Economism is the belief that politics and other things are driven by economic factors, so yes, in that sense I can be lumped into that category, but so can every other Marxist. Marxism, paleo or otherwise, has nothing to do with identity politics or any other idealistic claptrap.
The problem is that economism doesn't have a realistic theory of change. Socialism will require the expropriation of the capitalist class, which is going to have to be carried out by some authority or another. Not all authoritarianisms are equally bad, in fact, some can be good.
Well my understanding is Marx thought capitalism would collapse mechanically from internal contradictions. Clearly that hasn’t happened, which is one reason I am not Marxist despite sharing in my case a moral critique of capitalism. Though my end game isn’t collectivism it’s something that retains more individual autonomy like mutualism, distributism, revival of craft guilds, home manufacturing with CNC machines, etc. A lot of the problems with capitalism are IMO from the financial end of banks creating a bottleneck in access to capital and not so much the market which is what the left excessively focuses on. IMO there isn’t a huge difference between a wage slave for a capitalist boss, and answering to the dictates of some collective. Either option makes you a unit in a social machine, that strips your productive activities of initiative and creativity.
On the first part that communism is supposed to come organically: Yeah, if you truly think Marxism stopped at Marx himself. This is why people such as myself identify as M-L, Marxist-Leninists. Marx was the beginning, not the totality. And it is really Lenin that Ohio Barbarian is rejecting, I'd say. which, fine.
On the second part that "there isn't a huge difference..." That's wrong because when you contribute to collective life, collective life gives you back your free time. My favorite example is Viktor Tsoi, the front man of the red wave band Kino -- massive rock star at the time, and throughout his entire career, he shoveled coal into the boiler at his apartment complex. Because he chose to do so, rather than become a 'professional' musician on the Soviet payroll as such, he had complete artistic freedom over his music -- and he used it. When we take the hours out of our day to do grounding work that contributes to the collective wellbeing, we will be given time and spiritual energy back to pursue our own individual crafts. Or, alternatively, we can choose to make our crafts be the contribution to the collective (ie had Kino become an actual ministry of culture band), but in that case we just have to make sure our craft actually contributes to the wellbeing of the collective rather than just an expression of ourselves as individuals.
This assumes people who play well with others but many geniuses are unique thinkers who chaffe under top down direction whether from a capitalist or socialist boss. One thing I can say for capitalism is at least there is an escape though being an owner operator. In Communism there is no escape you always have to defer to the decision of the collective. I’d probably literally shoot myself under those conditions. I am the sort of guy who likes to laser cut his own designs at 3 am when it’s quiet by myself. Those sorts of conditions of production can only happen under self employment, not collectivism.
Also the music scene in the USSR was terrible for creativity Shostakovich for example was broken by the system and prohibited from composing experimental atonal music because it didn’t meet the propaganda needs of the Soviet State.
we can agree to disagree with everything except this point: Soviet music scene was amazing, and Shostakovich's atonal modernist music wasn't remotely his best stuff; in fact one of his best works was Symphony #5 which was explicitly in support of the Soviet war effort against the Nazis.
the "lowest" common denominator is food, water, shelter, healthcare and education. Once everyone has that, I'll be happy to support your individualism. Not till then.
Ah. The classic Marxist-Leninist response. Thanks. I'm glad somebody said it.
Yes, there has to be some organizing force, often referred to as the vanguard of the revolution.
My problem with that is how to get THOSE people out if and when they decide to keep all of the authority for themselves for their entire lifetimes. Thus far, that has been a bit of a problem with historic socialist revolutions.
I have no perfect solution to that. I'm not sure one exists. I just want to make sure the people have some sort of a check on that kind of authority. I admit that I don't have an answer other than Franklin's "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
Excellent subject and opinions. I wonder what would be your views about (1) mandatory employee ownership of a portion of) the company (2) Mandatory profit sharing of gross or net profit to the employees. Yes this is not true capitalism but I don't care about which ism, only about the merits of public policies. Thank You.
You really should read Democracy at Work. The answer is yes, I think mandatory employee ownership of a company is a good start, and yes, there should be profit-sharing. I think those things are good public policy, because those who live or work in a place generally don't want to ruin it.
I think it started about 20 years ago, but I am not sure about the current status. TSMC profit-sharing 20% to employees (managers included). I think Taiwan's government also required a certain percentage of employee salaries must be paid in company stock. I am not sure if the requirement was universal or only to the high tech industry. Assuming TSMC still maintains this practise, this would be one fundamental reason why American semicon companies cannot reproduce TSMC success stories. Of course there are other factors.
Just to respond to your edit, the fundamental point of disagreement between us is that you believe the virus was released accidentally whereas I believe it was released deliberately to get rid of Trump.
Exactly. I don't think either one of us will ever be able to prove the other wrong. Unless the Chinese have a revolution and the records are released, anyway.
I do not disagree with your analysis of the political economy of this situation. For instance, in the 1930s, Kalecki wrote clearly about the deliberate manipulation of unemployment by capitalists to reduce the wage-bargaining power of workers. However, I'm disappointed by the lack of compassion for the desperate working class migrants being used by neoliberal elites as a weapon against the US working class. The finger of blame in both articles, the original one and yours, is clearly pointed at the working class migrants. Without class solidarity across borders - economic social and psychological - you risk falling into the divide and conquer trap of the capitalists. The elites want the working class fighting each other so they forget who the real oppressors are and don't cooperate to resist the elites.
As a 70's NE mill worker I've experienced the divide, relocate, conquer, strategy of US industry that in my mind turned me into a modern day Tom Joad as I followed the work South. Leaving the Rust Belt in its wake.
In short order with help from NAFTA they settled along the US-Mexico border, then various Asian locations. I used to believe the final move would be to Africa, but that's a bridge too far I believe, just in time for A.I.
“Paleomarxists are primarily interested in who holds power over whom in any society, how they got that power, and how they try to keep it.”
Boy that’s not what I got from reading Marx. What I got is that he considered himself to be an economist looking at “the contradictions of capitalism,” like how commodification leads to falling profits that will eventually undermine the capitalists ability to buy the next generation of machine tools.
I think individual owner-operators would thrive. They're the ones doing the productive work; they should get to reap the rewards of their own labor.
I don't have any imagined utopia. I think guilds could have a place if that's how people want to train the next generation of workers. Guilds, like any other human organization, have their issues, but they have their advantages as well. I can't think of any good reason why not.
The paleo-diet and paleo-marxism--both get down to the "nuts" (and bolts) of things?
This sentence expresses a Libertarian position, IMO: "That’s up to democracy—majority rule in each community."
What if the "majority" wants slavery? What if the "majority" are okay with having sex with seven year old boys and girls? That's where having no definitive rules of what constitutes human rights could lead a "democracy." What is the "majority" think that a certain ethnic group is "subhuman" and should be ethnically cleanse? I couldn't live in a community full of slave-owners and pedophiles who commit genocide... It wouldn't just. It wouldn't be safe.
There would have to be some definite rules, but they have to be rules agreed on by most or they will never last long and probably shouldn't. The old Bill of Rights is a good start.
I don't think Americans would bring back slavery, most human beings abhor pedophilia and I can't imagine a democratic society that would sanction it. However, I will take my chances on democracy over some permanent authoritarian structure every time.
I have no problem with a Bill of Rights. In fact, I would insist upon it. I honor that tradition of a charter between governing and governed that goes back to the Magna Carta. The First Amendment is its crowing accomplishment as far as I'm concerned.
I'm sure the answers vary. Do you mean the position of someone like Russell Means of AIM, who used this as rationale to support the CIA attacks on the Sandanistas?
I think you have it right when you say you're fundamentally an anarchist. That's your prerogative, but you can't conflate that with Marxism. There's a reason that Marx and Bakunin found each other incompatible.
That's an astute point. I have been becoming more of an anarchist over the years. My sympathies are entirely with the Kronstadt Sailors, for example, not Trotsky.
The thing is, they were betrayed. The foot soldiers of the Revolution trusted the Bolsheviks to take care of their families, and they didn't.
That doesn't mean I can't use Marx's theoretical tools, and it doesn't make me a capitalist, or worse, a liberal. I also remember how much Marx wanted all human beings to have a chance at having dignity and being fulfilled by how they lived, and of how they should have the right to choose how they will do that.
Marx was not authoritarian. The Bolsheviks were. There's the difference.
Well, Marx’s theoretical tools are based on dialectics which rejects an abstract “authoritarianism” or “anti-authoritarianism” without reference to the class relation. I recommend reading “On Authority” by Engels in regard to this.
I used to be an anarchist, but when I looked closely at the history of it, I changed my mind. Here is a polemical, but I think largely informed, video looking at anarchism in the Spanish Civil War -
But life prefers central authority. Evolution from single cells to animals is the process of centralization. Your cortex is a tyrant of cells. Also some threats are too immediate to debate. Even the body autonomically responds to things without even cortex input, that's a different kind of tyranny.
Also, genius is always by definition in the minority, because there is only ever one best answer. There may be close contenders but there's never a pure tie outside abstractions built to produce them. Trusting the group to run a popularity contest to indirectly find the best answer emergently is a big gamble. Correctness and popularity are not always correlated.
Also, someone is always more in charge than others. They can become experts in influence. Charisma trumps argument. I don't think democracy can actually exist. Every example is instantly corrupted.
We've had thousands of years to get it right and no society ever has. At minimum these societies failed in the militarist sense. They angered adjacent societies, failed to neutralize them be any means. Proof is in the pudding. And we no longer have time. The AI is coming in less than 9 years.
I'm just off put. Work isn't the point of life, and this stuff comes dangerously close to deifying work. This is so easy to twist. /points at "democrats"
We need to shake off the trillion dollar banking tick before we start talking about social reform for the people that control 3% of the wealth. Them not working isn't what bothers me, people should be allowed to say no to work, otherwise it's not voluntary. Them having stealth control of the entire economy and 97% of all wealth is what bothers me.
Them being "lazy" or even "parasites" isn't the issue. And glorifying work misses the point and creates an exploit, also, as I said, it's fundamentally dishonest. There's no such thing as a fair vote, ever. I dominated every group assignment I've ever been in, without even trying. And I never carried my group to disaster. /shrugs
The difference with central authority in life and the animal kingdom, is that it always works with preservation of life in mind. Nothing just wants to control for the sake of control, the authority is the one who can come up with the best possible response to any given situation. The leader of the pack can demonstrably keep the tribe safe and functional, it's not just any prick with good connections or “noble lineage” but zero brains, who leads the tribe to ruin for his own ambitions. Only humans do that, and they're an aberration.
Everything we’re doing is wrong, excluding art of course, and the proof is everywhere outside and inside us. See cancer, our bodies screaming “I can't take this shit anymore!”
I hope the survivors learn from our mistakes, and what's worth preserving is allowed to flourish again.
For we, the children of “The Enlightenment”, are done, and no amount of yoga and positive thinking can change the trajectory. We’ve arrived at the point where the tree is so overcome by bugs that only a drastic chopping down can save it.
Meh. I kinda hear you but that's a literally pure survivor bias. You only say that IOW because all the counter-examples are dead. There are PLENTY of forms of life that amount to industrialized automatic torture far more cruel than anything humans have incidentally invented, though we do take the crown for pain intentionally caused.
Every animal leader is ultimately a failure for not being on the exit Sol pathway. Life itself has had billions of years, it's not going anywhere unless we carry it. They are all doomed when the sun runs out of hydrogen.
We have to do better to last longer.
I agree with you completely in spirit except for the arbitrary faith in nature. Actual nature has screwworms so fuck that bitch entirely. VERY little of this biosphere is worth taking with us when we leave imo. I usually have images I attach to this claim, see my restack of this reply.
I don't disagree with any of this, my only point is that everything serves a purpose in nature no matter how ugly or callous it seems to us. Maybe our stupidity serves a purpose too, that we don't know yet. Maybe as George Carlin said, nature needed plastic that's why it made us. I find beauty and poetry even in the images you attached. But that's me 🤷🏻♀️
“VERY little of this biosphere is worth taking with us when we leave imo.”
So would you rather live in a simulacra, as a partially human, partially AI, partially machine cyborg? Rejecting the logos of nature only gets you so far IMO.
I’m definitely no fan of “nature.” If mayfly living is all we can hope for I’d consider it morally urgent to annihilate all feeling life. If the hydrogen cloud can’t do anything on balance but suffer then it needs a bullet. But I know we can do better. It’s almost comically simple. Pain bad, joy good. The lesson of our nerves could not be more clear.
Food for thought indeed, thanks!
just call it what it is: economism. Rejected by most actual marxists for good reason.
Economism is the belief that politics and other things are driven by economic factors, so yes, in that sense I can be lumped into that category, but so can every other Marxist. Marxism, paleo or otherwise, has nothing to do with identity politics or any other idealistic claptrap.
The problem is that economism doesn't have a realistic theory of change. Socialism will require the expropriation of the capitalist class, which is going to have to be carried out by some authority or another. Not all authoritarianisms are equally bad, in fact, some can be good.
Well my understanding is Marx thought capitalism would collapse mechanically from internal contradictions. Clearly that hasn’t happened, which is one reason I am not Marxist despite sharing in my case a moral critique of capitalism. Though my end game isn’t collectivism it’s something that retains more individual autonomy like mutualism, distributism, revival of craft guilds, home manufacturing with CNC machines, etc. A lot of the problems with capitalism are IMO from the financial end of banks creating a bottleneck in access to capital and not so much the market which is what the left excessively focuses on. IMO there isn’t a huge difference between a wage slave for a capitalist boss, and answering to the dictates of some collective. Either option makes you a unit in a social machine, that strips your productive activities of initiative and creativity.
On the first part that communism is supposed to come organically: Yeah, if you truly think Marxism stopped at Marx himself. This is why people such as myself identify as M-L, Marxist-Leninists. Marx was the beginning, not the totality. And it is really Lenin that Ohio Barbarian is rejecting, I'd say. which, fine.
On the second part that "there isn't a huge difference..." That's wrong because when you contribute to collective life, collective life gives you back your free time. My favorite example is Viktor Tsoi, the front man of the red wave band Kino -- massive rock star at the time, and throughout his entire career, he shoveled coal into the boiler at his apartment complex. Because he chose to do so, rather than become a 'professional' musician on the Soviet payroll as such, he had complete artistic freedom over his music -- and he used it. When we take the hours out of our day to do grounding work that contributes to the collective wellbeing, we will be given time and spiritual energy back to pursue our own individual crafts. Or, alternatively, we can choose to make our crafts be the contribution to the collective (ie had Kino become an actual ministry of culture band), but in that case we just have to make sure our craft actually contributes to the wellbeing of the collective rather than just an expression of ourselves as individuals.
This assumes people who play well with others but many geniuses are unique thinkers who chaffe under top down direction whether from a capitalist or socialist boss. One thing I can say for capitalism is at least there is an escape though being an owner operator. In Communism there is no escape you always have to defer to the decision of the collective. I’d probably literally shoot myself under those conditions. I am the sort of guy who likes to laser cut his own designs at 3 am when it’s quiet by myself. Those sorts of conditions of production can only happen under self employment, not collectivism.
Also the music scene in the USSR was terrible for creativity Shostakovich for example was broken by the system and prohibited from composing experimental atonal music because it didn’t meet the propaganda needs of the Soviet State.
we can agree to disagree with everything except this point: Soviet music scene was amazing, and Shostakovich's atonal modernist music wasn't remotely his best stuff; in fact one of his best works was Symphony #5 which was explicitly in support of the Soviet war effort against the Nazis.
How about fuck the collective which is just lowest common denominator humanity devoid of greatness.
the "lowest" common denominator is food, water, shelter, healthcare and education. Once everyone has that, I'll be happy to support your individualism. Not till then.
Ah. The classic Marxist-Leninist response. Thanks. I'm glad somebody said it.
Yes, there has to be some organizing force, often referred to as the vanguard of the revolution.
My problem with that is how to get THOSE people out if and when they decide to keep all of the authority for themselves for their entire lifetimes. Thus far, that has been a bit of a problem with historic socialist revolutions.
I have no perfect solution to that. I'm not sure one exists. I just want to make sure the people have some sort of a check on that kind of authority. I admit that I don't have an answer other than Franklin's "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
Excellent subject and opinions. I wonder what would be your views about (1) mandatory employee ownership of a portion of) the company (2) Mandatory profit sharing of gross or net profit to the employees. Yes this is not true capitalism but I don't care about which ism, only about the merits of public policies. Thank You.
You really should read Democracy at Work. The answer is yes, I think mandatory employee ownership of a company is a good start, and yes, there should be profit-sharing. I think those things are good public policy, because those who live or work in a place generally don't want to ruin it.
I think it started about 20 years ago, but I am not sure about the current status. TSMC profit-sharing 20% to employees (managers included). I think Taiwan's government also required a certain percentage of employee salaries must be paid in company stock. I am not sure if the requirement was universal or only to the high tech industry. Assuming TSMC still maintains this practise, this would be one fundamental reason why American semicon companies cannot reproduce TSMC success stories. Of course there are other factors.
Fascinating. Thanks, I should look into that.
Hallelujah!!! A kindred spirit!!!
We are legion.
Thank you for the nod, OB. Much appreciated. 👍🏻
Good way of distinguishing yourself from the depraved, evil woke communists.
Lol, you still don’t know what that word means even after an actual Marxist here has befriended you and explained it clearly, lulz.
There is an interesting conversation here.
Dave I didn’t expect to see you here. Expanding your horizons? :-)
🤷♂️
Just to respond to your edit, the fundamental point of disagreement between us is that you believe the virus was released accidentally whereas I believe it was released deliberately to get rid of Trump.
Exactly. I don't think either one of us will ever be able to prove the other wrong. Unless the Chinese have a revolution and the records are released, anyway.
Give them about 70 years. :)
I do not disagree with your analysis of the political economy of this situation. For instance, in the 1930s, Kalecki wrote clearly about the deliberate manipulation of unemployment by capitalists to reduce the wage-bargaining power of workers. However, I'm disappointed by the lack of compassion for the desperate working class migrants being used by neoliberal elites as a weapon against the US working class. The finger of blame in both articles, the original one and yours, is clearly pointed at the working class migrants. Without class solidarity across borders - economic social and psychological - you risk falling into the divide and conquer trap of the capitalists. The elites want the working class fighting each other so they forget who the real oppressors are and don't cooperate to resist the elites.
As a 70's NE mill worker I've experienced the divide, relocate, conquer, strategy of US industry that in my mind turned me into a modern day Tom Joad as I followed the work South. Leaving the Rust Belt in its wake.
In short order with help from NAFTA they settled along the US-Mexico border, then various Asian locations. I used to believe the final move would be to Africa, but that's a bridge too far I believe, just in time for A.I.
Take care.
I fail to see how I demonstrated a lack of compassion by failing to mention migrants. If you mean Morgthorak, well, you need to ask him about that.
I know they're here because the US Empire wrecked their countries, then use them to keep domestic wages down and to divide the working class.
Richard D. Wolff
not
Richard J. Wolff
“Paleomarxists are primarily interested in who holds power over whom in any society, how they got that power, and how they try to keep it.”
Boy that’s not what I got from reading Marx. What I got is that he considered himself to be an economist looking at “the contradictions of capitalism,” like how commodification leads to falling profits that will eventually undermine the capitalists ability to buy the next generation of machine tools.
Am I wrong?
You're not wrong. Most of his stuff is focused only on capitalism, but not all of it. Engels has more to say on the subject.
That particular point about paleomarxism is my own, and is strongly influenced by my background in history.
Where do individual owner operators without wage salves stand in your paleo variant of Marxism? How about guild style of productive organization?
I think individual owner-operators would thrive. They're the ones doing the productive work; they should get to reap the rewards of their own labor.
I don't have any imagined utopia. I think guilds could have a place if that's how people want to train the next generation of workers. Guilds, like any other human organization, have their issues, but they have their advantages as well. I can't think of any good reason why not.
The paleo-diet and paleo-marxism--both get down to the "nuts" (and bolts) of things?
This sentence expresses a Libertarian position, IMO: "That’s up to democracy—majority rule in each community."
What if the "majority" wants slavery? What if the "majority" are okay with having sex with seven year old boys and girls? That's where having no definitive rules of what constitutes human rights could lead a "democracy." What is the "majority" think that a certain ethnic group is "subhuman" and should be ethnically cleanse? I couldn't live in a community full of slave-owners and pedophiles who commit genocide... It wouldn't just. It wouldn't be safe.
There would have to be some definite rules, but they have to be rules agreed on by most or they will never last long and probably shouldn't. The old Bill of Rights is a good start.
I don't think Americans would bring back slavery, most human beings abhor pedophilia and I can't imagine a democratic society that would sanction it. However, I will take my chances on democracy over some permanent authoritarian structure every time.
But democracy must have a structure such as a Bill of Righs--it's like a house without a sturdy foundation if it doesn't. It won't stand for long.
I have no problem with a Bill of Rights. In fact, I would insist upon it. I honor that tradition of a charter between governing and governed that goes back to the Magna Carta. The First Amendment is its crowing accomplishment as far as I'm concerned.
How can you be simultaneously anti-imperialist and anti-Leninist?
Ask a Native American. I'm sure they'll have an answer for you.
I'm sure the answers vary. Do you mean the position of someone like Russell Means of AIM, who used this as rationale to support the CIA attacks on the Sandanistas?
https://nacla.org/indigenous-miskitu-migrants-are-fleeing-their-lives
Oh, great galloping flatulating gods. I got a CIA file for opposing the contras after the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua, so of course not.
I suppose you can also ask a Zulu, or a Maori, or an Arab, for that matter.
It seems like most South Africans regard Zulus as collaborators with imperialism -
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66308185
I think you have it right when you say you're fundamentally an anarchist. That's your prerogative, but you can't conflate that with Marxism. There's a reason that Marx and Bakunin found each other incompatible.
That's an astute point. I have been becoming more of an anarchist over the years. My sympathies are entirely with the Kronstadt Sailors, for example, not Trotsky.
The thing is, they were betrayed. The foot soldiers of the Revolution trusted the Bolsheviks to take care of their families, and they didn't.
That doesn't mean I can't use Marx's theoretical tools, and it doesn't make me a capitalist, or worse, a liberal. I also remember how much Marx wanted all human beings to have a chance at having dignity and being fulfilled by how they lived, and of how they should have the right to choose how they will do that.
Marx was not authoritarian. The Bolsheviks were. There's the difference.
Well, Marx’s theoretical tools are based on dialectics which rejects an abstract “authoritarianism” or “anti-authoritarianism” without reference to the class relation. I recommend reading “On Authority” by Engels in regard to this.
I used to be an anarchist, but when I looked closely at the history of it, I changed my mind. Here is a polemical, but I think largely informed, video looking at anarchism in the Spanish Civil War -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ufTFRGPrCM
Idiocy. Read Imperium, Francis Parker Yockey 1948
But life prefers central authority. Evolution from single cells to animals is the process of centralization. Your cortex is a tyrant of cells. Also some threats are too immediate to debate. Even the body autonomically responds to things without even cortex input, that's a different kind of tyranny.
Also, genius is always by definition in the minority, because there is only ever one best answer. There may be close contenders but there's never a pure tie outside abstractions built to produce them. Trusting the group to run a popularity contest to indirectly find the best answer emergently is a big gamble. Correctness and popularity are not always correlated.
Also, someone is always more in charge than others. They can become experts in influence. Charisma trumps argument. I don't think democracy can actually exist. Every example is instantly corrupted.
We've had thousands of years to get it right and no society ever has. At minimum these societies failed in the militarist sense. They angered adjacent societies, failed to neutralize them be any means. Proof is in the pudding. And we no longer have time. The AI is coming in less than 9 years.
I'm just off put. Work isn't the point of life, and this stuff comes dangerously close to deifying work. This is so easy to twist. /points at "democrats"
We need to shake off the trillion dollar banking tick before we start talking about social reform for the people that control 3% of the wealth. Them not working isn't what bothers me, people should be allowed to say no to work, otherwise it's not voluntary. Them having stealth control of the entire economy and 97% of all wealth is what bothers me.
Them being "lazy" or even "parasites" isn't the issue. And glorifying work misses the point and creates an exploit, also, as I said, it's fundamentally dishonest. There's no such thing as a fair vote, ever. I dominated every group assignment I've ever been in, without even trying. And I never carried my group to disaster. /shrugs
You’re ready for the Magenta Pill.
Subscribe to my substack.
I do believe I will, but I ask you to tell me if you agree with this so we can save some time. https://innomen.substack.com/p/in-the-beginning
It’s my axiomatic ground floor, and if you start from a conflicting premise then I know we won’t mesh.
It aligns with my own views, although I don’t have a worldview which flows from premises independent of the Nicene Creed.
The difference with central authority in life and the animal kingdom, is that it always works with preservation of life in mind. Nothing just wants to control for the sake of control, the authority is the one who can come up with the best possible response to any given situation. The leader of the pack can demonstrably keep the tribe safe and functional, it's not just any prick with good connections or “noble lineage” but zero brains, who leads the tribe to ruin for his own ambitions. Only humans do that, and they're an aberration.
Everything we’re doing is wrong, excluding art of course, and the proof is everywhere outside and inside us. See cancer, our bodies screaming “I can't take this shit anymore!”
I hope the survivors learn from our mistakes, and what's worth preserving is allowed to flourish again.
For we, the children of “The Enlightenment”, are done, and no amount of yoga and positive thinking can change the trajectory. We’ve arrived at the point where the tree is so overcome by bugs that only a drastic chopping down can save it.
I trust in Mother Earth, the constant gardener.
Meh. I kinda hear you but that's a literally pure survivor bias. You only say that IOW because all the counter-examples are dead. There are PLENTY of forms of life that amount to industrialized automatic torture far more cruel than anything humans have incidentally invented, though we do take the crown for pain intentionally caused.
Every animal leader is ultimately a failure for not being on the exit Sol pathway. Life itself has had billions of years, it's not going anywhere unless we carry it. They are all doomed when the sun runs out of hydrogen.
We have to do better to last longer.
I agree with you completely in spirit except for the arbitrary faith in nature. Actual nature has screwworms so fuck that bitch entirely. VERY little of this biosphere is worth taking with us when we leave imo. I usually have images I attach to this claim, see my restack of this reply.
I don't disagree with any of this, my only point is that everything serves a purpose in nature no matter how ugly or callous it seems to us. Maybe our stupidity serves a purpose too, that we don't know yet. Maybe as George Carlin said, nature needed plastic that's why it made us. I find beauty and poetry even in the images you attached. But that's me 🤷🏻♀️
“VERY little of this biosphere is worth taking with us when we leave imo.”
So would you rather live in a simulacra, as a partially human, partially AI, partially machine cyborg? Rejecting the logos of nature only gets you so far IMO.
I would rather have a completely different reward loop, one to quote David Pearce is animated by gradients of bliss. See also: https://substack.com/@innomen/note/c-78042680
I’m definitely no fan of “nature.” If mayfly living is all we can hope for I’d consider it morally urgent to annihilate all feeling life. If the hydrogen cloud can’t do anything on balance but suffer then it needs a bullet. But I know we can do better. It’s almost comically simple. Pain bad, joy good. The lesson of our nerves could not be more clear.
the greatest living paleomarxist philosopher and economist we have, even if he’s never used the term himself, an American named Richard J. Wolff
Rick was the colleague who encouraged me to publish my essay on corporate persons and human commodities
https://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/corporateperson.html