Gordon:
> >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.
Gar Lipow:
> 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.
However, I don't think realizing how high the stakes are is in evidence among leftists. The primary modes of thought appear to be assumption of moral superiority and assumption of intellectual superiority. These are very cheap shots; I can feel superior to Dub in my sleep, but his crew are still the guys with the power, and I'm still the rat in the walls.
If I were to follow the burning-building analogy, I'd say the woman was noticing smoke curling up through the floorboards and telling herself that the stupid, dishonest landlord and his superintendent _must_ be made to understand that floorboards should not emit smoke.
> 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.
This is just about what I said, isn't it? However, we -- for some meaning of that word -- have to set out on the path in the first place.
There's no telling for sure how much time we have, actually -- the present rate of development may slow down radically as Capital completes its conquest of the world, which now appears to be in its very last stages (hence the resort of its few remaining State competitors to guerrilla warfare, terrorism and myth). Without competitors, it may be that Capital will sink into some kind of Byzantine decadence, affording many opportunities for an emergence into something else.
> 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.
I'm not crying havoc; as I see it, I'm merely pointing out that leftists are not thinking radically -- which is supposed to be their métier, isn't it? As I see it, ameliorating the war / work state, attempting to manipulate its ruling class, is a case of fighting over the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I'm not against giving the ruling class a hard time when possible -- I actually showed up at an anti-bombing demo a week ago -- but I don't think it's going to have much effect if leftists aren't also at work with more creative, more subversive projects. I certainly don't see any point in actually participating with liberals in governance or even giving them suggestions, other than to repent and resign. This just leads to the opportunity to be besmirched in little scenarios where we're shown hectoring the bereaved with slogans.
> 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.
No, melodrama's fine with me. Maybe all too fine.
-- Gordon