Well the Spanish general strike was great fun; I participated only as a spectator, of course; we were in Seville at the time, a city redolent of the great global south, dirty and rundown and sweaty, full of fruit trees and trashy boys with too much gel in their hair--unlike Madrid and Barcelona, where the cops broke out the riot gear, even the police seemed in on the action, and since everyone assumed my boyfriend and I were Spanish (until we spoke, that is), we got to share lots of amused looks with locals as American tourist-grotesques wandered through the stricken commercial corridors wondering what all those Cerrado por HUELGA signs meant anyway. But I do not want to talk about society stopping, for once, but rather, about society going the fuck on. It is easy, even when you are a confirmed old skeptic and cynic, to get taken in by the dire warnings of Europe's imminent collapse. Americans are all Devines, possibly; we all adore the hoofbeats of the End of Days. Alas, strike aside, the streets are full; the bars are full; the restaurants are open; the gift shops are still selling tchotchkies; the bacalao is still braised in tomato; the criminally unemployed youth, or whatever, seem, well, fine, if maybe a bit bored.
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
Klatuu Mirabile Nikto
Now I know we are supposed to imagine that Society and Civilization and Capitalism and all the rest are so infinitely vast and complex and necessary to life as we know it that messing with any of it will plunge us back into a dark age, but you know, I suspect that the fishermen will still hop on their boats in the morning and the breweries will still make their beer and people in general will just get along with their lives. What I am saying to you is that you have been brainwashed into believing that a more decent world, a world with fewer Antonin Scalias eager to nudge their arthritic knuckles ever nearer each individual's anus, will require a rupture so titanic that it will resemble a meteor strike or a nearby supernova. Even those of us adhering to the view that this would be a welcome and desirable end tend to wax modestly apocalyptic about the period of transition. And yet, one wonders: would it actually be so? What if all the congresscritters in the world, the generals and general secretaries and unpaid unofficial advisers and MPs and CEOs and chiefs of police got ganked up in some kind of reverse rapture tomorrow? How long would it take the rest of humanity to notice that it was supposed to be helpless without the offices they all occupy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
=]
There's something to be said for the trend of many people who have not been parented well to want to believe (on their own) that there needs to be an authoritarian figure out there somewhere, looking over them. That's why so many people feel (whether irrationally or not) that they wouldn't be able to do without, say, Scalia or IOZ or Gertrude Stein or Obama.
less than a week
Notice, or be affected? I'd probably notice fairly soon but I think it'd be a while before I was affected.
But who knows... maybe Obama and the rest really are holding the world together with herculean efforts. I doubt it though.
The fall of Rome hardly led to worse and worst, for anyone but the Roman elite, really.
And the "dark ages"? All things being equally, quite nice comparatively speaking.
High Arka,
Quite a few people who've been parented just fine, judging from my children's friends, are all sorts of happy with authority.
Without "Society and Capitalism and Civilization and all the rest", those "criminally unemployed youth, or whatever" would not have the luxury of boredom.
Well, the timing of peak oil's probably gonna affect my kids more than me, after all. So there's that.
And I also find it hard to believe that a more localized world would be much more (or much less) indecent.
This hypothetical rapture would have to take at least a quarter of humanity, I think. There are so many ambitious authoritarians well below the rank of General or CEO. Too small a rapture, and the dissipated energy from the resulting whoosh to fill the vacuum would be egregiously horrific.
Welcome back, bro.
What a weird, backwards position. It's the alternatives, the statism, the communistic view, that says a small group of people can hold things together. It's the libertarian, capitalistic view that says individuals should have less power over others and that some of us are not as smart as all of us and the order that comes from our cumulative decision.
You're right: we don't need a handful of people running our lives. Thanks for making such an astute argument for capitalism!
Libertarian...capitalist...together in same sentence...hard to breathe...dying of laughter.
Judging from Iraq, a couple of weeks to a couple of months.
First people go on as usual, but after a few days a small fraction of the population wonders if they can get away with something big. They do, so they repeat it, bigger each time.
The looting disrupts the normal work of the economy while it attracts imitators. The police quickly divide into the corrupt and the dead. Neighborhoods form militias, which immediately step on each other's toes. Three months later, you could add zombies without making the situation appreciably worse.
Er...yeah. Libertarianism generally includes economic liberty. Why, what bizarre definition of the word do you use that inexplicably makes enemies of the two?
(Jack, assuming your assessment is accurate, did it also include western public schooling? Exposure to society still has an effect, but one could say that a better parent minimizes that.)
Welcome back, Ioz. Yeah, how would we tie our shoes without the leaders and experts? It's a wonder we know how to breath without direction from above.
Nix that thing about the fishermen. It doesn't matter how your society is (un-)structured, depleted stocks are depleted stocks. Up in the aether we have a running gag about colossal, fecund ape hives... how did it go again...
so you learned about how harmless economic collapse is by.... eating and drinking for a few weeks in spain!
me? i've been in india for a tic and i no longer think freezing to death is possible.
Hey Zoz - I was waitin for you to return so's I could ask you something.
Since you're part-Chosen, I guess you probably know the meaning of the Yiddish terms "hozzer" and "hozzerai".
So I hope you won't take it the wrong way when I introduce two new words into the "dialect of the tribe" (to use ol' Ezra's phrase):
iozzer and iozzerai.
As in: "a real iozzer can never get enough iozzerai" ....
The more I think about this the more backwards it seems. The strikes have come about because the state has stopped providing assistance, so how on earth is that supposed to morph into "we don't need the elites to do things for us"? If that were true, you wouldn't be protesting the fact that they can't afford to do things for you.
Do protests have to make sense, or is it enough to just lash out in random directions?
Since you're part-Chosen, I guess you probably know the meaning of the Yiddish terms "hozzer" and "hozzerai".
http://youtu.be/amwcFEftrvc
@831
Wow, indeed you need to get out more.
The Dull Sycophant
we live in the world we agree to.
Do protests have to make sense, or is it enough to just lash out in random directions?
it's enough to just lash out in random directions.
report back to me when the shit Santorum/Romney/Obama says makes sense.
"society going on" and "increasing numbers of people getting increasingly screwed" aren't mutually exclusive. Many states have large pools of people who can be transferred from team insulated to team fucked without appreciably gumming up the works.
How long would it take the rest of humanity to notice that it was supposed to be helpless without the offices they all occupy?
Eh, more of a question of how long before some officious sorts fill in the chairs at the now vacant offices?
The idea, anonymous, that capitalism = "economic liberty" is so laughable I'm partially indebted to you for ongoing entertainment.
Yeah yeah, I know where this road leads: it leads to you pretending that having control of your property and capital isn't *really* freedom
because [insert reference to income inequality or the "means of production" here]. Get back to me when you have some derision that doesn't require the wholesale mutilation of the English language as a prerequisite.
Until then, the point remains: an appeal as to the uselessness of the elites (which was what this blog entry was about, you may recall) takes you *away* from statism, not towards it.
@10:20 AM.
Oh dear, you're right. The fact that I mentioned "thinking" about something has clearly betrayed a major lack of a social life. How deeply embarrassing, to be caught thinking.
@418
Without the feedback of reality thinking easily turns to delusions.
Re: Capitalism
I recommend a perusal of this very blog's archives to see our host's musings on the topic (gotta defend my sycophant creed, y'all), and for a more diluted expose (however much it pains me to recommend it):
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
The Dull Sycophant
You ate the "bacalao" hehe..
@512
The point was not that reality is for losers; why, I've lived in reality all my life, and I heartily recommend it. The point is that, counterintuitive though it may be, my comment rampage of two entire paragraphs might not be a sufficient sample size to draw any conclusions. Just throwing that out there.
Re: capitalism. Yes, I'm sure for the blog's readership this is a settled question. That doesn't really change anything. Though it's always fascinating to see what some insular group finds so obvious that they no longer feel much need to defend it to outsiders.
Capitalism is not the creed that permits us all to farm, but the condition that requires most farmers to sell their land to the wealthy few.
Except for that whole thing where it isn't that.
Almost invariably the Capitalism-is-good crowd in the radical Blogistans will say that the United States of the Now is not real capitalism. Sometimes the United States of the Then isn't, even.
Can we agree that, like the word "Liberalism" although not as severely, bifurcations of sense of this word exist and aren't about to go away?
Also: I propose new rule that all IOZ comments must be anonymous. The added confusion only adds to the fun of the confusion!
"Capitalism is not the creed that permits us all to farm, but the condition that requires most farmers to sell their land to the wealthy few."
This is why the Anonymous section of the commentariat remains anonymous: the above would be a delectable proof of hypocrisy in certain recent circles.
@12:02, defining "real" capitalism is somewhat religious, but it can be legitimately said that:
1) The U.S. does not operate under capitalism in the "Adam Smith" (Persian copy) sense;
2) There never has been a large-scale, sustained capitalism in the aforementioned sense;
3) The term "capitalism," just like the term "peace negotiations," is not necessarily bad just because most (all?) who have employed it in a major way so far have been evil and cruel.
Rather than contesting whether something is or isn't constitutional, we might ask what would be the best thing to do.
As to your rule, the whole "named anonymous" Leo running the show, and the few named commentators, are required for the free riding anonymous' to provide the kind of environment that keeps them coming back for more. This one's question is, can the named commentators at least be salaried for appearing on stage?
Statelessness won't initiate the war of all against all.
Preserving statelessness certainly will, and will involving state-like entities of a kind, namely warbands, militias, and the like.
This is how the state got started in the first place. War to defend from without, then use of those same weapons to impose will from within. The only answer, I think, is that everyone takes part in their right to fight and to rule. That will mean poverty, of a sort, because specialization allows for huge surpluses, but this might be made up for by the fact that those who would have had the least may have a chance to have more.
But still, some of these hypothetical generalist communes will be stronger than others, but fuck--like ain't an end, but a process. Anarchism will be necessary even a week after the imposition of anarchism. If you're not ready for that, then go seek a solution in all the other political and religious faiths that promise an end to suffering and hardship. I'd rather no promises to false ones.
like = life. Ugh.
@231 nonny
I too would like to believe in freedom of enterprise and apple pie and the 'Merkin way ... But if you always end up with a machine gun instead of a trike ...
...how long before you come to second our host's musing that it's reason-able that a system called Capitalism caters to Capital?
The dull sycophant
Post a Comment