Tags
Capitalism, Inverted Totalitarianism, Neoliberal Capitalism, Professor Peter Hudis, Regulatory Capture
Who’s got a hand on the crackdown?
Who’s got the word on the double talk?
Hands on the wheel in a flash of steel
We got a secret letter with a government seal
……
Nerves are pinched but the heads are calm
The cargo’s all loaded and the red light’s on
Check the map, you navigator sap
Or we’ll all end up with our heads in our lap
Only with capitalism does commodity exchange become the universal source of social interaction through the commodification of labor power, value then becomes the defining principle of social reproduction.
There are many criticisms against Capitalism, but not much in the way of concrete alternatives. I’ve just finished reading Professor Peter Hudis’ book “The Alternative to Capitalism”, and while he does not offer much specificity in the way of concrete alternatives, he does offer a useful and provocative analysis of Marx’s theories pertaining to what might come next. The book is unique in that it distills down and interprets thousands of pages of Marx’s writing into a handful of useful conclusions that illustrate what Marx envisioned in a post Capitalist society.
Below is a recent podcast in which Professor Hudis is interviewed, and this gives a quick overview of the concepts and conclusions of his vision of a post Capitalist society.
http://fromalpha2omega.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-16T14_40_49-07_00
The central argument in Hudis’ reading of Marx is that any Post Capitalist society that is to succeed must at first recognize, then dismantle, the system of value production. This differs significantly from conventional anti-capitalist thinking which suggests that the capitalist mode of production and the system of private property ownership are principally responsible for the contradictions and subsequent failures in Capitalism.
Additionally, he points out that Marx expressly disagreed with the popularized notion that to achieve this, the ownership of the means of production must transfer to the State. Marx was very clear that ownership of the means of production must not belong to the Capitalist, nor the State, rather, to those in the involved with the actual production process.
Hudis suggests that these palliative measures are not only misplaced, but wrong.
To dive further into what is being said here, some discussion of the meaning of the phrase value production is in order.
Value production in a capitalist society means that all social relations are governed by the drive to augment and increase value, with no regard for human needs or capacities.
This suggests (and Hudis does a good supporting his thesis with an academically rigorous approach in his book) that the essence of the perpetually expanding nature of Capital, the expansion that consumes resources and poisons the planet, stems from this fundamental conclusion.
Value is not material wealth, it is wealth computed in terms of money. As Hudis points out, once such a system of value production becomes the dominant form of social relations, the drive to constantly increase value becomes unstoppable.
Drilling deeper into the construct of value production, what comes forward is that one of the key contributors to this unstoppable force is the notion of socially necessary labor time. On this subject, it becomes evident that not even the Capitalists themselves have control of the system, as even they are not able to manage the forces that control production. Time becomes inverted, the predicate becomes the subject, and the whole process leads to the incredulous discovery that the products we produce control all of human relations.
And it was always supposed to be the other way around.
The concept of socially necessary labor time dictates several key factors, principally, that goods are produced in accordance with average labor inputs, and any production labor in excess of the social average is wasted and deemed not useful. This means that Capitalists that engage in production are not in control of their exchange values, this is communicated by the market and discovered when goods reach the point of sale. It is then that the Capitalist determines if his goods are competitively priced, and if he can monetize his exchange value. If another firm has produced the same commodity using less labor (or cheaper labor) at the same quality, then the original capitalist will not be able to monetize his surplus value.
This uncertainty, coupled with the intrinsic self expansive nature of Capital, sets into motion a destructive and unstoppable cycle of ever decreasing inputs of labor time.
Time, in the pursuit of commodity production, becomes our master, we work longer, faster, to achieve the same standard of living.
These factors were not present in pre-capitalist societies. And Hudis argues that they cannot be present in any post Capitalist society either. These conditions of value production in general, and of socially necessary labor time in particular are unique to Capitalism.
We see in the news today disturbing events, loss of personal liberties, privacy issues, destruction of the planet and wanton disregard for resource depletion- it is hard to know which bogey to fear first and foremost.
Most disturbing to me is the almost footnoted mention in the news media of the egregious tax avoidance strategies being employed by large multi-nationals. Companies like Tesla are now dictating terms and conditions which they will require to build production factories in a specific state. They are in effect competitively bidding individual states against each other to maximize the tax deferments and various other concessions as a condition of doing business.
Tesla has negotiated approximately $1.25 Bn dollars worth of concessions, and some analysts are claiming the return on investment for the number of jobs created is a fiction.
Additionally, these tactics are by no means limited to inside the US, there is a battle royale raging in countries like Ireland, where Apple has effectively negotiated terms that reduce their effective tax liabilities to around 2%. By their own admission, there is ‘no scientific or numerical basis’ for their arguments, meaning they just drove the best bargain they thought they could get away with, and Ireland signed up- not wanting to risk the ~6,000 jobs that Apple has in Cork County.
While many are content to lament the State’s complicity in the machinations of Capital, these events indicate something new and much more dangerous- Capital is now overtly dictating terms to the State and holding monopoly power over the State to insure conditions of production that are favorable to Capital. Again, the predicate becomes the subject, as we see an inversion of the production relations. This is very dangerous.
Next we can envision corporate sanctioned labor camps for those deemed unemployable, subsuming the State unemployment programs with privatized “camps” as an extension of the massive prison system- with better wall colors and more frequent conjugal visits.
Social relations will be transformed to support only matters of production relations, education further diluted to rote training farms, subsidized and wholly captured by the large multi-nationals, and hard wired to provide curriculum and performance standards beholden only to their interests.
The hand maidens of Capital have successfully employed an “Arsonists in Fire Chief Hats” strategy wherein they have systematically dismantled any regulatory components of the State, and then cry foul when the hobbled remains proves ineffective at its intended role.
The only logical conclusion in this outcome is of course further privatization, drowning government in the proverbial bathtub so that Capital may advance beyond its perch as owner of all assets into its newly expanded role as owner of all labor.
Does anyone think that this esoteric economic theorizing stands a chance of accomplishing anything whatever in the tornadic shitstorm we are heading into?
LikeLike
It takes some effort to understand root causes and look for alternative systems beyond simply chalking everything up to “human nature” and concentrating on the encircling “tornadic shitstorm”, i.e. the fallout of capitalism which we are now neck-deep in, from the grotesque maldistribution of wealth amongst the detached, medicated workforce to the environmental meltdown of the cost externalizing, profit-driven ethic of rampant consumerism.
The Marxian “way out” from this enslavement to capital accumulation for the sake of capital accumulation, as summarized by Hudis, is as follows:
There is/was no other alternative if people want to escape corporate rule and its dystopian future.
LikeLike
I was part of the Worker’s Coop “Movement” and the board of a couple of their organizations for a while and had to resign in frustrations after 18 months.
Even tried to start a couple and to make something sustainable to compete within the model we exist within seems to me almost impossible.
Sadly, even workers owning the fruits of their labor within this model is all about growth, growth, growth.
It’s the message of Equal Exchange at it’s core. To increase it’s customer base year after year.
I attended events and conferences (Eastern Conference for Workers Development) and poss questions along the lines of “When is the company big enough” or if you keep growing year after year what really makes your company any different from the corporate model.
Not questions that were well received.
LikeLike
Are there any such alternative endeavors that can survive when competing within the globalized capitalist system and its growth imperative?
LikeLike
PMB, one problem your cooperative might have had (it is a problem in general with cooperatives) is that it is forced to compete in a capitalist system; that it is, the cooperators are subject to external “market forces” the same as any traditionally capitalist business.
I myself am a strong advocate of cooperative enterprises, but they are not the answer in themselves. For a truly post-capitalist, rational economic system, cooperatives would have to cooperate with one another, rather than compete in capitalist markets. The relentless competition of capitalism — and that is what Professor Hudis and our host Mike are talking about — must be eliminated, and that can only be done by eliminating capitalism itself.
A better world will require us to re-think the entirety of economic relations, not simply internal relations within an enterprise, important thought that is.
LikeLike
I have heard many say that collapse will end capitalism, but I do not agree. I think there would just be an impoverished and even more brutal version of it post collapse. It’s the ideology itself. My third favorite wizard, John Greer, maintains that the new system only has to be less of a burden on the people to gain acceptance. Even just the promise of it is enough to whip up hate along ethnic & religious lines. Get rid of X Y Z and you get their land and resources. We have seen it before and it’s happening right now. It will happen here if not enough speak out. Silence is the key enabler.
LikeLike
Good ideas Mike, but how do you sell it to regular people? Any attempt to create a different way will have to deal with the power of the dominate system. Any worker co-op’s will be seen as a direct challenge. I’m not saying that kind of change is not possible, but it will be a fight/war. Do you think enough people are ready to sacrifice? It would be naive to think TPTB would not utilize every means at their disposal and they still have plenty of means. Sometimes I think there will come a point where enough people have been thrown under the bus that it can’t roll anymore. Will America try or will she give in to nationalism, blame and the promises of forked tongued politicians?
LikeLike
You are not authorized to know about the Wall of Voodoo.
Expect some ….visitors.
Conflict is inevitable, Mike. I will refer you to what John Cleese’s friend discovered in his study of “Stupidity”.
Every day, I get to stand on top of methane spewing, Garbage Mountain. All of the “things” that people hold so dear, eventually come my way. And they add to the contamination of all the farms that surround this property. Do you know if you are eating this food?
Of course you don’t.
There are some animals having loud, savage sex in the….the…creekbed? just outside of where I’m currently living.
Frankly, it’s kinda scary.
Yours Truly,
Leo Durocher
LikeLike
LikeLike
What I am saying is that the world we are rapidly moving towards will be one where the basic ideas of production, technology, consumerism, urbanism, monetary exchanges, political organization, etc. will be no more than quaint and fading nostalgic memories. Navigating the new barbarism will be the real order of the day. Day to day survival will write the agenda for each survivor. Attempts to put the new bitter wine into the old failed modalities will be futile and tragicomic. Prepare yourselves as best you can for the Endgame of organized society – the ugly drama of extinction…
I have tried hard in my imagination to paint a more hopeful picture of our future, but so far all such attempts have foundered against the chaotic and implacable realities constantly unfolding around us, and the progressive dying of any sanity and higher values within the vast majority of us. Tell me it ain’t so Joe?
LikeLike
In a section labelled “Unbridled Liberalism,” Paul VI directly criticised the profit-driven ethic which had insinuated itself “into the fabric of human society” and “present[ed] profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations.” Catholic Church, Populorum Progressio, 26.
Paul VI did not mince his critical words, stating that “[s]uch improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man.” Ibid.
Furthermore, Paul VI warned that if humanity became subservient to the economy, then a new type of evil could emerge. Left unchecked, “unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny” that had previously been highlighted and denounced by Pius XI as it could result in “the international imperialism of money.” Catholic Church: Ouadragesimo Anno, 212. Both Pius XI and Paul VI saw the need to unmask the development practices which neglected the well-being of people on the grounds that they adhered to economic doctrine. They believed economic welfare should lift up and serve the common good versus the common good being sacrificed at the economic altar.
Click to access Laville_David_201211_MA_thesis.pdf
LikeLike
And thus the truism is tragically proven once again that money is the root of all evil.
LikeLike
Actually I think Paul said the love of money. Until we start loving other life/concepts, we’re just sleepwalking into our future.
LikeLike
Thanks for the important correction.
“Wealth is morally neutral; there is nothing wrong with money, in and of itself, or the possession of money. However, when money begins to control us, that’s when trouble starts.”
–And clearly our economic system has been corrupted by this.
LikeLike
The selfish desire to dominate, enslave, or destroy others is the root cause of all evil. Or you could call it the lack of love. In any case, our “leaders” are creating a world that is a dystopian hell hardly worth saving. These psychopathic monsters hiding behind masks of phony sanity represent the worst possible news for their unwitting victims. They have convinced the majority that their actions are for their benefit. Their message is “trust us, we are here to protect you.” Fans of SF will remember To Serve Man and The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Tricking their victims to do their dirty work for them (as in “serving” in the armed forces or police) is one of their favorite MO’s.
LikeLike
How many times have you heard “hey I pay my taxes” as if that is the sole obligation of responsible citizenship?
LikeLike
Apeneaman,
I’ve heard that line too many times, but how about those that seem to think that no matter how much money they have and how many “things” they’ve got that they are paying what too much in taxes no matter how low the percentage is.
I think that even if they were to be getting money back (hey don’t we call that a subsidy) instead of paying out they’d still complain they weren’t getting enough (talk about negative EROI) because they are generating jobs and keeping the economy going by those multiple yachts, homes and cars they buy. Like all those sold out condos being built in Manhattan.
LikeLike
Pennies from heaven…
LikeLike
Must watch to the end…What’s the really bad news?
LikeLike
My urgent plea to all humans is wake up! so we can start a different dream….
LikeLike
I imagine you making that urgent plea like Kong, the King (from 1933) from atop the Empire State building. He never asked to be brought here where he reconnected with the woman of his dreams and probably just wanted to go home with her and raise a brood, but all he got for his troubles was to be shot down by humans who a few minutes before were all dolled up in their finery ogling the captured ape and looking down upon him because they were oh some much better.
Twas beauty that killed the beast.
LikeLike
…The UN report follows a study last week in the journal Science, the first ever analysis of progress on the targets, which came to similar conclusions.
Dr Richard Gregory, one of the Science paper’s authors and the head of species monitoring and research at the RSPB, said: “World leaders are currently grappling with many crises affecting our future, but this study shows there is a collective failure to address the loss of biodiversity, which is arguably one of the greatest crises facing humanity.” He called the lack of progress “a troubling sign for us all.”…
LikeLike
Apneaman,
Thanks for defending me over at NBL against the loons. I never read NBL because its focus is very narrow, i.e. human extinction, but my stats showed that someone dropped a favorable link to me from there, so I clicked on it.
What I find troubling is that Guy McPherson is selective about which conspiracy theories he chooses to endorse. He vehemently rejects ChemTrails, yet embraces “9-11 was an inside job.” This is a major reason why he is not taken seriously by many.
I’ve never heard of him backing this ridiculous claim up with anything that hasn’t already been scientifically refuted.
LikeLike
I gave up posting at NBL quite a while ago. In spite of some interesting and open commenters, there were just too many hostile dogmatists polluting the site. Delusional conspiracy addicts evince the same qualities I see impairing the minds of the majority – an inability to rationally and openly question everything in order to arrive at a real picture of what our problems and options are. Just glomming onto anything that suits one’s fancy doesn’t qualify as serious productive thinking.
LikeLike
The “anything goes” atmosphere at his sight makes for a hostile atmosphere.
LikeLike
Your welcome. I guess I still have a temper even in middle age. That’s alright. Compared to my twenties, I’m a saint. I still think Guy’s message of living like it matters is important along with his dot connecting. For that he has my respect. I think he is a good man. As for NTE I still maintain that it’s academic because whether we last 50 years or 50 generations we can no longer let corporate fascists define our lives. They will use everyone up to maintain their power.
LikeLike
Climate scientist for over 30 years; Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences; Co-Director Institute of the Environment, Univ. of Arizona.
LikeLike
We’re toast, but you all already knew that. So let’s forget about root causes, i.e. capitalism, and continue on with BAU because there’s no alternative, right?
LikeLike
What small quantum of hope I have for our species is based on our ignorance. We just are not wise enough to know all the black swans that may show up that might change the whole show. In terms of what we do know, we seem to be in a no win no exit scenario. In physics, the most solid of sacred cow dogmas are overturned with surprising regularity. Maybe my early interest in SF made me reluctant to wear strait jackets, however elegantly they were designed.
LikeLike
If we keep burning carbon at our present rate, 37 trillion tons of excess CO2 last year which was another new record, we’ll have a 5C increase by 2100. A 3C increase would mean large scale agriculture is impossible and 5C would be life threatening for most plant and animal species, including humans. I suspect we’ll all be dead before it warms to 5C.
LikeLike
not to mention the methane . . .
LikeLike
Edited and cross-posted here:
http://collapseofindustrialcivilization.tumblr.com/post/99440776377/latest-news-from-jonathan-overpeck-who-has-been-a
LikeLike
Mike, this is one of the best short explanations of why the world is in the state it is in that I have read. My (slight) disagreement with Professor Hudis’ thesis, if I am understanding it correctly (and do correct me if I am mistaken), is that he is placing all (nearly all?) emphasis on what I like to call the “market forces” of capitalism. If so, I nonetheless find that justified because his correct analysis on market forces, or “value production” as he terms it, is generally not given sufficient due by critics of capitalism.
That is, there is generally an overemphasis on control of production by capitalists. I would caution against underplaying that, for ownership by a small class for its own private profit is a crucial part of the picture. That caveat out of the way, the main thesis of Professor Hudis as you have analyzed it is spot on. You write:
Furthermore,
This is precisely why critics of capitalism should avoid ideas that claim some secret cabal is pulling strings or controlling everything. Capitalism is uncontrollable — even capitalists (although possessing far greater ability to maintain their positions than we working people) are riding the tiger, which is why the composition of top strata of the bourgeoisie does change over time.
LikeLike
I appreciate your input and value your knowledge on this subject.
Thank you.
LikeLike
The author will reply to your comment soon.
LikeLike
Not a cabal, but more than one of the big boys supports ALEC and other nefarious organizations. They have a lot of common interests and goals and they will spend tons of money to get more power. You can see why the conspiracy minded would think cabal.
LikeLike
First, thanks to XrayMike for allowing me to post ‘This Way Out’. I think the topic of value production is an important concept that has far reaching tentacles in describing relations within the superstructure of Capitalism.
I would say that market forces are perhaps not exactly the emphasis that Hudis is going for, he would likely argue that the market component of Capitalism is merely a conduit- it simply communicates to Capitalists through pricing and demand signals. Market forces as such are a reaction to the Capitalist circuit of production. Semantics aside, I do take your point and it may be that Hudis (and Marx) overreach with this thesis.
The larger view in this vein, to cite one example, is that worker alienation is a profound artifact of the sum of exploitation, loss of the workmanship ideal, and the involuntary imposition of socially necessary labor time. Particularly the latter. The implied result is that these factors contribute significantly to modern dysfunctional social relations, such as the rise in addictions, mass shootings, obsession with consumerism, and in general medication by consumption.
Is this too far a stretch? I think you can make a solid case it is valid- but it is a pretty sweeping indictment and it is fair to challenge this implication.
To the assertion that ‘even the Capitalists do not control Capitalism’ I agree that this is an important conclusion- and quite accurate. The power of the concept is that it provides effective counterbalance to the Right’s clamoring about so called “Crony Capitalism”, which are dog whistle theatrics that suggest that observable atrocities are the work of ‘sociopaths’ and other misguided individuals, and not intrinsic to the system of production- which it clearly is.
As long as the flaws can be individualized, we can blame the person and not the system. What begins to smell funny to the lumpen proletariat is when the legal system cannot even find a single individual to prosecute in the face of egregious wrongdoing- most of which usually end up being quasi-defensible from a legal perspective. After all, there are just following the rules.
The Left is also guilty of this, demonizing the Koch Brothers for example implies that their removal will somehow correct the dysfunction- when in fact someone new will just spring up in their place.
The takeaway is that Capital is intrinsically self-expanding, uncontrollable and unstoppable. The root cause of the dysfunction is not necessarily who owns the means of production, not the existence of private property, and not the Capitalist circuit of production (although of course all of these are deeply implicated) – but it can be reduced to the principle of value production and its core constituent element of socially necessary labor time.
I interpret this to mean that any attempt to conjure a post Capitalist society without dismantling socially necessary labor time is inviting a colossal step back to 1917.
LikeLike
Perhaps the biggest admission that the system cannot be reformed was summed up here:
“I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy…” ~ Attorney General Eric Holder
LikeLike
Haven’t we already taken a step back even further than 1917. For blacks slavery never really ended, it just morphed into another entity (not on it’s own). It’s one of the motivating factors as to why we have more people in our prisons than the rest of the world and that population is composed of a huge percentage of blacks.
I’m still wondering where are all touted “market signals” which will let the “market”(us) make the “correct” decisions. Has this ever (even in Adam Smith’s day) ever functioned? We keep hearing about this from the pundits (not just MSNBC, but RT and AJ as well) as if it’s immune to human intervention when that’s the illusion, the fantasty that most if not nearly all humans feed into to justify destructive behavior.
Hey, how stark can reality be. Miami’s flooding right now, yet those in power willfully ignore what’s happening. Won’t do a dammed thing all in the name of exactly what? The value of the real estate or the lose of human (forgot other species) lives.
LikeLike
Capitalism won’t last too much longer, there won’t be anything to invest in that provides a positive return on investment. Imagine the investing environment as the oceans put the coastal cities knee deep at high tide, citizens swelter in unprecedented heat without electricity, pandemics circle the globe with regularity, another 25% of terrestrial vertebrates give up the ghost and the oceans become jellyfish cesspools. Not a very secure investing environment or one in which you will require a 30% annual return on investment and that’s not going to happen. It’s more likely that ours and our children’s entire futures will be a state of emergency going forward. Drought emergency, flood emergency, food emergency, heat emergency, terrorist emergency, pandemic emergency, nuclear power plant emergency. You name it, it will be an emergency. BAU is dead now, people are just going through the motions and “investors” are being paid in bubble fiat dollars. Once some tipping point is reached, the biosphere will stop feeding the cancer and most of the complexity found in both the biosphere and the complex cancer will go poof, never to be seen again. Most people that were around when the growing was good and the biosphere was still healthy will go “poof” too. It was a nice run for the biosphere, but it finally came down with a lethal disease, homeostasis lost, the pyramid of life reduced to the pancake of life. In the end, after all the suffering, no one would notice and no one would miss the cancerous ape and its omnivorous technology. For the remaining lifespan of the earth, the biosphere would not produce another organism capable of contemplation. Every trace of technological man and the biosphere from which he arose would eventually be lost within the nearly infinite cosmos, joined with other planetary corpses that also succumbed to disease.
LikeLike
Perhaps one of your best comments. I also see the future as an increasing cascade of emergencies just as you have described, with the ever-mutable capitalism profiting off such disasters. As Peter D. Ward said, the building of sea walls will be the biggest employer on the planet.
LikeLike
Steve Davis UCI study – committed emissions growing faster than emissions!
Abstract
The world not only continues to build new coal-fired power plants, but built more new coal plants in the past decade than in any previous decade. Worldwide, an average of 89 gigawatts per year (GW yr–1) of new coal generating capacity was added between 2010 and 2012, 23 GW yr–1 more than in the 2000–2009 time period and 56 GW yr–1 more than in the 1990–1999 time period. Natural gas plants show a similar pattern. Assuming these plants operate for 40 years, the fossil-fuel burning plants built in 2012 will emit approximately 19 billion tons of CO2 (Gt CO2) over their lifetimes, versus 14 Gt CO2 actually emitted by all operating fossil fuel power plants in 2012. We find that total committed emissions related to the power sector are growing at a rate of about 4% per year, and reached 307 (with an estimated uncertainty of 192–439) Gt CO2 in 2012. These facts are not well known in the energy policy community, where annual emissions receive far more attention than future emissions related to new capital investments. This paper demonstrates the potential for ‘commitment accounting’ to inform public policy by quantifying future emissions implied by current investments.
LikeLike
I actually saw this documentary and found it very shocking. The Russian economy is not doing so well and an uneasy Kremlin along with Russia’s powerful Orthodox Church are making gays and lesbians the scapegoats:
“What is the sound of a man terrified for his life? The sound of a man surrounded by 13 bullies who are desperate to beat him up, maybe worse, for being gay? Well, it is a horrible sound. A whimpering, half-growl and curdled scream, a cornered-animal cry of a sound.
The man is held down and taunted and asked questions on a video camera for footage that will later be released to destroy his life — just in case the vigilantes surrounding him, wanting to pour urine over him, haven’t made him feel so lousy that he might commit suicide, as they hope he will. They laugh as they imagine gays doing that.
It is the sound of this gentleman’s whimpering you may not be able to expunge from your mind after watching Ben Steele’s brilliant, if thoroughly disturbing, HBO documentary, Hunted: The War Against Gays in Russia, which premieres tonight (Monday).
This harrowing film, narrated by Matt Bomer, takes the viewer into modern-day Russia and the state of siege its LGBT citizens exist under. Sanctioned by the State and carried out most viciously — in physical terms — by vigilante squads who torture and beat gay men, these despicable attacks are then posted online to fully destroy the victims’ professional and personal lives and sense of selves…”
LikeLike
Shades of Matthew Shepperd. Thanks, for the heads up about this.
Well, it certainly makes sense to me. When Russia passed the law that made it a crime to speak to anyone under 18 about being gay it was a signal. While little hetro boys and girls were allowed to explore that “normal” lifestyle any attempt by other boys and girls to step outside that deeply etched line was not okay. Too bad the Russian politico (and people) haven’t read Kinsey.
There was no way that an older person could develop any relationship with a younger person (as a mentor, etc) without risking prison.
It’s been interesting to see Russia as the “good” guy during this whole Ukraine situation, but don’t think I believe the situation in the USA is any better because we’re allowed the pleasure of marrying now. Legislation of this sort isn’t helping reduce the number of gay youth committing suicide. Legislation hasn’t really helped put blacks on the same level as whites since the civil war.
This film only shows things haven’t really changed for us. That without money (which only goes so far as the rich Jews in Germany during the 30’s found out) and power we’re really at the mercy of the hordes.
Here’s three other films along the same lines.
Gore Vidal: The United States of Amnesia –
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gore_vidal_the_united_states_of_amnesia_2013/
Outrage: Do Ask, Do Tell – http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2009/06/outrage-review.html
Dangerous Living: Coming Out in the Third World –
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379752/
LikeLike
It is a shame, but predictable that many are taken in by the demonization of Putin and Russia. What happened recently in Ukraine is entirely the result of five billion dollars spent by the CIA and other US agencies to destabilize that country with the help of extreme right wing and neo-Nazi groups in that country.
Unless one understands that major world events are now largely determined by the desperation of the dying American Empire to hold on to it’s sick dream of world domination, then much of what is going on is easily misunderstood through the lens of massive propaganda being churned out by that Empire.
The challenge of the BRICS to the failing US dollar is behind the sanctions on Russia and much of the cold war revivalism going on. We (the US) have used the dollar and monetary cabals like the world bank as an instrument of aggression to dominate weaker countries around the world. That instrument is now revealing it’s insubstantial underpinnings , hence the panic in the West, and the resort to the military threats now in evidence.
In spite of some shortcomings sott.net has a lot of good insights into present day international power players. I recommend it as a corrective to the straight propaganda provided by the corporate media and the puppet masters behind the White House and congress.
LikeLike
It was just a matter of time
…………………………………
Confirmed: California Aquifers Contaminated With Billions Of Gallons of Fracking Wastewater
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/10/07/central-california-aquifers-contaminated-billions-gallons-fracking-wastewater
LikeLike
It’s just a matter of time before hundreds of thousands of Californians start making the trek east a la the Dust Bowl.
LikeLike
Seek and yea shall find.
Earlier in the day I posted the above. Later in the day this article appeared. Not unexpected, just not even being mentioned.
California: Desperation Rising as Water Runs Out
http://www.dailyimpact.net/2014/10/08/california-desperation-rising-as-water-runs-out/#more-2456
LikeLike
I have been thinking about this for some time – since I read about it at ZeroHedge. I can’t figure it out really, but it is a very interesting issue (and mostly apropos this post).
The Fed is buying stock.
It makes sense if the market is down for no good reason, I guess. For example, there is a dip in the market because of some false rumor, the Fed buys stock in a few companies and when the scare is over they would sell and no harm done.
The present day market is up, but all the fundamentals point to falling equities prices. The Fed buys an equity, but can’t sell it because it was overpriced when they bought it. There is no shortage of money since the Treasury can print money all day, which means that the Fed can keep the market from correcting/crashing “forever”. But what are the side effects?
1. Eventually the Fed will own controlling interest in all the companies in the country (apparently other central banks are doing it so one could say all companies will be owned by central banks)?
If so, since central bankers are not subject to the whim of elected officials, isn’t that a transfer of power from the apparent heads of countries to the bankers?
2. The Fed is in the position to pick winners. Exon can always get funding, but the owner of Joes Solar Cell Inc. didn’t know what size check to write to Janet so their stock goes in the tank, and Joe is left wondering why since his fundamentals were sound.
There must be other strangeness that we should watch for. How many in government know this is happening? Is it part of someones plan?
The basic fact “The Fed is buying stock” points to a question about the nature of capitalism today. Has the Fed stepped onto a slippery slope by accident, or is darbikrash incorrect when he says,
“To the assertion that ‘even the Capitalists do not control Capitalism’ I agree that this is an important conclusion- and quite accurate.”
When I say that I can’t figure it out, i mean (among other things): Does anyone know how much stock the Fed owns? Which companies? I don’t think anyone in government controls what the Fed does, true?
LikeLike
Pintada says: “The basic fact “The Fed is buying stock” points to a question about the nature of capitalism today.”
That’s right and it’s called the financialization phase of capitalism (growth in the dominance of the financial sector of the economy). The Federal Reserve and other policy making bodies are now primarily concerned with stabilizing and ensuring asset prices which are serving as the collateral needed to sustain consumer spending and growth. Per economist Thomas Palley:
“Whereas pre-1980 policy tacitly focused on putting a floor under labor markets to preserve employment and wages, now policy tacitly puts a floor under asset prices. This policy behavior has been clearly visible with the 2007 U.S. subprime mortgage crisis. It is not a case of the Fed intentionally bailing out investors. Rather, the macro economy is now vulnerable to asset price declines so that the Fed is obliged to step in to prevent such declines from inflicting broad macroeconomic damage.”
Financial asset price support has now become the primary driver of the economy rather than growth in income and productivity. Growing productivity and rising income supported the increase of sales and profits from 1945-1980, but in the post-1980s financialization phase, asset price growth is what is allowing for debt financed GDP growth and corporate profitability. According to Palley, at the core of the new financialization are “financial bubbles which support cheap imports which is linked to the globalization of corporate investment and production in low wage areas and hence, ever greater profits.”
One of the problems is that the twenty year history of bank deregulation up to the repeal of Glass-Steagall is that it led inexorably to the “To Big To Fail” problem in the US banking sector. This was symptomatic of the ongoing trend in financialization as the banks moved increasingly away from supporting the working economy on the old pre-1980 business model toward promoting the explosion of public and private debt in order to support the new free market expansion global monopoly capitalism and capital’s increased cross border mobility…
…Financialization is thus, a historic stage of capitalism. But it is a stage in which chronic stagnation –the operation of the economy at well below capacity and at levels of chronically high unemployment and underemployment– financial instability, public and private debt and endemic crisis require ever more frequent and intense interventions from the state (which also relies more on publicly held debt due to the collapse of progressive taxation), particularly the central banks. The basis of financialization is not just the growth of the financial sector and its deregulation; underlying this is the growing income inequality and wealth concentration that is characteristic of late capitalism. It is this inequality that creates chronic problems for the effective demand needed to sustain the system which is increasingly supported by ever mounting piles of public and private debt. – link
LikeLike
Thanks. I appreciate the reply and links.
I definitely have some reading to do, but the theory sounds very much like Joseph A. Tainter, so these guys are in good company.
LikeLike
I am certainly not a defender of capitalism, but it is unrealistic that if we somehow change from a capitalist, ‘growth at all costs’ system to a steady state, socialist or anarchist system in the limited time still available before the manifold effects of climate disruption wreak their havoc on the Earth, that the more fundamental problems with civilisation would be solved.
I first read Daly’s ‘Steady State Economics’ when I was around 20.(I’m 59 now).
It was a pivotal moment for me, as I realized that at least some economists realized that the mainstream, neoclassical economist’s claim that it is possible to have continuous economic growth on a finite planet was not based on biophysical or geophysical reality.
Since then, has anything fundamentally changed? No. We now have a grotesquely inflated population dependent on industrial agriculture to survive. Industrial agriculture depends on fossil fuels for its functioning.
The insights of Boulding, Daly, Georgescu-Roegen have had no impact. The juggernaut of industrial civilisation is still built on a foundation of a misunderstanding of physical reality.
But even a steady state economy, if it was dependent on fossil fuels for it’s functioning, would still land us in the inescapable predicament we are in today.If we stop using fossil fuels ,billions die within months. If we continue to use fossil fuels, the increasingly severe impacts of climate disruption will mean an enormous population die-off this century, possibly before mid century. I wish it wasn’t so, but physical reality doesn’t care about what we wish for.
If we want to list the social systems below in order of sustainability and also the least adverse impact on the ecosystems of our planet, the order would be:
1:Hunter-Gatherer system
2:Agricultural civilisation
3:Industrial civilisation
4:Capitalist Industrial civilisation
LikeLike
You could say what we are doing here is a post-mortem analysis of capitalist industrial civilization. The patient is terminal, but not dead yet. Although bedridden, he still has his faculties and can look back at his life to see how he abused his body (with drugs, alcohol, smoking, late-night carousing with hookers, etc.), but knows that it’s too late to undo the damage.
LikeLike
Well said.
In the interests of accuracy, I should have added ‘Pastoral Nomadism’ to the list above, close to ‘Hunter -Gatherers’. Bruce Chatwin was probably right, pastoral nomadism, supplemented by some hunting and gathering, may be the best lifestyle of all. Instead, it is not an exaggeration to say that we have replaced it with a fundamentally insane system.
LikeLike
@Pintada

Financialization in one chart:
LikeLike
Interesting that the chart stops at 2006, well before the issue became obvious. The current data must be jaw dropping.
LikeLike
Will look for a new one, if available.
LikeLike
…Workers seeking to join unions in Colombia are routinely fired and threats against union activists continue on a steady basis. The activist group Killer Coke has compiled a country-by-country list of outrages in various countries, including thousands of children, as young as eight-years-old, used as labor on El Salvador sugar-cane farms that supply the company; multiple kidnappings and murders of union officials in Guatemala; and, in the Philippines, the use of outsourced labor to avoid paying benefits and accusations of “smuggling” sugar into the country to avoid taxes and undercut local sugar producers.
The $13 billion that the executives and the financiers were fighting over did not fall out of the sky…
…Finance capital is both whip and parasite, applying relentless market pressure to force companies to squeeze ever higher profits and extracting more wealth. This is what the holy grail of “efficiency” actually means. Industrialists and financiers fight over which gets the bigger piece of the pie, but they agree they deserve the whole pie. The rest of us can shut up and get back to work. Did you vote for this?
A bigger pie doesn’t mean you are getting a slice
LikeLike
LikeLike
Naomi Wolf falls down the conspiracy theorist rabbit hole:
Author and former Democratic political consultant Naomi Wolf published a series of Facebook posts on Saturday in which she questioned the veracity of the ISIS videos showing the murders and beheadings of two Americans and two Britons, strongly implying that the videos had been staged by the US government and that the victims and their parents were actors.
Wolf published a separate Facebook post, also on Saturday, suggesting that the US was sending troops to West Africa not to assist with Ebola treatment but to bring Ebola back to the US to justify a military takeover of American society. She also suggested that the Scottish independence referendum, in which Scots voted to remain in the United Kingdom, had been faked.
Wild-eyed conspiracy theories are common on Facebook. You may naturally wonder, then, why you are reading about these ones. Partly it’s because Wolf’s posts on ISIS deeply offended many people who knew one or more of the four murdered Westerners whom Wolf accused of being actors. And as American victims James Foley and Steven Sotloff were journalists, their outraged friends included a number of fellow journalists…
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/5/6909837/naomi-wolf-isis-ebola-scotland-conspiracy-theories
LikeLike
I have gone to a few sites where they break down the video by frames and start pointing out so called anomalies and things that are not out of the ordinary except in their own pre-decided minds. Truly, it is a fascinating study of mass delusion in real time. Their rationalizations are just like the moon landing folks. Reality is subject to emotion.
LikeLike
LOL. I’ve seen that too.
LikeLike
The technical term for them is:
“Delusional self reinforcing feedback troupe”
LikeLike
Pingback from http://www.blckdgrd.com:
LikeLike
The book considers the slaves victims of torture and calls plantations “slave labor camps.” Baptist documents how much the economy of the United States was built on slave labor and how, seemingly, no cruelty was too great if it meant keeping America’s economic engine going…
…And yet, as Dannye Romine Powell wrote Friday for the Charlotte (N.C.) Observer, when the “peculiar institution” ended, “Southern whites built monuments to the defeated generals of their war for slavery, memorialized the old days of the plantation, and wrote histories that insisted that the purpose of the war had been to defend their political rights against an oppressive state. They were so successful at the last goal that they eventually convinced a majority of white Americans, including most historians, that slavery had been benign and that ‘states’ rights’’ had been the cause of the Civil War.”
To this day, memorials to Confederate generals and slavers stand tall all across the South, with editorial pages in those areas raising hardly an objection…
…”Starting in the 1790s, slave owners began creating a huge cotton and slavery complex on the newest frontiers of the young United States. Cotton soon became the world’s most important market commodity — the Big Oil of the 19th century — and the work of slaves like William was driving the industrial revolution.
“We live today in an economy built in part on the foundations that people like William laid. That’s what my book argues, and that’s why I wasn’t surprised that the British magazine The Economist wasn’t happy with my book. The story of how slavery’s expansion helped to shape the economy in which we all live isn’t likely to please everybody at a publication that spends a lot of pages explaining why our current neoliberal economic order is the best possible one.
“Even today, the discrepancy between the descendants of the enslaved and white Americans is huge … in terms of family wealth. . . .”…
…In his review in Sunday’s New York Times Book Review, historian Eric Foner disabuses readers of any idea that slavery was benign.
“Planters called their method of labor control the ‘pushing system,’ ” Foner wrote, “Each slave was assigned a daily picking quota, which increased steadily over time. Baptist, who feels that historians too often employ circumlocutions that obscure the horrors of slavery, prefers to call it ‘the ‘whipping-machine’ system. In fact, the word we should really use, he insists, is ‘torture.’ To make slaves work harder and harder, planters utilized not only incessant beating but forms of discipline familiar in our own time — sexual humiliation, bodily mutilation, even waterboarding. In the cotton kingdom, ‘white people inflicted torture far more often than in almost any human society that ever existed.’
“When Abraham Lincoln reminded Americans in his Second Inaugural Address of the 250 years of ‘blood drawn with the lash’ that preceded the Civil War, he was making a similar point: Violence did not begin in the United States with the firing on Fort Sumter. . . .”
Foner does not advocate tearing down the monuments to the Confederates who perpetrated this system. Instead, he has urged that they be balanced with symbols of African American achievement during the period, such as the first black members of Congress, who served during Reconstruction.
New Book Describes How Slavery Impacted Who Is Wealthy Today and Who Isn’t
http://collapseofindustrialcivilization.tumblr.com/post/99587075222/the-book-considers-the-slaves-victims-of-torture
LikeLike
Human labor in a fossil-fueled civilization has a value of $0.06 per hour.
Excellent video…
from America2.0:
“It’s a good video however recent events have already distracted the general public to issues perceived as being a more immediate threat. Peak oil problems will only impact humanity. The rest of the planet doesn’t have much use for fossil fuel. The same goes for Ebola. I’m not sure if other primates or mammals are impacted similarly but the same thing is true, life goes on without us and the planet is happier.
Climate change is the biggest threat with perhaps a runaway greenhouse effect killing everything forever, long before the sun swells up and does it and yet…you can hear what most people are concerned about. Perhaps it’s the perceived timeline. Ebola kills 90% of us in the next three years, peak oil lowers living standards from the present until the non-fossil fuel equilibrium is reached at about the same time climate change has made the planet uninhabitable for any survivors who’ve arrived at the new lowered standard of living. The majority of humanity is more pissed off that the world will continue without them than they are about destroying all life on earth. Perhaps it’s simply the timeline after all. Ebola…what have you done for me lately?” ~ Fred Kaluza
LikeLike
There are the neoclassical economists who deserve first prize in the contest for delusional thinking. For them, continuous population and economic growth on a finite planet is not a problem. Second prize goes to the steady state economists, as personified by Herman Daly and Brian Czech, who think that industrial civilisation can have long term sustainability, provided the population is kept stable and a steady state economy is operating.
Then there is Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, who saw through the delusions of both .
His ‘Energy and Economic Myths’ is recommended reading, but in the light of new knowledge since publication could be improved. A quote which may be of interest:
‘But one thought has persisted in my mind ever since I became interested in the entropic nature of the economic process. Will mankind listen to any program that implies a constriction of its addiction to exosomatic comfort? Perhaps, the destiny of mankind is to have a short, but fiery, exciting and extravagant life rather than a long, uneventful and vegetative existence. Let the other species; the amoebas, for example, which have no spiritual ambitions, inherit an Earth still bathed in plenty of sunshine.’
I think Georgescu-Roegen overstated his case here. The Australian Aborigines, for example, lived here for 50,000 years and left the environment in superb condition.
Industrial civilisation has been here for 226 years and has had catastrophic impact and a devastated environment.
Those people certainly did not live an uneventful and vegetative existence. Their lives were as rich and fulfilling as ours, probably more so.
Nevermind.
LikeLike
This is what you get when financial people run the world. The same is true for government bureaucracies that are growing while simultaneously deferring infrastructure maintenance and replacement till later. It’s later.
………………………………………………………………………..
S&P 500 Companies Spend 95% of Profits on Buybacks, Payouts
“You can only go so far with financial engineering before you actually have to have a business with real growth,”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-06/s-p-500-companies-spend-almost-all-profits-on-buybacks-payouts.html
LikeLike
Speaking of deferred maintenance
U.S. river freight system near breaking point as huge harvest looms
“The number of emergency lock closures jumped 543 percent from 1992 to 2008. A backlog of authorized projects awaiting funding has grown for 15 years and stands at more than $8 billion, according to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/26/us-usa-grains-barges-idUSKCN0HL1L120140926
LikeLike
I’ve listened to this damning interview by Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, a German journalist.
http://www.globalriskreport.info/757490741.html
It seems the “rabbit hole” does exist and if foreign journalists are manipulated in this manner, U.S. journalists must be completely bought and paid for. It seems the subterranean world is a dark place and most prefer the fabricated reality above ground. Just goes to show you that nothing said by the media can be trusted. Nothing said concerning foreign “evil” leaders that must be deposed for democracy and freedom can be believed, nothing about climate change, nothing about Ebola, nothing about MH17, nothing, nothing, nothing can be believed. The U.S. government seems to work for psychopathic, militaristic billionaires whose goal seems to be to grow the cancer far beyond what is survivable. We are already beyond that point and they won’t stop until they kill the entire planet. Their obedient minions support their efforts, waiting for a few crumbs of wealth to fall their way while everyone else gets pissed on, trickle down style. I wonder if Fauci was paid with a trip to Cancun for downplaying the risk of Ebola? Would that be non-official cover or official cover? If Ebola does make it to the U.S., will you line-up for your vaccine? Will you be forced to be vaccinated? Will you be forced to go to work? Not me, and I’m a microbiologist. I’ll be at home watching the “non-official cover” on T.V. as thousands of plastic coffins get loaded on trains for their timely distribution to life’s true believers.
LikeLike
Nice interview, but we already knew the MSM was bribed and cajoled into acting as a mouthpiece for neoliberal capitalism and western interests.
LikeLike
Ebola in Brazil:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ebola-crisis-man-in-brazil-hospitalised-with-symptoms-of-deadly-virus-9786559.html
LikeLike
St. Louis, MO:
http://redphilistine.tumblr.com/post/99620269810/spoopysponge-redphilistine-another-flag
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/09/video-st-louis-protesters-burn-american-flags-in-protest-of-police-shooting/
LikeLike
Paul Krugman and the Limits of Hubris
Economist Paul Krugman evidently feels irked and irritated by the notion that there might be limits to economic expansion: he has followed up his New York Times op-ed of September 18 (“Errors and Emissions,” to which I replied here) with a new piece titled “Slow Steaming and the Supposed Limits to Growth. It’s interesting to examine his latest assertions and arguments one by one, as they reveal a great deal about how economists think, and why they tend to disregard physical science when it comes to questions about finite resources and the possibility of infinite economic growth on a small planet.
Mr. Krugman begins by noting: “We seem to be having a moment in which three groups with very different agendas—anti-environmentalist conservatives, anti-capitalist people on the left, and hard scientists who think they are smarter than economists—have formed an unholy alliance on behalf of the proposition that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is incompatible with growing real GDP.” He omits mentioning a fourth group—ecological economists like Herman Daly, who take the position that, in the real world, the laws of physics and ecological limits trump economic theory. For Krugman, only mainstream economists are to be trusted; everybody else is prone to misconceptions. He seems perplexed why so many people are coming to the same mistaken conclusion from different directions. Could it be that they are all recognizing an unavoidable physical reality?…
LikeLike
I’ve only read this section yet(I will read the whole article),but unfortunately the ecological economists and those who believe that they have the solution to our predicament(I was in that group until around 3 years ago) still haven’t realised that even a steady state economy can’t pprovide a solution.
Our civilisation is dependent on fossil fuels for it’s functioning.If we could wave a magic wand and institute a steady state economy tomorrow,would that provide a solution?
No.We would still have 7.3 billion people needing to be fed,and the only way to feed that number is through industrial agriculture.Industrial agriculture is dependent on fossil fuels.So we have to continue using fossil fuels to keep our bubble civilisation functioning,,releasing enormous quantities of CO2,which then leads to the manifold catastrophic effects of a worsening climate disrupted Earth.
Dilworth’s’Too smart for our own good’is a more accurate description of our predicament than Daly and Farley’s ‘Ecological Economics’
LikeLike
Nature versus nurture and capitalism versus human nature. I’ll address this issue once and for all in the next post.
LikeLike
H/T Gail Zawacki
Ebola, overpopulation, and the biggest threat we face (anthropocentrism):
LikeLike
The Vanishing Book of Life on Earth
http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/VanishingBook.html
LikeLike
Must Read:
One of the insights of deep ecology is that we humans are members of a vast more-than-human community. Deep ecology calls us to a new humility in the face of this fact, challenging us to abandon our anthropocentric perspective. It reminds us that we are made of the same stuff as the living world around us and that our ultimate destiny is the same as all the other-than-human beings on Spaceship Earth: namely to continue our journey as recycled star dust. In the vast scheme of things, our individual lives are barely blips in the evolution of the cosmos. Even as a species, we don’t seem all that important in the grand scheme of things, having only been around 2/1000 of one percent of the life of the universe. In short, we are not special.
And yet, we are at least one of the lifeforms through which the universe has become conscious of itself. And that makes us special.
Models of Evolution: To be special or not to be
There are basically three models for understanding our evolutionary history (four, I guess, if you count the theory that God plopped Adam and Even down in the Garden of Eden … which I don’t count). The first is the model of the evolutionary ladder or pyramid or tree, which depicts the evolution of biological life as a progression which culminates with human beings at the top — the “crown of creation”. I call this the “Special” model — as in “Human Beings are Special”. This is the comfortable model of evolution, because it places us at the top.
One of the problems with this model is that it perpetuates the conceit that human beings are somehow inevitable in an evolutionary sense. But, according to some critics of this model, if we were to replay evolution, there is virtually no chance that humans beings would appear again. This model also perpetuates the notion that human beings are “more evolved” than other species. But the fact is that all species that are alive today have been evolving for the same amount of time — 3.8 billion years — it’s just that some species have not had to change much in order to survive over that period.
Another criticism of this model is that it implies that evolution has a direction or a purpose. Even secular people can fall into the trap of teleological thinking, writes fellow Patheos writer, Connor Wood:
An alternative model of evolution depicts the process less like a tree, and more like a bush, in that it does not have a “top”. Humans are just one among many other species, with nothing setting us apart. I call this the “Not Special” model — as in “Human Beings Are Not Special”. There are various ways to depict this, but the central idea is that evolution is not a hierarchical process. This brings human beings down to the same “level” as bacteria, in evolutionary terms. In these models, it is sometimes difficult to locate where homo sapiens even are in the scheme.
This is the model favored by many deep ecologists. One of the goals of deep ecology is “democratize” the biotic community, unseating homo sapiens sapiens from their privileged position as the self-assumed royalty of the evolutionary kingdom and bringing humans back “down to earth”, literally and figuratively.
Some critics of the “Not Special” model object that it calls into question our very right to exist, since we have to consume members of other species to survive. This is a specious argument, as it confuses evolutionary hierarchy with the food chain. The food cycle of which we are a part consists of beings eating other beings at every level. Predators consume herbivores and herbivores consume plants, but both predators and herbivores are then consumed by decomposers, which then become food for plants.
But what if the survival of our species requires the extinction of another species — like maybe the bacteria that cause bacterial meningitis. Again, all species, wherever they fall on the “bush” of evolution are fighting for survival. I don’t think leveling the evolutionary playing field means we have to question our “right” to survive. The more salient question is not whether we have a right to fight for our lives or the perpetuation of our species, but our “right” to exterminate other species out of ignorance, negligence, laziness, or a desire for a slight increase in our already historically unprecedented comfort level.
From my perspective, one of the problems with the “Not Special” model of evolution is that it fails to account for the way in which human are special, i.e., our self-consciousness as an emergent property of a complex evolutionary system. And perhaps even more importantly, it fails to offer a compelling motivation for humans to identify with anything other than our own species. In the “Special” model of evolution, human beings might at least think of themselves as “stewards” of the earth. But if there is really nothing distinguishing us from bacteria, as in the “Not Special” model, then why should we care about other species except to the extent that we need them in order to survive? This brings me to a third model of evolution …
Cosmic Evolution
As noted above, if we were to go back in time and reset the course of evolution, it is highly unlikely that we would be here the second time around. On the other hand, according to some theorists at least, it is highly likely — perhaps inevitable — that some form of tool-using, self-conscious species would evolve. (For example, self-consciousness might be a form of convergent evolution.) While many biologists emphasize the directionlessness of evolutionary history, many physicists are now identifying a developmental trend in cosmic history, one moving toward localizations of increasing order and complexity which operate against the general entropic trend of the universe. If this is true on the cosmic scale, it is arguably true on a biological scale as well.
Philosopher Ken Wilbur argues that by portraying humankind as merely one strand in the web of life, deep ecology assumes a one-dimensional or “flatland” metaphysics. According to Wilbur, a “deeper” ecology would perceive that the cosmos is hierarchically ordered in terms of complexity. Hierarchy does not imply dominion, though — it implies responsibility. This brings me to the third model of evolution, one which combines the insight that human beings are both special and not special. In this “Special/Not Special” model, the universe itself is evolving toward self-consciousness. One step in that evolution of the universe is the development of beings who are self-conscious. In other words, at some point in its evolution, the universe goes from being unconscious to having parts of itself — us — become aware of themselves as parts, as a stage in the process of the whole becoming aware of itself. In this sense, we are special. We as a species represent a point at which the universe has moved closer to self-consciousness. As a result, we have special responsibilities toward other species and the universe as a whole.
Alison Leigh Lilly has cogently criticized hierarchical models of evolution as being a form of “weak anthropocentrism”, in so far as they fail to challenge the supremacy of human culture and consciousness. Alison may be right, but there are few caveats that I think at least mitigate the latent anthropocentrism of this model of cosmic evolution:
First, it must be recognized that human beings are not the only beings that are self-conscious, much less the only beings that are conscious. As Barbara Ehrenreich writes in Living with a Wild God,
In addition, there are other animals that are likely self-conscious, most notably other primates (chimpanzees and gorillas) and the cetaceans (dolphins and whales), but also elephants and magpies. And that’s not even counting lifeforms on other planets. So, while we may be in a special group, we humans are not unique. And, it should be mentioned that even the species that are not self-conscious, have the potential to evolve into species that are self-conscious. Every species is a manifestation of the universe’s drive toward self-consciousness, and as such, every species has inherent value.
Second, it must also be recognized that human beings are not the end of evolution. Homo sapiens sapiens will disappear one day. We may evolve into another species. Or we may go the way of the homo neanderthalensis, leaving the whales to take the next step in the evolution of cosmic self-consciousness. So, while there is a hierarchy of evolution (based on degrees of complexity), human beings are not really at the “top”. The “top” is reserved for the universe as a whole.
There is a common belief that we have “evolved out of evolution”, that through the development of tools, we no longer need to evolve biologically, because we can develop a technological solution to any challenge. But, I think it is becoming increasingly dubious whether we will be able to solve all of our problems technologically, since our technological paradigm seems to be at the root of many of our problems. In addition, I think it’s a mistake to see technology as somehow “outside” of the process of biological evolution. The notion that technology allows us to escape our biology perpetuates the nature-culture dichotomy, which again is at the root of our problems.
Third, and finally, I think maybe it is a mistake to focus on the evolution of individual species. We might say that we are not evolving, but that the universe is evolving, and we are only a part of the evolving universe. I cannot emphasize this point enough — because it encapsulates the sense in which we both are and are not special. We are special only to the degree to which we advance the evolution of the cosmos as a whole. What this means is that we evolve, not by increasing our technological control over nature, but by deepening our identification with the self-evolving cosmos. As we dissociate from our narrow ego-selves, and identify with the interconnected web of life, then the universe takes a step forward toward complete self-consciousness. One way or another, our sense of ourselves as beings existing separately from the rest of the universe has to be overcome. In a sense, we have to disappear in order to fulfill our destiny. And if we don’t, then we will disappear in another way, likely through self-destruction.
Cosmic evolution is not a new idea, of course, even for Neo-Paganism. For example, Tim (Oberon) Zell of the Church of All Worlds taught as early as 1971 that humans and cetaceans are part of the “nervous system” of a single planetary organism, Gaea, which is evolving toward an “emerging planetary consciousness” – a kind of biological apotheosis (an idea influenced by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin). But Zell also speculated whether human beings might better be compared to a cancer that is multiplying out of control within the body of Gaea.
Our destiny
I’ll admit that the idea that human beings are in any way “equal” to bacteria wounds my pride. I react instinctively against it, and it likely colors my opinions. “How can human beings be equal with bacteria? We have big brains and opposable thumbs. We make tools and we are self-conscious.” And, of course, these things are true. But why are these adaptations necessarily any better than the adaptations of bacteria? Or sharks? who seem to have done pretty well for themselves in the last half billion years. (This is a question that Jeff Lilly takes up in the comments to Alison’s post mentioned above.) It is possible, I have to admit, that tool making and self-consciousness are not real evolutionary advantages. In fact, our technology and our consciousness of ourselves as separate from the rest of nature both seem to be at the root our headlong drive to destroy our own environment and thus ourselves. It may be that these things which make us “special” are actually maladaptive. And it may be that the notion of a universe that is evolving consciousness is appealing because it flatters our egos and perpetuates the belief that self-consciousness makes us special. Perhaps it is just another way of creating God (i.e., the universe) in our own image.
I don’t have answers to these questions yet. But I am left with the feeling that I had when I walked out the movie Lucy: We are special, not in the sense that we have special privileges, but in the sense that we have special responsibilities. We have a responsibility to evolve toward what deep ecologists call “Self-realization”, a paradigmatic shift in our consciousness, from one of radical separateness to one of radical interconnectedness. And I also wonder if we might have a responsibility to help “shepherd” other species toward the same destiny, although I imagine this would be less like the genetic engineering which science fiction author David Brin describes in his Uplift books, and more like making space for other species to flourish.
We have a choice: Humanity will either commit itself to furthering the evolution of cosmic consciousness or we will continue our headlong rush to self-destruction (and probably take a good part of the biosphere with us in the process). If we are to take the former path, we must come to understand these truths, outlined by Michael Zimmerman:
LikeLike
Developing love blesses and fulfills the unfolding consciousness of the cosmos.
LikeLike
What a great read.
LikeLike
Hey Mike!
Waitin’ for everyone to bring their leaves to our landfill!
Yeah! That’s right. We like to upset the natural cycle of birth and decay to….
stay in compliance with the Homeowner’s Association rules!
All right!
Just don’t bring them to my landfill. We don’t take them. Fucks up the chemistry.
However, we DO take your dead chickens, pigs, cows, and horses.
Get it straight. There’s more than one kind of waste.
Bet you thought that all Garbage Mountains were the same.
You know what the initials KC stand for, right?
No, not Kansas City.
King Crimson
LikeLike
Thank God he went back to California….
John Mellenkamp
Country Gentleman
Country gentleman walked a crooked mile,
Got our money in his pocket.
Did it all with a very handsome smile.
Now, he’s livin’ it up in a great big office.
He ain’t a-gonna help no poor man.
He ain’t a-goona help no poor man.
He ain’t a-gonna help no poor man.
He’s just gonna help his rich friends.
He ain’t a-gonna help no women.
He ain’t a-gonna help no children.
He’s just gonna help his rich friends.
Country gentleman, we see him on T.V.,
Glad handin’ folks and chattin’ to the nation.
We never knew what really to believe.
Just word upon slogan with emotional connection.
He ain’t a-gonna help no poor man.
He ain’t a-gonna help no children.
He ain’t a-gonna help no women.
He’s just gonna help his rich friends.
And in the papers all we’d ever read is
So and so big-shot signed his resignation.
Now, country gentleman he wants us to believe
That he’s kind and honest with the best intentions.
Country gentleman, now there’s a bird that flew
High above his nation, prayed on its weakness.
Picked our bones and threw it in his stew.
Thank God he went back to California.
LikeLike
My favorite was always this one…
LikeLike
We’er going to watch the goddamn World Series….
LikeLike
I love that song and cuckoo’s nest is my favorite all time movie. That’s a twofer. Thanks!
LikeLike
Business Insider gets real apocalyptic…
LikeLike
“While capitalist growth depends upon the destruction of the natural world and the purposeful production of egregious amounts of waste, it is the character of its growth that is most troubling. Capitalist growth is based not on prudent thought or decades-long plans, but rather on the immediate, short-term creation of profit. Capitalism plans by quarter, sometimes by year, but rarely anything beyond that.”
~ David Katzevich
http://www.browndailyherald.com/2014/10/10/katzevich-16-climate-change-end-capitalism-end-world/
LikeLike
My response in the comments section:
Anon says:“Your calls to action make you sound like a radical nut bag – nobody who isn’t already crazy is going to listen to you.”
This sort of knee-jerk, vitriolic response is typical of those unable to think outside the mindset that is leading us all toward a catastrophic end. Business Insider just published an article describing the future that capitalism is bringing us, converting a living planet into dead commodities:
25 Devastating Effects Of Climate Change
Capitalism is inherently unsustainable and destined for collapse because its pursuit of profit rests on the rampant and indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources and workers. To compete against their rivals, corporations are pushed to externalize any costs they can to increase profitability, and these costs show up as harmful environmental and social effects. A 2010 study pegged externalized costs to the environment by the world’s top 3000 corporations at $2.2-trillion, equal to 1/3rd of corporate profits. I’m sure that if another study was done today that price tag would be much higher considering the irreparable damage that climate change and biodiversity loss has wrought.
Elon Musk is a techno-utopian capitalist who thinks that humans need to colonize Mars to avoid extinction…hardly someone whom I would invoke as a person grounded in reality or sanity.
LikeLike
Nice article by Robert Callaghan who comments here occasionally and runs the Global Risk Report.
There Is No “Green” Energy
LikeLike
A dig from MarketWatch on Naomi Klein:
‘This Changes Nothing’: Capitalism still wins, climate loses
…This is the real WWIII. Klein has known the world was sinking deep into a “Capitalism vs. The Climate” global war since well before her last book, “The Shock Doctrine: Rise of Disaster Capitalism,” a historical survey of the conservative revolution launched after WWII by Nobel Economist Milton Friedman and “Atlas Shrugged” author Ayn Rand. That revolution sunk its roots deeper into American history under the leadership of President Ronald Reagan and Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan.
Back in 2007 we were early fans. In our review of “Shock Doctrine” we called it one of the best economics book of the new 21st century. At the time, it was.
But in the past seven years the global zeitgeist moved past “Shock Doctrine,” while America got worse, sinking deeper into chaos — politically, economically, militarily, culturally. By detailing how conservatives emerged so successful in their power grab in the generation since the Reagan revolution, “Shock Doctrine” has actually motivated conservatives to keep grabbing more and more power.
Yes, conservative strategies are working. And Klein’s new book is guaranteed to further emboldened conservatives to build on their power base … further accelerating America’s downward spiral … as capitalism keeps widening the global inequality gap … as the 67 billionaires who now own half the world will keep grabbing more … as Credit Suisse Bank’s prediction that by 2100 11 trillionaires will rule the planet seems more credible … as economist Tom Piketty’s warning that capitalism has become so powerful it is unstoppable, that it will continue widening the inequality gap, even though Pope Francis warns that inequality as the “root cause of all the world’s problems.”
Yes, it’s too late. Klein’s new book was to be a game-changer. Now it’s old news. Changed nothing. Capitalism keeps winning. Planet Earth keeps losing. The global capitalist ideology truly is the global zeitgeist, pouring more fuel on the fire, further accelerating the downward spiral…
…Yes, capitalism itself will eventually self-destruct, because competition for new markets and ever-scarcer resources, accelerating global warming and climate disasters will ultimately kill off much of the human race.
And it’s not just that the deniers like Big Oil who resist solely because they know carbon emissions regulations and taxes will upset their economic model. Nor because the capitalist brain is hard-wired on short-term profits and is incapable of balancing today’s profits against a longer-range future, discounting future costs to nothing, leaving problems for future generations to figure out and expense. All that’s ancillary.
Einstein: You can’t solve capitalist problems with capitalist solutions
The real reason? Capitalists honestly believe capitalism is not the problem. They believe capitalism is the solution. To everything. That belief means their brains can’t grasp Albert Einstein’s warning, that “we can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
So capitalists and their capitalist solutions will just keep making matters worse for everyone this century. Until a catastrophe self-destructs capitalism … and the rest of us.
The problems created by capitalism in the last couple generations have gotten so out of control they’ve morphed into an unstoppable conspiracy of Big Oil, GOP and hard-right conservatives that is hell-bent on global dominance … even gambling the future of the human race and our civilization on their conviction that capitalism is the solution to all problems.
Bottom line: Ironically, the conservative revolutionaries will love Klein’s new book the most. It adds richness to the history of the rapid rise to power of their conservative revolution while articulating a strategic plan for their continued rise to total world domination. They also know how to hedge a bet, even have a backup Plan B, just in case they’re wrong and capitalism is not the solution to America’s capitalism problem.
The best we can suggest is remember the sage advice of Barton Biggs, long-time research director at Morgan Stanley, my old Wall Street firm. In his classic, “Wealth, War and Wisdom,” Biggs, later a very successful hedge fund manager, advised his Super Rich clientele to expect the “possibility of a breakdown of the civilized infrastructure.”…
LikeLike
I remember my dad talking about a lot of the stuff in the Shock Doctrine back when I was a kid. Naomi did a great job with that book. I saw her in a video once giving a talk at the Chicago School of Economics (The Lions Den) and she pulled no punches. I could hear Friedman in the background yelling at her all the way from Hell. I think she is a brave lady, but once she got pregnant, I think she understandably changed. I read a study (can’t find it) that suggested women with young children are less likely to talk about climate change and other similar issues. In the face of overwhelming odds with a horrific outcome, it’s what most humans do. I think Naomi went for the hopium because the truth is too terrible for a new mother to admit. We evolved to sooth our emotions in the here and now. It’s what we do. The Doomisphere may be growing, but it is still just a sliver of a fraction.
LikeLike
Stefan Rahmstorf:
Head of Earth System Analysis at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research; professor of Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University.
http://collapseofindustrialcivilization.tumblr.com/post/99933753127/stefan-rahmstorf-head-of-earth-system-analysis-at
LikeLike
Some people get it, but most don’t.
He gets it…
LikeLike
LikeLike
Let the military handle climate change challenges. Look how good of a job they did in Afghanistan and Iraq and all for only 3 trillion dollars (it was probably more). I’ll sleep better tonight knowing they’re walking the line. Army-Navy-Air Force-Marines
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
…In its modern form, greed underpins capitalism. Greed may be good on an individual level because it enables us to compete and ultimately survive. But facilitating greed as the ultimate ambition of a society can only be destructive, as the individual will seek to enrich his or her self at the expense of the general population. We’re all still paying for the private jets and yachts of those who got rich during the false boom of the early 2000s. Those free marketeers were glad of state intervention when it came in the form of multi-billion pound bail outs.
We should all be very concerned that the Bank of England has decided to hold interest rates at 0.5%. It’s the surest sign that despite record bail outs by the state, printing vast quantities of money, state aid for the property market, and a raft of other measures, the UK economy is still precarious… – link
LikeLike
Pingback: The Systemic Roots of a Global Pandemic | Collapse of Industrial Civilization