'Hoping for the Worst'

[Popular Front of Judea]

Catastrophism: The Apocalyptic Politics of Collapse and Rebirth is a collection of essays published by PM Press that explores the politics of apocalyptic thinking across the political spectrum. In her essay, ‘Left Catastrophism’, Sasha Lilley focuses on the left’s peculiar attachment to disasters. Recently she spoke to Samuel Grove about why a politics of impending doom should be avoided.

Hoping For The Worst | New Left Project (http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/print_article/hoping_for_the_worst)

[MarxSchmarx]

It's an interesting article but frustratingly, if somewhat unsurprisingly, short on anything remotely constructive. I remind all readers that the point is to change the world.

[DaringMehring]

This interview only reveals Sasha Lilley's flabby, liberaloid outlook.

Marx discovered the truth that capitalism digs its own grave, through the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. See the essay here to see how this is playing out today: http://livingrevolution.co/2013/07/24/the-death-spiral-of-capitalism/

But Sasha Lilley supposedly sees deeper because she understands that the declining rate of profit doesn't mean capitalism will automatically be abolished or will self-destruct. Well... that is actually Marxism 101. As Trotsky says, "history has provided the basic premise for the success of this revolution... but history does not at all assume upon itself -- in place of the working class... in place of the communists -- the solution of this entire task."

Capitalism degenerates into more and more vicious forms -- it is up to revolutionaries to act on that basis to overthrow it. Failing to recognize the vital link between the increasing immiseration caused by increasingly degenerate capitalism, and revolution, basically boils down to idealism.

And in fact it means she acts as a apologist for capitalism, talking about its amazing ability to overcome limitations and hurdles. News flash.. to those who are suffering under the brutalities of its yoke, it doesn't seem so amazing.

She further treats us to the reformist doggerel of "the revolution is a fantasy, an apocalyptic messianic impossibility... it can't make a clean sweep." Again a total vulgarization of Marxism. Marxism doesn't claim revolutions make cleans sweeps. As Marx said, "the past weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living." Rather it was the anarchists with whom she objectively belongs who have emphasized that dictatorship of the proletariat is not necessary because the revolution will completely cleanse society. To Marxism, a revolution is needed to explode the old shell, but the new world is necessarily built on the wreckage of the old.

So again she just reveals her own misunderstandings.

As the essay I linked to concludes:
"That transformation will not achieve itself. History has proved it a utopian optimism to think that capitalism itself can achieve it, or that at a certain time the common sense of such a transformation will make it inevitable. The realistic view is that it will only occur when the power of the class with an interest in preserving the profit system is broken by the power of another, stronger class, that aims to abolish it."

Where does the class that aims to abolish the profit system (the working class) derive its power? Many sources, but number one is through its unity. When does it unite? When capitalism exploits and immiserates it, and socialists organize to fight it. Is exploitation and immiseration constant? No, nothing in the world is constant, and Marx showed that by its nature capitalism must increase its exploitation due to the tendency for the rate of profit to decline.

QED

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's an interesting article but frustratingly, if somewhat unsurprisingly, short on anything remotely constructive. I remind all readers that the point is to change the world.

Thing is, I reckon that pushing apocalyptic doomsterism does the very opposite of "change the world", because why bother fighting for any kind of social or economic justice if it's all going to come to an end?

Either that, or most apart from a minority who "keep the faith", simply stop listening to those who consistently predict disaster while the world keeps turning.

[MarxSchmarx]

Thing is, I reckon that pushing apocalyptic doomsterism does the very opposite of "change the world", because why bother fighting for any kind of social or economic justice if it's all going to come to an end?

Either that, or most apart from a minority who "keep the faith", simply stop listening to those who consistently predict disaster while the world keeps turning.

Critiqueing "doomsterism" (nice one, btw) is well and good, but I suspect as you note all but the most despondent or fanatic already reject this idea that we should sit around until capitalism crashes in on itself.

I was surprised an article that long could not at least have some variant of "well, what would you propose doing instead then?", or at least an acknowledgment that that's a very, very hard question, and really I don't have much alternative to doomsterism to suggest.

[DaringMehring]

Critiqueing "doomsterism" (nice one, btw) is well and good, but I suspect as you note all but the most despondent or fanatic already reject this idea that we should sit around until capitalism crashes in on itself.

I was surprised an article that long could not at least have some variant of "well, what would you propose doing instead then?", or at least an acknowledgment that that's a very, very hard question, and really I don't have much alternative to doomsterism to suggest.

"Doomsterism" should be clarified.

Capitalism digs its own grave. It just doesn't kill itself jump in and bury itself -- that's the role of the working class. It's not "doomsterism" to say that capitalism creates and increasingly strengthens the conditions of its own destruction.

Nor is it "doomsterism" to correctly note that the Russian Revolution, the greatest working class revolution ever, came from the brutality and crisis of the Russian disaster in WWI. Nor "doomsterism" to note the Paris Commune formed during a French war disaster and attendant crisis.

If "doomsterism" is just saying, we can't do nothing and think capitalism will destroy itself -- then duh. Yes. That's wrong. Marxism is against that. Capitalism would sooner destroy the whole world than dismantle itself.

[The real Fabians]

I think humanity is incapable of destroying itself, that part of the brain that tries to stop you committing suicide (though can fail) prevents even bonkers over patriotic American generals from launching a nuclear attack on the soviets during the cold war.

It's the same thing here, someone with a brain and a sense who controls a lot of power will finally understand the failures of capitalism before it is too late

[bcbm]

I think humanity is incapable of destroying itself, that part of the brain that tries to stop you committing suicide (though can fail) prevents even bonkers over patriotic American generals from launching a nuclear attack on the soviets during the cold war.

given how close we have come in the past and the ongoing apathy regarding very real problems we are creating for our species in the future, i think this is pretty woefully optimistic.

[The real Fabians]

given how close we have come in the past and the ongoing apathy regarding very real problems we are creating for our species in the future, i think this is pretty woefully optimistic.

In the medieval time people were pretty apathetic, considering that for several hundred years peasants (though they did revolt on many occasions) did little to prevent or fight perhaps one of the worst society for humanity (that of a feudal system ) in which the Catholic church controlled everything and even delayed human technology by hundreds of years. Did humanity collapse? No things changed and they changed because even though for many years people are apathetic their are brief moments in which the majority seek and gain change.

Even though people are apathetic now they may not be in 20,10 or even 5 years time. History repeats itself, and we are entering another medieval age of wilderness due to the powerful achieving control over all of us.

[bcbm]

In the medieval time people were pretty apathetic, considering that for several hundred years peasants (though they did revolt on many occasions) did little to prevent or fight perhaps one of the worst society for humanity (that of a feudal system ) in which the Catholic church controlled everything and even delayed human technology by hundreds of years. Did humanity collapse? No things changed and they changed because even though for many years people are apathetic their are brief moments in which the majority seek and gain change.

i don't think this is an approximate comparison because humanity lacked the means to destroy itself during the feudal period. i am thinking more along the lines of nuclear annihilation or catastrophic environmental change.


Even though people are apathetic now they may not be in 20,10 or even 5 years time.

that might be too long.

[The real Fabians]

i don't think this is an approximate comparison because humanity lacked the means to destroy itself during the feudal period. i am thinking more along the lines of nuclear annihilation or catastrophic environmental change.



that might be too long.

The black death killed a giant portion of humanity, whole towns have been described as being wiped out, no humanity couldn't literally kill itself, but a disaster of natural creation could have wiped it out history had played out differently like the great fire of London which came about due to great incompetence ironically rid London of this nightmare.

If they had bothered not to just believe that the black death was gods work to remove evil people and tried to do something about it (like identify why cleaners for lords etc never got it they may have greatly reduced the destruction.

as for 20 years being too long, I just can't see anyone causing a nuclear war in 20 years.

[bcbm]

The black death killed a giant portion of humanity, whole towns have been described as being wiped out, no humanity couldn't literally kill itself, but a disaster of natural creation could have wiped it out history had played out differently like the great fire of London which came about due to great incompetence ironically rid London of this nightmare.

once again, not an approximate comparison. at any time in human history a meteor could have wiped out the entire species and most of the others, but that isn't the point.


as for 20 years being too long, I just can't see anyone causing a nuclear war in 20 years.

i was thinking more along the lines of passing even more critical points in global warming, but 20 years is a long time so i dont think anything is 'off the table'

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's an interesting article but frustratingly, if somewhat unsurprisingly, short on anything remotely constructive. I remind all readers that the point is to change the world.I read the book and actually that's one of the central points in its critique of "catastrophyism": we need to talk about and approach these real problems in ways that are empowering for people who have an interest in challenging them. Doomsday calls, they argue, suit demagauges and the right who want to push and corral people into believing and following certain things, but are disempowering in regards to self-activity and mass struggle. Focusing on the disaster and not the counter-possibility makes people feel more helpless and might rally fearful drones, but not militants.

They are critiquing this general tendency across all politics and so they aren't making some kind of call to action and because some of it is a general critique I'm sure what we read into these arguments matter: a liberal or refomist as well as revolutionary can probably interpret it in their own way. So for us, for example, I think some of the lessons that could be applied are in how we wage, say a struggle against a local polluting industry. Rather than an orientation around how powerful this company is and how evil they are and how they are destroying the planet, a more effective orientation for our purposes would be trying to create a coalition around the local community's demands and connecting them to environmental racism or health effects on local workers. So I find their arguments very compatable to an apporach of focusing on the movements of the oppressed and workers and their potential for power to solve present problems.


This interview only reveals Sasha Lilley's flabby, liberaloid outlook.Never the less, this is not the central argument of the book nor does it interfere with the critique of "catastrophism" in any major way. The main point, an argument about a general tendency in a chaotic world full of alienation for politics to focus on disaster I think is of value to active marxists and anarchists in thinking about the orientation of our agitation and propaganda and organizing efforts.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Going to economic analysis, this means that Marx's crisis theory is overrated in terms of relation to political action.