite being more interconnected than ever before) is really depressing. I used to scoff at my parents when they told me that the Internet would make social interaction increasingly mediated, banal and meaningless, but I've come to believe that there's some truth to that claim.

[Axle]

The writer acts as if the United States going all Yugoslav Federation on us and splintering apart is a bad thing. I'd welcome it, I figure if the country breaks apart, it'll be because of America's far right elements, which of course means less fucking right wingers living in the same country as me and blocking progress.

[bcbm]

The writer acts as if the United States going all Yugoslav Federation on us and splintering apart is a bad thing. I'd welcome it, I figure if the country breaks apart, it'll be because of America's far right elements, which of course means less fucking right wingers living in the same country as me and blocking progress.

currently united regions with lots of people who are irrationally hostile towards each other and have vastly different prospects upon independence splitting up probably isn't going to be a happy thing. the federal government will also probably fight a disintegration process if they can.

[Axle]

currently united regions with lots of people who are irrationally hostile towards each other and have vastly different prospects upon independence splitting up probably isn't going to be a happy thing. the federal government will also probably fight a disintegration process if they can.

I misspoke a bit there. I'd welcome the abstract idea of it. I'm, of course, well aware that the last time it happened was a messy affair.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I used to scoff at my parents when they told me that the Internet would make social interaction increasingly mediated, banal and meaningless, but I've come to believe that there's some truth to that claim.

I don't get this at all. Were it not for the internet and mobile phones, I would have barely heard from my mother and sister over the past three or so years.

Personally I think too many people look at a past they never or hardly lived through with rose-tinted spectacles, or misattribute current problems to easy targets (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NewMediaAreEvil) like the internet.

The fact is, the vast majority of human conversation is overwhelmingly banal, and always has been. But at least with the internet, as opposed to television or the local library, one has a much greater degree of control over what content one can spend their time with. It would have been much more difficult to come across sources of information like Revleft or Wikileaks before the internet.

[bcbm]

i didn't say that...


Personally I think too many people look at a past they never or hardly lived through with rose-tinted spectacles, or misattribute current problems to easy targets (http://www.anonym.to/?http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NewMediaAreEvil) like the internet.


there is some truth to this. i'm reading jg ballard's 1975 novel "high rise" right now and his descriptions of the high rise, its effect on the tenants and the psychological atmosphere it breeds could, with a few minor adjustment, just as easily be used to describe the internet and most social networking sites today. i don't think this means that nothing has changed though, but rather that technological development as it is implemented in our society expands and hastens the alienating and isolating effects that have accompanied capitalism from the beginning. the internet or whatever technology isn't the root of our problems, i agree, but that doesn't mean it isn't one of the leaves.


The fact is, the vast majority of human conversation is overwhelmingly banal, and always has been. But at least with the internet, as opposed to television or the local library, one has a much greater degree of control over what content one can spend their time with. It would have been much more difficult to come across sources of information like Revleft or Wikileaks before the internet.

certainly, but the net effect of this isn't always positive.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't get this at all. Were it not for the internet and mobile phones, I would have barely heard from my mother and sister over the past three or so years.

Personally I think too many people look at a past they never or hardly lived through with rose-tinted spectacles, or misattribute current problems to easy targets (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NewMediaAreEvil) like the internet.

The fact is, the vast majority of human conversation is overwhelmingly banal, and always has been. But at least with the internet, as opposed to television or the local library, one has a much greater degree of control over what content one can spend their time with. It would have been much more difficult to come across sources of information like Revleft or Wikileaks before the internet.

I'm not a primitivist by any stretch of the imagination. I enjoy technology, including the internet. Hell, I've met people I consider to be friends online. However, I do think that there is a "dark side" to it. So you have to take the good (the largest repository of knowledge in human history) with the bad (increased alienation as everyone loses themselves in their own little isolated bubbles).

See also (http://www.cracked.com/article_15231_7-reasons-21st-century-making-you-miserable.html)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i didn't say that...

Apologies for the fuck up.


there is some truth to this. i'm reading jg ballard's 1975 novel "high rise" right now and his descriptions of the high rise, its effect on the tenants and the psychological atmosphere it breeds could, with a few minor adjustment, just as easily be used to describe the internet and most social networking sites today. i don't think this means that nothing has changed though, but rather that technological development as it is implemented in our society expands and hastens the alienating and isolating effects that have accompanied capitalism from the beginning. the internet or whatever technology isn't the root of our problems, i agree, but that doesn't mean it isn't one of the leaves.

I think an analogy can be made with medicine, in that while it can be relieving to address the symptoms (ie, blame the internet/Facebook/mobile phones), it does nothing to address the underlying condition.

Also, I don't know about anyone else, but I suspect that such doom-laden prognostications are ultimately disempowering - if the future is inevitable, and it is inevitable that it is going to suck (at least according to the prognosticators), then whence does the motivation come to at least try and do things better or to agitate for meaningful social change?

I think if change is what we want, then we have to provide a compelling vision for an alternative, in order to spur ourserlves and our sympathisers into the frame of mind needed to advocate and fight for the changes we want to see.

In my mind, this can involve showing up the limitations of contemporary implementations of such things such as the internet and high-rise dwellings, both of which have the potential to give people the opportunity to be more human in a dignified manner. We must emphasise that such potentials are possible, and not just wallow in the shortcomings of today's society and the hypothetical shortcomings of a darker future.


certainly, but the net effect of this isn't always positive.

This is a very difficult and to a certain degree, subjective thing to measure. But I think on the whole, anything which serves to democratise information does more good than harm in the long run. Printed books broke the stranglehold of information that was originally wielded by the Church, and the Internet today I believe serves a similar function by providing widely-available sources of information outside of major broadcasters and newsprinters.


I'm not a primitivist by any stretch of the imagination. I enjoy technology, including the internet. Hell, I've met people I consider to be friends online. However, I do think that there is a "dark side" to it. So you have to take the good (the largest repository of knowledge in human history) with the bad (increased alienation as everyone loses themselves in their own little isolated bubbles).

I think the whole "isolation" thing is more a consquence of human needs and dignity being sacrificed at the altar of profitability, than any one technical implementation.

[Lord Testicles]

My favourite thing about this article is how the author references all of the sources that he draws his conclusions from. :rolleyes:http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

[Thirsty Crow]

I think the whole "isolation" thing is more a consquence of human needs and dignity being sacrificed at the altar of profitability, than any one technical implementation.
I agree.
But still, I think it would be accurate to conclude that the mass usage of technological items (let's limit this judgement to communication technology; and entertainment/media) functions also as a "catalyst" for this general process. Of course, that "also" from the sentence preceding this one entails a altogether different function - for instance, I'm communicating with people I wouldn't get the chance to hang out with, and this is also a mode of learning.

[Ele'ill]

capital has shown a remarkable ability to integrate all actions against it into its framework and as its grasp reaches ever further into our lives i think the possibility of using advances "against them" becomes less and less likely because there is less and less room that can even be considered against them. taking down some of the bosses will strengthen the others, using their technology against them will given them a new market to expand in to and neutralize or simply be a release valve for some social pressures. i don't think the opening up of "a way out" will come about because of conscious action.



The number of people negatively affected will grow- this gives way to opportunity as there will be more people as part of a struggle. Simply put there will be more unhappy people. This is where organizing comes into play- without it we can simply sit and smile while we fester in our own shit. No thanks.

I think the second part of this involves new tactics or the increase in tactics not currently used.

I think there's a lot of people in the United States 'organizing' and doing 'organizing things' that act as bandaid dispensaries or are otherwise ineffective. The left is too spread out- there needs to be a focus on getting more people involved and gaining leverage-

Stop the silly feuding between leftist sects. At this point I'd likely be excited to have a least favorite leftist ideology gain ground and work to some extent- fucking tweak it later- is it going to be that worse than what we currently have? If it is- then so be it.

I often feel as though the left has reached a saturation point of people that are anal retentive perfectionists that want each little thing to work perfectly and if it doesn't or if it slightly deviates they fall on the ground crying in a fit of rage.


I want to see a lot more leftist failures because to me it means people are fucking trying.

[Invincible Summer]

My favourite thing about this article is how the author references all of the sources that he draws his conclusions from. :rolleyes:http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

Considering that he wrote Generation X and Microserfs which were defining of that era, I think he should be given a bit of slack to make wild predictions.

[bcbm]

Apologies for the fuck up.

its cool, just make sure it never happens again;)


Also, I don't know about anyone else, but I suspect that such doom-laden prognostications are ultimately disempowering - if the future is inevitable, and it is inevitable that it is going to suck (at least according to the prognosticators), then whence does the motivation come to at least try and do things better or to agitate for meaningful social change? well, it keeps things interesting to try sabotaging the motherfuckers.


I think if change is what we want, then we have to provide a compelling vision for an alternative, in order to spur ourserlves and our sympathisers into the frame of mind needed to advocate and fight for the changes we want to see.visions of an alternative to capital are utopian. we can no more imagine a communist society than adam smith could have imagined times square. our role is to be negative and ruthlessly attack all manifestations of class society and expose their failings, from the antics of wall street and politicians to the recuperating efforts of the left. if capital is ever seriously threatened and there is an opening, that's when we can start talking about paths forward. i largely agree with your next paragraph:


In my mind, this can involve showing up the limitations of contemporary implementations of such things such as the internet and high-rise dwellings, both of which have the potential to give people the opportunity to be more human in a dignified manner. We must emphasise that such potentials are possible, and not just wallow in the shortcomings of today's society and the hypothetical shortcomings of a darker future.but i don't see any reason to be hide my pessimism about the future. in all likelyhood the future is going to be bleak and exposing how bleak it really will be might be more of a jumpstart for people than talking about how much better things could be, though really there is room to do that as well (vaguely). we shouldn't hide the horror but expose it and explain why its happening and who is responsible.


This is a very difficult and to a certain degree, subjective thing to measure. But I think on the whole, anything which serves to democratise information does more good than harm in the long run. Printed books broke the stranglehold of information that was originally wielded by the Church, and the Internet today I believe serves a similar function by providing widely-available sources of information outside of major broadcasters and newsprinters.i'm certainly not suggesting the internet hasn't opened up tremendous possibilties of information but i'm hesitant to say information has been truly democratized. the internet has done this to an extent but it has also opened up a lot of new possibilties for those in power to manipulate us through this flood of information. the article i posted about facebook politicians touches on this to an extent, and i think there is a cracked article somewhere explaining these methods of manipulation and the dumbing down effect they've had on us. the internet certainly allows a whole new layer of isolation from differing viewpoints.


I think the whole "isolation" thing is more a consquence of human needs and dignity being sacrificed at the altar of profitability, than any one technical implementation.technological implementation is currently centered around the same altar of profitability, it is not a neutral activity happening outside the grasp of capital.

----


The number of people negatively affected will grow- this gives way to opportunity as there will be more people as part of a struggle. Simply put there will be more unhappy people. This is where organizing comes into play- without it we can simply sit and smile while we fester in our own shit. No thanks.

i'm not suggesting there is no reason to try but i don't think the net effect will differ greatly from what we have seen in the past 200 years. radical ideas will spread when the oppressed and exploited move, not the other way around. our organizational activities are largely, if not completely, immaterial in the grand scheme. at best they will provide some mild relief, at worst they will be completely recuperated and we will simply be the avant-garde expanding the domination of capital into unruly sectors.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

well, it keeps things interesting to try sabotaging the motherfuckers.

Why bother? Much less hassle just to game the system for your own personal goals, since worthwhile goals of greater scope are supposedly impractical if not impossible.


visions of an alternative to capital are utopian. we can no more imagine a communist society than adam smith could have imagined times square.

This treatment of social change borders on the theological - we are not talking about the "unknowable" mind of God, we are talking about human beings who are subject to the same rules as the rest of the universe that they inhabit.

We are almost certain to get the details wrong (depending on how you define "details"), but this does not matter if we take a scientific approach and are willing to accommodate, as a movement, changes in our paradigms.


our role is to be negative and ruthlessly attack all manifestations of class society and expose their failings, from the antics of wall street and politicians to the recuperating efforts of the left. if capital is ever seriously threatened and there is an opening, that's when we can start talking about paths forward.

Criticism is important, but it's not the whole story. We must build as well as destroy, both in theory and in practice.


but i don't see any reason to be hide my pessimism about the future. in all likelyhood the future is going to be bleak and exposing how bleak it really will be might be more of a jumpstart for people than talking about how much better things could be, though really there is room to do that as well (vaguely). we shouldn't hide the horror but expose it and explain why its happening and who is responsible.

I never said we should hide problems. But people either get tired of constantly being told the world is going to end without being being made aware of any real differences they could make, or they already know about it and are either doing something about it, or not doing something because of apathy or a belief that nothing useful can be done.

Not to mention that apocalyptic stories are used by the ruling classes to justify a variety of exercises not in the interests of the ruled classes.


i'm certainly not suggesting the internet hasn't opened up tremendous possibilties of information but i'm hesitant to say information has been truly democratized. the internet has done this to an extent but it has also opened up a lot of new possibilties for those in power to manipulate us through this flood of information. the article i posted about facebook politicians touches on this to an extent, and i think there is a cracked article somewhere explaining these methods of manipulation and the dumbing down effect they've had on us. the internet certainly allows a whole new layer of isolation from differing viewpoints.

It is certainly far easier for a person of limited means to start up a personal website or disseminate their views on forums which cost nothing to join, as opposed to the large costs associated with printing and publicly disseminating one's views using dead tree flesh.

Of course, what one gets out of the internet depends on what goes in, so websites run by large corporations, because of their clout in meatspace, will be able to easily find their niche. But the ease of communication on the internet means that things spread much easier via the electronic equivalent of "word of mouth" - posts on forums, comments on news sites and blogs, blogs themselves and more forms are pretty much instantly uploaded for the whole online world to see. This means that despite fancy websites and expensive ad-campaigns, those count for naught if whatever your trying to spread fails to take root or gets swamped.

Which brings me onto my next point; the human element. Before the internet, the biggest media forms were paper and televisual, under the control of large corporations with a vested interest in maintaining capitalism. But thanks to the internet, increasing amounts of people can communicate perhaps complex ideas to each other across global distances. There appears to be a growing cynicism with the current world order (at least in the West), and if there is any chance at all of being able to influence such malaise into revolutionary directions then we should be doing so with all haste.


technological implementation is currently centered around the same altar of profitability, it is not a neutral activity happening outside the grasp of capital.

Capital's influence is why high-rise buildings can be misery-filled hell-holes or the velvet lairs of the rich, but it's not something inherent to the idea of high-rise buildings themselves.

[bcbm]

Why bother? Much less hassle just to game the system for your own personal goals, since worthwhile goals of greater scope are supposedly impractical if not impossible.

keeps things interesting.


This treatment of social change borders on the theological - we are not talking about the "unknowable" mind of God, we are talking about human beings who are subject to the same rules as the rest of the universe that they inhabit.

there is nothing theological about recognizing that from our limited vantage point within capital it is as impossible for us to imagine communism as it would be for the ancient babylonians to imagine capitalism. we simply lack the scope to understand the implications of such a tremendous shift in social and productive forces. human beings will obviously be present and acting but those actions will be within a specific social and material set of conditions. at best we can struggle to open up new possibilities.


We are almost certain to get the details wrong (depending on how you define "details"), but this does not matter if we take a scientific approach and are willing to accommodate, as a movement, changes in our paradigms.

we can speculate all we want but the decisions that lead to a communist future will be unlikely to come from communist ideologues so much as larger societal forces. whatever leftists remain will say their piece and play a part but they will not be the deciding or even most prominent factor and ultimately the creation of communism will come from those involved, not from any blueprint we could devise now, however flexible.


Criticism is important, but it's not the whole story. We must build as well as destroy, both in theory and in practice.

i think it is worth experimenting with our ideas now but the creation of an elaborate plan for communism is masturbation.


I never said we should hide problems. But people either get tired of constantly being told the world is going to end without being being made aware of any real differences they could make, or they already know about it and are either doing something about it, or not doing something because of apathy or a belief that nothing useful can be done.

the world isn't going to end but the expansion of capital is real and has troubling consequences for the future of humanity. we need to expose this, expose the attempts to maintain this system under whatever guise (left, right, whatever) and struggle to halt these developments and provoke a rupture.


Not to mention that apocalyptic stories are used by the ruling classes to justify a variety of exercises not in the interests of the ruled classes.

imagining the real and total domination of all life by capital is no longer an "apocalyptic story."


It is certainly far easier for a person of limited means to start up a personal website or disseminate their views on forums which cost nothing to join, as opposed to the large costs associated with printing and publicly disseminating one's views using dead tree flesh.

we have any number of posters here who show how effective this can be.



Which brings me onto my next point; the human element. Before the internet, the biggest media forms were paper and televisual, under the control of large corporations with a vested interest in maintaining capitalism. But thanks to the internet, increasing amounts of people can communicate perhaps complex ideas to each other across global distances. There appears to be a growing cynicism with the current world order (at least in the West), and if there is any chance at all of being able to influence such malaise into revolutionary directions then we should be doing so with all haste.

150 years ago there was undoubtedly much greater resentment towards the current world order and it was infinitely more explosive. today we can easily expose the wrongdoings, etc of the ruling class and spread them across the entire globe but so far this has been largely limited to anger that remains within its electronic confines. we can use the internet as a tool but if we are capable of anything it won't be because of the ease in which we can share ideas on forums but because we are able to provoke disturbances in "meatspace" (:rolleyes:). i think the internet has shown a great use to the ruling class as a way for people to vent their anger in more or less total isolation- you can start a blog, but you're just another screaming blog among millions.


Capital's influence is why high-rise buildings can be misery-filled hell-holes or the velvet lairs of the rich, but it's not something inherent to the idea of high-rise buildings themselves.

maybe maybe not, i don't see any way this can be effectively studied at the moment.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

keeps things interesting.

Well, nuclear weapons interest me. Does that mean I should seek a career in nuclear weapons production, since anything remotely related to class struggle is in vain?


there is nothing theological about recognizing that from our limited vantage point within capital it is as impossible for us to imagine communism as it would be for the ancient babylonians to imagine capitalism.

Unless you think communist society is going to be populated by transhumans, this analogy does not work. We know a hell of a lot more about the world and about ourselves than the Babylonians.


we simply lack the scope to understand the implications of such a tremendous shift in social and productive forces. human beings will obviously be present and acting but those actions will be within a specific social and material set of conditions. at best we can struggle to open up new possibilities.

We always operate with imperfect information. But as time goes on, we should be understanding more and more. If not, something has gone horribly awry.


we can speculate all we want but the decisions that lead to a communist future will be unlikely to come from communist ideologues so much as larger societal forces. whatever leftists remain will say their piece and play a part but they will not be the deciding or even most prominent factor and ultimately the creation of communism will come from those involved, not from any blueprint we could devise now, however flexible.

That doesn't mean we can't attempt to understand those forces to our advantage. In fact one of the cornerstones of Marxism is that historical forces are comprehensible by human beings, just as physical forces are. Another thing to consider is that humans in large numbers are more predictable than individuals (which is why marketing works).


i think it is worth experimenting with our ideas now but the creation of an elaborate plan for communism is masturbation.

Depends what you mean by "elaborate". Certain parts of the world are currently more conducive in material terms to classless society than others, and this has enormous implications for the political future.


the world isn't going to end but the expansion of capital is real and has troubling consequences for the future of humanity. we need to expose this, expose the attempts to maintain this system under whatever guise (left, right, whatever) and struggle to halt these developments and provoke a rupture.

Something which piling on the pessimism will not achieve for relatively simple psychological reasons. Humans are loathe to engage in activities they see as ultimately pointless.


imagining the real and total domination of all life by capital is no longer an "apocalyptic story."

It is if you characterise social networking as something more than the expansion of the profit imperative into the digital realm, or seriously think RFID chips are going to see mass use on ordinary people without their consent (there are numerous reasons why this is ludicrously impractical, including the fact that RFID chips are easily removed, spoofed, disrupted and damaged).


we have any number of posters here who show how effective this can be.

I don't think that even in our fast-paced modern world, 15 years is long enough for the most salient effects to become obvious. Besides, there are still plenty of people who haven't got regular internet access - there is enormous potential if that changes.


150 years ago there was undoubtedly much greater resentment towards the current world order and it was infinitely more explosive. today we can easily expose the wrongdoings, etc of the ruling class and spread them across the entire globe but so far this has been largely limited to anger that remains within its electronic confines. we can use the internet as a tool but if we are capable of anything it won't be because of the ease in which we can share ideas on forums but because we are able to provoke disturbances in "meatspace" (:rolleyes:).

Class consciousness is currently at a low ebb anyway, at least in the "West". Things are currently bad enough for people to complain publicly, but not bad enough for people to actually do something on a meaningful scale. Most people currently feel comfortable enough not to rock the boat too much, and I think the internet is displaying those symptoms but not necessarily aggravating them. If things get worse, and it seems likely that they will, then the content of the average person's contributions will change accordingly.


i think the internet has shown a great use to the ruling class as a way for people to vent their anger in more or less total isolation- you can start a blog, but you're just another screaming blog among millions.

And how does this not apply to allegedly "radical" doom-mongering?


maybe maybe not, i don't see any way this can be effectively studied at the moment.

If there any architects and psychologists in our movement, and if not there damn well should be, then they can understake studies of such things using what is known from the relevant fields. Speculation can be an aid to knowledge as long as it is rigorous.

[bcbm]

Well, nuclear weapons interest me. Does that mean I should seek a career in nuclear weapons production, since anything remotely related to class struggle is in vain?

in the post you're responding i make it very clear i don't think "anything remotely related to class struggle is in vain."


Unless you think communist society is going to be populated by transhumans, this analogy does not work. We know a hell of a lot more about the world and about ourselves than the Babylonians.
We always operate with imperfect information. But as time goes on, we should be understanding more and more. If not, something has gone horribly awry.this doesn't give us the power to see into the future anymore than they possessed. we certainly understand a lot of things, more every day, but communism would be such a massive break with our current reality that its really, really unlikely we can imagine its details and even if somehow we could, it isn't for us to determine the content of communist society anyway, nor does the ability to fantasize about it mean anything in present struggles.


That doesn't mean we can't attempt to understand those forces to our advantage. In fact one of the cornerstones of Marxism is that historical forces are comprehensible by human beings, just as physical forces are. Another thing to consider is that humans in large numbers are more predictable than individuals (which is why marketing works).
Depends what you mean by "elaborate". Certain parts of the world are currently more conducive in material terms to classless society than others, and this has enormous implications for the political future.i'm not saying we cannot understand how these forces work or use that to our advantage in opening possibilities, but that planning what communism will look like is outside or scope and irrelevant to the task at hand.


Something which piling on the pessimism will not achieve for relatively simple psychological reasons. Humans are loathe to engage in activities they see as ultimately pointless.there are plenty of noble leftists playing "good cop," i don't think a few of us sour apples is going to make or break anything, especially considering what this presupposes about the role of pro-revolutionaries.


It is if you characterise social networking as something more than the expansion of the profit imperative into the digital realm, or seriously think RFID chips are going to see mass use on ordinary people without their consent (there are numerous reasons why this is ludicrously impractical, including the fact that RFID chips are easily removed, spoofed, disrupted and damaged).you honestly can't see how capital has expanded further into every aspect of our lives in the past 100, 50, 20, 10, 5, 2 years? you don't see this evolving and continuing in ever more controlling forms? rfid chips could eventually be in everything, cctv could scan our eyes and walks, biometrics will take off even more, etc, etc, etc. we need to pay attention to these developments and halt or slow them wherever possible.


I don't think that even in our fast-paced modern world, 15 years is long enough for the most salient effects to become obvious. Besides, there are still plenty of people who haven't got regular internet access - there is enormous potential if that changes.
Class consciousness is currently at a low ebb anyway, at least in the "West". Things are currently bad enough for people to complain publicly, but not bad enough for people to actually do something on a meaningful scale. Most people currently feel comfortable enough not to rock the boat too much, and I think the internet is displaying those symptoms but not necessarily aggravating them. If things get worse, and it seems likely that they will, then the content of the average person's contributions will change accordingly.the biggest disturbances in recent years in countries that are extremely wired haven't been because of the internet. it has provided a new medium to reach other people, but i don't think it is going to be a deciding factor and it would be insane to rely on it as though it were.


And how does this not apply to allegedly "radical" doom-mongering?i don't expect my posts on here to have any net effect beyond illuminating some developments to a few people and provoking interesting discussion.


If there any architects and psychologists in our movement, and if not there damn well should be, then they can understake studies of such things using what is known from the relevant fields. Speculation can be an aid to knowledge as long as it is rigorous.i wasn't critiquing high rises anyway, but yes obviously we should use and acquire all the knowledge we can.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

in the post you're responding i make it very clear i don't think "anything remotely related to class struggle is in vain."

So if it isn't, why the pessimism? Stylistic considerations? Or perhaps some people just enjoy coming across as miserable gits who think the world ought to share in their misery?


this doesn't give us the power to see into the future anymore than they possessed. we certainly understand a lot of things, more every day, but communism would be such a massive break with our current reality that its really, really unlikely we can imagine its details and even if somehow we could, it isn't for us to determine the content of communist society anyway, nor does the ability to fantasize about it mean anything in present struggles.

More theology. Communism represents a change in the mode of production, not a fundamental alteration of reality. A whole lot of things won't change.


i'm not saying we cannot understand how these forces work or use that to our advantage in opening possibilities, but that planning what communism will look like is outside or scope and irrelevant to the task at hand.

So it doesn't strike you as absurd to advocate something which you have no idea how it will come about or what form it will take?


there are plenty of noble leftists playing "good cop," i don't think a few of us sour apples is going to make or break anything, especially considering what this presupposes about the role of pro-revolutionaries.

You may not make or break anything, but nonetheless I see nothing positive in being relentlessly pessimistic.


you honestly can't see how capital has expanded further into every aspect of our lives in the past 100, 50, 20, 10, 5, 2 years? you don't see this evolving and continuing in ever more controlling forms? rfid chips could eventually be in everything, cctv could scan our eyes and walks, biometrics will take off even more, etc, etc, etc. we need to pay attention to these developments and halt or slow them wherever possible.

RFID chips in inanimate objects I can understand, and have absolutely no problem with. Maybe I'll never lose my keys again. RFID chips in people? If things have gotten to the point where it is considered acceptable to place an RFID chip in an innocent civilian against their will, then you've got bigger problems than being tracked.

CCTV? It's always been a good idea to cover up when committing illegal activities, which will also deal with eye-scanning biometrics. One's gait can also be faked. But if you're not doing anything illegal, and the authorities have it in for you, then the presence or absence of CCTV/biometrics is immaterial; they will trump up something regardless.


the biggest disturbances in recent years in countries that are extremely wired haven't been because of the internet. it has provided a new medium to reach other people, but i don't think it is going to be a deciding factor and it would be insane to rely on it as though it were.

Like I said, it's early days yet.


i don't expect my posts on here to have any net effect beyond illuminating some developments to a few people and provoking interesting discussion.

I wasn't referring to just your posts - I was referring to the whole seeming fashion of posting stuff with the definate subtext (at least to my eyes) that nothing worthwhile can be done about it.


i wasn't critiquing high rises anyway, but yes obviously we should use and acquire all the knowledge we can.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that such critiques focus on the symptoms (technological implementations) rather than the root cause (capitalism).

[Ravachol]

you honestly can't see how capital has expanded further into every aspect of our lives in the past 100, 50, 20, 10, 5, 2 years? you don't see this evolving and continuing in ever more controlling forms? rfid chips could eventually be in everything, cctv could scan our eyes and walks, biometrics will take off even more, etc, etc, etc. we need to pay attention to these developments and halt or slow them wherever possible.

This is already being done on a far larger and deeper scale. Most advanced CCTV systems are hooked up to neural networks which recognize human faces, match them to databases of known individuals and record where which person was at what time.

There are also large-scale experiments with both anomaly-based and norm-based behavior analysis where detected behavior is either matched against a set of known 'suspicious behavior' or detected by deviation from the surrounding 'norm'. If that isn't a motherfuckin' panoptical society I don't know what.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There are also large-scale experiments with both anomaly-based and norm-based behavior analysis where detected behavior is either matched against a set of known 'suspicious behavior' or detected by deviation from the surrounding 'norm'. If that isn't a motherfuckin' panoptical society I don't know what.

No need for the scare quotes - people under stress really do carry themselves differently to people who are unworried (about getting caught, for example).

[Ravachol]

No need for the scare quotes - people under stress really do carry themselves differently to people who are unworried (about getting caught, for example).

They most certainly do, the problem is that this kind of technology easily enables the construction of an effective observation-based disciplinary system. 'The norm' and deviation from it are exclusively determined by existing power relations and their institutionalisation.

[Ele'ill]

Then what is the solution- and let's do it now.


This is sort of like a local issue here- where come mayday (or whenever) we are left wondering why nobody turned out- why the numbers are so low.

It's because all the shit is organized and hyped up a week before the event. Let's not do that- let's start now- make some legitimate networking moves- and get people together.

Let's not just march on mayday let's strike. Etc...

[bcbm]

So if it isn't, why the pessimism? Stylistic considerations? Or perhaps some people just enjoy coming across as miserable gits who think the world ought to share in their misery?

yes you nailed it, good work.


More theology.you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means.


Communism represents a change in the mode of production, not a fundamental alteration of reality. A whole lot of things won't change.i'm going by camatte or perlman's conception of the communism:


Communism is not a new mode of production [21] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/wanhum/wanhum04.htm#fnF21) ; it is the affirmation of a new community. It is a question of being, of life, if only because there is a fundamental displacement: from generated activity to the living being who produced it. Until now men and women have been alienated by this production. They will not gain mastery over production, but will create new relations among themselves which will determine an entirely different activity.


we might begin an altogether different life on a terrain from which every trace of our former activity has been removed. a human life might begin, inhibited by no barrier external to the developing individual. the realization of one’s potentialities would then be accompanied by the enjoyment of the infinite potentialities realized by all those around one.


So it doesn't strike you as absurd to advocate something which you have no idea how it will come about or what form it will take?hmm? neither of those is true or we wouldn't even be able to have this conversation. i am using a specific idea of "communism" that has form, but the specific content is immaterial at this point. as for how it will come about, isn't that part of what we've been talking about here?


You may not make or break anything, but nonetheless I see nothing positive in being relentlessly pessimistic.good for you


RFID chips in inanimate objects I can understand, and have absolutely no problem with. Maybe I'll never lose my keys again.so every product you purchase having an rfid chip is cool? what about photo id? there is much more to it than the ability to find your keys.


RFID chips in people? If things have gotten to the point where it is considered acceptable to place an RFID chip in an innocent civilian against their will, then you've got bigger problems than being tracked.why does it have to be against their will?


CCTV? It's always been a good idea to cover up when committing illegal activities, which will also deal with eye-scanning biometrics. One's gait can also be faked. But if you're not doing anything illegal, and the authorities have it in for you, then the presence or absence of CCTV/biometrics is immaterial; they will trump up something regardless.who said anything about illegality?


I wasn't referring to just your posts - I was referring to the whole seeming fashion of posting stuff with the definate subtext (at least to my eyes) that nothing worthwhile can be done about it.are you talking about this specific forum or generally or what?


Nevertheless, it seems to me that such critiques focus on the symptoms (technological implementations) rather than the root cause (capitalism).sure

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

yes you nailed it, good work.

If you don't want to answer, fine...


you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means.

So tell me, what other field treats socially and morally valent issues as ineffable mysteries?


i'm going by camatte or perlman's conception of the communism:

Camatte is just wrong - Communism is a mode of production whether you like it or not - a communist society would still need to produce goods, even if they are "for use" rather than "for sale".

Perlman appears to be engaging in the same sort of speculation that you appear to pour scorn on - perhaps there will be "infinite potentialities" in a communist society, perhaps not, but we should actually investigate the matter and not just accept the word of theoreticians.


hmm? neither of those is true or we wouldn't even be able to have this conversation. i am using a specific idea of "communism" that has form, but the specific content is immaterial at this point. as for how it will come about, isn't that part of what we've been talking about here?

I don't accept the form/content dichotomy you appear to have going on here; if you know anything at all about a new form of society and how it will come about, that has implications for everything else.


so every product you purchase having an rfid chip is cool? what about photo id? there is much more to it than the ability to find your keys.

Why should it bother me? RFID chips are easily found and hence removed, so if in a particular situation the presence of RFID chips bothers me I can resolve the matter by removing or damaging them.

The British government seemed as keen as mustard to introduce compulsory ID cards, but their vaulting ambition has smacked right into cold, hard reality; enforcing this shit costs a fuckload, especially if there is a significant proportion of the population who still get narky about being asked to see their papers by random bureaucrats.


why does it have to be against their will?

Because of consent.


who said anything about illegality?

Don't be coy. If you're not doing anything illegal, why should public surveillance concern you?


are you talking about this specific forum or generally or what?

Generally. Or at least, the kind of thing you generally like to link to.

[Ravachol]

Don't be coy. If you're not doing anything illegal, why should public surveillance concern you?

I wouldn't expect this kind of comment to come from a revolutionary leftist, especially one keen on matters technological. Surveillance, through the very act of observation, is disciplinary. The possibility of 'being watched' and the implicity of some sort of punishment works in a highly normalizing fashion. This doesn't just go for de-jure illegality but for norm-deviation in general. Thus, the panoptical society normalizes through observation and disciplines with the eye, rather than the baton. What is de-jure legal and illegal and what is 'normal' is solemnly determined by social structures and institutions that operate according to the logic of Capital and thus both de-jure legality and normality are extensions of this logic. Disciplinary measures aimed to enforce this thus reproduce this logic in our everyday lives.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I wouldn't expect this kind of comment to come from a revolutionary leftist, especially one keen on matters technological. Surveillance, through the very act of observation, is disciplinary. The possibility of 'being watched' and the implicity of some sort of punishment works in a highly normalizing fashion. This doesn't just go for de-jure illegality but for norm-deviation in general. Thus, the panoptical society normalizes through observation and disciplines with the eye, rather than the baton.

The fact that central London is crawling with CCTV cameras made no impact on my decision to wear female clothing there; while this behaviour is considered by many to be deviant, it is certainly not illegal and therefore nothing of consequence happened to me as a result.

It's not just me, either. I have encountered others not conforming to "social norms" (whatever they're supposed to be) in the presence of public surveillance.

It is only when surveillance intrudes into the private sphere that it becomes an issue.


What is de-jure legal and illegal and what is 'normal' is solemnly determined by social structures and institutions that operate according to the logic of Capital and thus both de-jure legality and normality are extensions of this logic. Disciplinary measures aimed to enforce this thus reproduce this logic in our everyday lives.

Surveillance is just watching - it is a very passive way of doing things. Unless they have Morality Enforcement Teams on hand to immediately deal with "deviant" behaviour, the best way to deal with surveillance when you're not actually doing anything illegal is to not give a flying fuck in the first place.

[bcbm]

If you don't want to answer, fine...

maybe you would have better results if you didn't insinuate people are "miserable gits" trying to bring everyone down in polite conversation?


So tell me, what other field treats socially and morally valent issues as ineffable mysteries?exactly my point, theology is the rational inquiry into religious matters so if i was being theological i would undoubtedly be trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of the pin in communism.


Camatte is just wrong - Communism is a mode of production whether you like it or not - a communist society would still need to produce goods, even if they are "for use" rather than "for sale".my point was that it will be much, much more than a shift in production.


Perlman appears to be engaging in the same sort of speculation that you appear to pour scorn on - perhaps there will be "infinite potentialities" in a communist society, perhaps not, but we should actually investigate the matter and not just accept the word of theoreticians.
such a prospect cannot be the program of an individual or a group and it cannot be articulated. it is not a religion to which people are to be converted. it is a practice which i and those around me are trying to invent.


I don't accept the form/content dichotomy you appear to have going on here; if you know anything at all about a new form of society and how it will come about, that has implications for everything else.well i don't think we really "know" how to get there or what it will really look like, which is why i prefer to focus on trying to open the possibility rather than planning how traffic should function in an anarchist society or whatever crap people get stuck on.


Why should it bother me? RFID chips are easily found and hence removed, so if in a particular situation the presence of RFID chips bothers me I can resolve the matter by removing or damaging them.i'd prefer not to have to remove a bunch of chips every time i go grocery shopping or buy some beer or whatever. it'd also be a big pain in the ass for shoplifters.


The British government seemed as keen as mustard to introduce compulsory ID cards, but their vaulting ambition has smacked right into cold, hard reality; enforcing this shit costs a fuckload, especially if there is a significant proportion of the population who still get narky about being asked to see their papers by random bureaucrats.so currently you don't have to possess any form of identification?


Because of consent.i was reading an article about biometrics, eye scanning specifically if i recall correctly, and the developer of a new system was talking about how eventually it will become so ubiquitis that people will choose to opt in and that opting out would actually be suspicious.


Don't be coy. If you're not doing anything illegal, why should public surveillance concern you?because i don't like being watched and i don't trust the government? this says it all, really.


Generally. Or at least, the kind of thing you generally like to link to.so last time you weren't referring to my posts, and now you are? make up your mind.

[NecroCommie]

I don't understand how the death of subcultural identity is supposed to be a negative thing? Nowadays it creates the biggest assholes in the western world. (metalhead band-knowledge elitists come to mind, as well as those rich hip-hop reactionaries.)

[bcbm]

the article doesn't suggest subcultural identity will die, but expand infinitely.

[NecroCommie]

the article doesn't suggest subcultural identity will die, but expand infinitely.
To the point in which it becomes meaningless ---> people will stop paying it any attention.

[bcbm]

i interpreted it as people just not giving a shit and doing what they want but not necessarily dissolving those categories completely, but your interpretation could be right too.

[black magick hustla]

dark swordsman of bolshevism and chaos