Kelley:
>i'd say that matt is an outlier when it comes to US paranoia. i really fon't see any of that--paranoia--going on, do you? my kid is a good barometer, i think, because he comes home and tells me about whatever wild rumors are flying at school. nada.
I don't think Paranoia is that high in U.S. society as whole. On this LBO list I'd say it runs pretty high (as in 5 or 10 percent). I seem to remember a few people chiming in when it came to the city fleeing... And you can see below I'm in a discussion with Gordon Fitch over a more subtle version of what I think is the same problem - perhaps more dangerous, because it is not paranoid, or even untrue - just dangerously wrong in emphasis.
Gordon
quotes me
>> Your point is not silly. But in fighting against the end of the world, it may be counter-productive to place too much emphasis on the fact that it is the end of world that we are fighting against. And while there is no doubt where the slope leads, it may be a shallower, longer slope than we fear. I guess returning to an old cliche, the question is always HOW to balance pessimism of the intellect with optimism of the will.
Gordon replies
>I think human survival is a long shot, but it's generally more interesting (to me) than annihilation. (Well, the latter might be sort of exciting for a few weeks, but I think it will prove generally dreary in the long run.) That being the case, a radical struggle to stop the war / work machine wins pretty much by default. Besides, it's much more fun than trying to get along with the established order, which is not only violent, immoral and ugly, but boring and stupid.
>I've gotten some very odd responses in some other discursive venues by saying what I said here; the idea is first relegated to the realm of flying saucers and the Illuminati. Then I patiently explain the logic, which is of course irrefutable, and everyone goes off whistling softly through the graveyard of their chosen future. I try not to care too much about it, but it is pretty sad.
I don't think the responses are odd. There is good reaason for this to generate opposition. There are two times when denial is a healthy response. One is when rhe problem is insoluble. (There is an old engineering slogan - no solution? no problem?) The other is when people are already doing everything they can to solve it. Right now I think leftists (Carrol is right; there is no left) are doing the best they can to oppose this - especially difficult when there are no short or medium term prospects for ending capitalism. Reminders of how much we stand to lose is not particularly helpful. Imagine a woman is trying escape a burning building by crossing a narrow ledge to safety, holding an infant in her arms. A sudden shout on your part "Lady , don't drop the baby or your are both dead." is not particulary helpful -- even though completely true. She is trying to concentrate on one step at a time, and does NOT benefit from a reminder of what she already knows - - how high the stakes are.
Similarly, I tend to assume we have time to reverse the current course -- that suitcase nukes and stuff are not going to get loose in next few years. That is because if we reverse the war march at all, it will be in the long run. The best we can do in the next few years is keep things from becoming worse, or make minor improvements. (You could argue that I am too optimistic - that the best we will do is slow down the rate at which things get worse.)
But the thing is, in makes no sense to assume that we have a short deadline, that the world will end if we don't force the war comnplex to reverse course now. We will only have a chance to win, if the human race, manages to survive a good long time in spite of us having at most marginal impact. And since there is no point in planning for failure, this means we have to assume that the world will survive a good long time in spite of our minimal impact.
There are two reasons why it probably will. Nukes have been around since
WW II -- weapons capable of ending human civilization since the 1950's. We are still here. Also, the desire not to see the human race ended is probably as strong among the current ruling elites as among us. It doesn't mean that it won't eventually get out of their control if they are left in place indefinitely. But it does mean we may have the time we need. Crying "Havoc" doesn't really help in this fight -- even if we are not the ones to let loose the dogs of war.
One last thing. In trying to clarify a point that is difficult for me to express, I hope I did not choose unneccesarily harsh metaphors. I simply could not come up with a way to convey my logic that did not require a melodramtic comparison.