More This Changes Nothing

COP 25 is behind us and the only positive outcome was Greta got lots of sailing experience. Which may come in handy. The Student Strikes, the Extinction Rebellions, the rallies and protests all run aground on nationalist self-interest. No nation-state is willing to threaten its economic stability, and hence elite supremacy, by slowing GDP growth. All the negotiations and vague commitments are theatre, a show that didn’t compete with The Impeachment, much less the NFL, in terms of ratings.
Remember how the big hope was an amorphous resistance known as “Blockadia”? This movement “from below” was to be led by indigenous and other “front line” peoples, but since the movement limped away from Standing Rock, a vague miasma has replaced militancy. Perhaps young students can save us while we stay busy at work. Extinction Rebellion inspired some disobedience but floundered on the shoals of Brexit. A court case? A green new deal? Bernie?
The DSA left puts its hope in “the working classes” but this nebulous bloc can’t wrap its collective head around the rupture which would be required to save us. It is a hyper-object, too far outside our everyday experience to even imagine. Even Jeremy Corbyn’s talk of a mild disruption was too much mix up. Told they can have free education, the proles protest, demanding to pay something. They hate the rich but they all want to be rich. Instead of taking advantage of crisis, workers want to play it safe, stall for time. They understand intuitively as they drive the freeways and see the tent camps and the shopping cart people that bad as it is, it can get way worse. Just as a surplus of unemployed teaches workers to accept the shit wage and lack of benefits, a surplus army of humans huddled beneath the underpass teaches them to stay quiet, do some oxy, wear a MAGA hat. To appreciate their “little pink house”.
The dominant message is that we must come together as a Nation, set aside our internal differences and unite against the Other. Protect our National Interests. Energy independence. Circle the wagons on our island, enjoy the Super Bowl and let them fight it out for the scraps. But the morning after, we wake to find the Rupture is still there, the spectre, the ticking clock. You want to believe Bill McKibben when he says 2020 is the year things change, you try to believe the candidates, let their optimism wash over you. But you have been paying too much attention.
Dan La Botz writes that we must:
“recognize that the working class is not yet prepared to act on its own. We will continue organizing and fighting for our politics in the labor and social movements, while waiting for the event that will trigger the eruption of the mass movement without which our politics have no vehicle.”
He gets the concept of rupture but places to much emphasis on a class which has no sense of belonging, is not a class “for itself”. These everyday folks intuit that there will be no “just transition” without bloodshed and they aren’t quite ready to give up the few small comforts they have finally earned just to grab a pitchfork and get their head’s bashed. Not yet, anyway.

Revenge of the Deplorables

Dark times for social justice. The Tories just answered the social democratic proposition with a landslide No Thanks, and so Britain will soon be Great again, joining a host of countries moving to the Nationalist far Right. Start with our own USA, Hindu nationalist India, Brazil, the Philippines, Israel, Turkey, Poland, Hungary, recently Ecuador...I'm sure others could grow this list. And while they are each specific and particular, there are universal trends as well; the first is a fierce anti-intellectualism which feeds on resentment and embraces xenophobic reaction.

I watched some of a recent Trump rally where he told the crowd: "You are the real elites." That is a lot to unpack but basically you have a mix of what Leftists still want to call "the working classes", Trump's hardcore base, who get their energy from having been called "deplorables" by Hillary Clinton. In the symbolic register, Hillary stands for every superior, smarty pants, over-educated snob who ever looked down their nose at these knuckleheads. The slight could have been real or perceived but the resentment is real. Where I live people paste "Proud Deplorable" on their sixty thousand dollar F350 pickups and it is that pride and resentment that Trump is a master at manipulating.These are people who keep their gun next to their Bible and porn, who think Sharia Law is about to be imposed on the US, who still don't believe Obama was born in the US. They couldn't find Pakistan on a map nor would that bother them in the least.

Now Hillary caught hell from all the enlightened progressives for using the term but the fact is, lots of these folks have deplorable politics. There is lots about the culture they identify with which is deplorable. Lots of their attitudes are deplorable and yet Trump has allowed them to not necessarily stop feeling ignorant, but to embrace and flaunt and celebrate ignorance as a virtue. Their chauvinism and xenophobia and prejudice are transfigured into nationalist zeal. This, I would argue, is the unifying ideology of the growing global move to the post-modern Right. A billionaire NY real estate con man clown telling rubes they are the elite. They laugh and clap at the stand-up because they can tell how much Trump enjoys it and they want to please the amazing phallus Father. Terry Eagleton writes: "The aim of advanced capitalism is to preserve inequality while abolishing hierarchy."

Our own Bernie faces the same dark, irrational forces. Offering a program of emancipation and liberation The People grow increasingly nervous. Wouldn't it be scary to be free? Wouldn't that mean we would have to pay attention? Wouldn't that mean we would be responsible for determining our own destiny? Where's daddy?

Touching the Federal Reserve Nerve

In a rather desperate attempt to appear relevant, the Federal Reserve just published a report on the threats climate change presents to the economy. It provides insight into a mindset thoroughly colonized by capitalist ideology. One can only imagine the amount of time and money a group of elite experts put into their research in order to come up with this statement:

"The growing number of studies and emerging innovations in climate resilience and adaptation financing"- ok, stop right there, nine years to avoid runaway, self reinforcing feedback loops, 402 ppm atmospheric co2 concentration, emissions steadily increasing and they are now getting around to studying adaptation "financing"? - "is setting the stage for developing a comprehensive system"- stop again and consider; at this moment of crisis they are "studying financing" which will someday "set the stage" for later "developing a system"; in other words they have barely started thinking about it- "a set of standardized products, services, practices and tools- that is able to overcome key barriers and to take advantage of opportunities posed by climate change."

So. As soon as they study financing mechanisms some capitalist will come up with "standardized" bullshit to overcome the threat climate chaos poses to profit accumulation. This catastrophe is an "opportunity" if you only look at it through a pathological lens.

Melting arctic and sea level rise? No worries: "At some point in the next 20 to 30 years" says one of the reports expert authors (CEO of Realty Capital Corp.), "there may be a threat to the availability of the 30 year mortgage in various vulnerable and highly exposed areas." This is how insanely out of touch elites are. To ward off any socialist Green New Deal tendencies one editor, a Harvard faculty member stresses: "the private sector must assume a greater role in preparing for the effects of climate change. The private sector has always adapted. One either adapts to new markets, products or services, or they go out of business."

But what happens when the ecosystem "goes out of business"? There is simply no way for these kinds of people to understand the implications or as David Byrne wrote: "As things fell apart nobody paid much attention."

Prairie Propaganda

Driving across the great corn belt of America- eastern South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa- I decided to tune into some local radio. I found a station that was listing the recent funerals, birthdays and anniversaries for the region of small towns and isolated farm families scattered along the rolling, black dirt country. They mentioned all the surviving family members. There were only three birthdays and one silver anniversary. Really local radio.

Then it was time to reinforce ideological narratives so we heard from the "Farm Report" on the danger of foreign agricultural subsidies. How competitor countries prop up their farm economy giving them an unfair advantage, but maybe more importantly, hurting capitalism by not letting the weak fall by the wayside and letting the superior producers thrive through the miracle of the marketplace. Of course the "Farm Report" never mentioned the massive subsidies US agriculture has always received. There was also considerable irony in the fact I was driving through miles and miles of flooded farm land whose owners received billions in federal emergency aid.

Then came the ads for Round-up Ready herbicide, the modern "system" of weed control for industrial ag production. No mention of all those toxic chemicals being washed off the flooded fields out to the ocean where they create massive "dead-zones". Then came the "report" on how ethanol was making America energy independent and how the farmer selflessly fed America and on and on in this continuous ad for American capitalism. I wondered: who exactly produced all this propaganda? Who pays for it?

I stopped for breakfast at a diner in Iowa where I got to sit in front of the ubiquitous television tuned to FOX "news". Hannity had a panel of "experts" talking about the threat to our freedom and way of life posed by the radical leftists. Large farmers in over-alls and camo hats sat sipping coffee and joking with the large waitresses. Like their fields, they are thoroughly inundated with conservative messaging through a concerted, coordinated corporate propaganda program. pretty impressive if you think about it.

Not Soon Enough

In an essay titled The End of Capitalism is Already Starting, Eillie Anzilotti optimistically agrees with Marxist economist Richard Wolff that the growth in cooperative workplaces signals a threat to capitalism's hegemony. I wish I could agree. Even if the number of cooperatives was significant ( which the article admits it really isn't) this trend is a reform which Capital can absorb without any loss of legitimacy. Plus the fact, by the time this loss of accumulation/ political power/ ideological reproduction that coops represent becomes a serious problem, the climate emergency will have thrown the system into crisis which coops can't escape..

Neither climate nor ecological breakdown is mentioned in the piece at all. Wolff places all his emphasis on " the smaller waves and shifts in the way things are done that signal true change." I couldn't disagree more. Capital is incredibly adaptive and fluid and it is only major ruptures or upheaval that threaten its continuity.Ecological breakdown- its early manifestations such as we are witnessing- and the threat of runaway feedback loops- is that rupture. The metabolic rift is the contradiction capital cannot overcome. Why would Wolff ignore it?

A cooperatively organized enterprise still has to compete in a global market. It can appeal to a niche consumer who values the ethic but that is a luxury. Poor people buy the cheap shit (I am and I do). Wolff and the DSA and Jacobin and socialists in general are looking to a re-vitalized workers movement to challenge capital. I wouldn't hold my breath...

I'm Sorry

I can't help it, I love Trump. He is the most unbelievable combination of Dr. Strangelove and Rodney Dangerfield in Caddy Shack and the performance is something historians will puzzle over for decades ( about all we have left, unfortunately, otherwise they would puzzle for centuries).

He comes to Bushwood Country Club honking his horn and flashing his wad in the most crass, unflinching, un-reflexive style humanly possible, like every great comic letting you feel like you are special in being let in on the joke. While obliterating the "elite", those who look down on you and condescend to you. Bill Maher is a poser when it comes to high-level political un-correctness.

He has also mastered a coded language so powerful in its ability to select between those who "get it" ( your in group) and those at whom it is aimed (elites). Speaking to a group of young black supporters from the conservative group Turning Point, he goes "off script" and says, referring to their female leader: "“I’m not allowed to say it any more, but she’s also beautiful,” Trump said, arms outstretched, palms open, as the room erupted in laughter. “It’s true. Under the MeToo generation we’re not allowed to say it. So all of you young brilliant guys, never, ever call a woman beautiful, please.

“You’re not allowed to do it and I’ve kept doing it and I’ve never been told by that woman never to do it.”

This is code for: snowflakes get all bent over a little pussy grabbing but we know women like it. It's what we guys learned to laugh along with in the locker room if we didn't want to get singled out. This is what Dangerfield's stand up was all about. The young blacks know if they grin along they may get introduced to Kanye West or other black entrepreneurs and they can network and make connections like they learned to do in the capitalist "Locker room".

Greta Rocks the USA

In celebrity culture, you can be sitting on some steps with a sign one minute and interviewed by Trevor Noah the next. 16 year old climate activist Greta Thunberg has been propelled to fame due to timing, a quirky style and the system's need for a symbolic spokesperson. One hopes it is not a debilitating role for the well-spoken, but rather innocent teenager. Landing in New York a few days ago, she has already done an event with Naomi Klein for Intercept, been on Democracy Now, PBS News Hour and the Daily Show ( a pathetic, condescending interview, the epitome of liberal smugness)

Jealous radicals such as myself see someone suddenly offered that big a megaphone and think; what an opportunity to blow some minds! But "disrupt the system" is about the most radical language she has used. Bill Mc Kibben couldn't help but twist this into "disrupt business as usual" because the last thing he wants to explain is system change and what it might look like. His concern seems to be for "reduced human work capacity", so you can see who he tailors his message for. It is doubtful Greta has read any Marx either,and her critique also stops short of Capital and accumulation. So once again the climate movement is left lurching between narratives. Messaging by the youth is just as disparate and fragmented as messaging by adults. So it goes.

The result can be seen in polls such as this one by WA PO and Kaiser Foundation: 40% of Americans believe climate change is a crisis but only 37% believe they will have to make major sacrifices to reduce its effects. In other words, like most crises, it won't affect us because we are Americans, we are insulated, our way of life is not negotiable. Greta herself has perceptively observed this "cognitive dissonance" ( her words) but has not yet linked it to the dissonance between exchange value and use value, or the rift between profit and nature. After all, she is a sixteen year old with Aspergers suddenly thrust into the global spotlight.

Why Liberals Love to Hate Exxon

Now that people are beginning to understand that climate change is real, they are looking for a convenient culprit to blame. 350.0rg is especially zealous in blaming Exxon-Mobile for the crisis; after all, goes the narrative, "they knew the science" and hid it from us.

Of course, anyone paying attention has known the science for three decades now, and scientists have known the science since 1896. James Hansen testified before Congress in 1988. But this narrative that the evil corporation hid the truth from us so they could reap huge profits serves a number of purposes.First, it deflects any blame or attention from being placed on the economic system in which we are all embedded, and to varying degrees, complicit. The blame falls on a cabal of individuals.

None of this is to say Exxon shouldn't be punished and expropriated and re-tooled into something beneficial. Richard Smith thinks they should be bought out in order to avoid a class war we can't win. Maybe.

Do Over?

During a conversation about ecological destruction with my fishing client the other day, he concluded by opining that maybe it would be best if humans were wiped out and a new hominid could someday take our place. I have heard this type of half-serious, fatalistic bullshit many times in the past. My client was a reasonably liberal, thoughtful person, but for him, like so many, it is easier to imagine the end of humanity than it is to imagine the end of the current ruling order. Like so many, he believes there is something inherently destructive about our species. Except for him and his daughter and his grand kids of course.

Again, this millenialist view is really just an easy way to avoid thinking about structural causes of the crisis or actually having to do something besides change light bulbs and recycle. Returning as a more enlightened species a few million years from now is not really a plan. And people who casually throw it out as an option are not considering the suffering and degradation our grandchildren get to experience because we found it easier to give up. Fuck that noise. Kill yourself if you want to but in any case, get out of the way if you can't lend a hand.

This Is What....?

Democracy looks like? Saw Cornell West speak the other night, a true orator that can captivate a crowd. But his analysis is built on a liberal understanding of "democracy", a foundational principle upon which progress is to be built. But it requires a disavowal of certain contradictions, that is, it is an empty signifier needing qualification. Capitalist democracy doesn't have the same aspirations as direct democracy and the distinction is critical within liberal discourse. This is why the "pro-democracy" protests in Hong Kong are problematic.

On the climate front, we see the electricians union fighting renewable energy in California and the Navajos buying coal mines in Montana. 350.org is trying to support the climate strikers; here is how they pitch it in emails to supporters: "That’s why we need everyone to come together this September and demand big, structural change."

Devil in the Details

As we are discovering with our local climate strike action, coming up with a set of demands is a challenge. Do you go reasonable, maybe a few reforms a local authority could enact? Or do you demand the impossible: ie. we need an end to economic growth. It is difficult to convey the enormity of the crisis when calling for a retro-fit here and an electric bus there. We need people to grasp the fact that not only do we need to drastically curtail emissions ( while building a new infrastructure)but we need to bring current concentrations of CO2 down quickly. Had we started 20 years ago, when ppm were at 380, it would have been a monumental challenge. But starting now? That's why Trump skipped the climate meeting at the G7; Bush 1 stated our position very +clearly ("the American way of life is not negotiable") and there is nothing more to be said. It took two centuries of pillage and plunder, of invasion and expropriation, and we sure as fuck aren't about to start handing it back as "climate debt".

You could just say "do whatever it takes to get to 1.5" or "do whatever it takes to get to net 0 emissions by 2050" or "do whatever it takes to stay within our carbon budget". But then you get to those tricky details: including nuclear? including carbon sequestration? including biofuels? et... This is the real battleground, the site where "green capitalism" tries to step up and offer win-win solutions. By questioning any of these high-tec fixes you are accused of "forming a circular firing squad", causing disunity and unwelcome strife.

If you want to start with generalities the DSA Green New Deal Principles do a good job: Decarbonize fully by 2030, Democratize control over major energy systems and resources, decommodify survival, and redistribute resources from the worst polluters

Then you can start to work in the details: reduce CO2 by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 ( also need methane and sulfur dioxide reductions) You can go to the carbon budget from the report: remaining budget of 420 GtCO2 for a two-thirds chance to stay under 1.5

The beauty is that the goals articulated by the best available science cannot be reached without undermining capitalism as it really exists ( not theoretical capitalism but the form we currently live under)

Bernie Agrees

I have argued for some time that climate is the issue which can finally challenge the current order (as the blog name implies). It is rewarding to see that Pres. contender Bernie Sanders agrees. As does DSA, judging by the resolution passed at the latest convention making the Green New Deal a priority. This plan put forward by the Sanders campaign represents a direct challenge to the Democratic Party Establishment and Third-Way liberals and is a condemnation of the strategy pursued by Obama and Clinton.

Bernie no doubt saw Biden's polling numbers and decided to go for broke. Jay Inslee should also get some credit for forcing the issue, as should the Sunrise youth and other activists. But most of all we need to thank Trump. He is the ultimate foil, the ultimate capitalist pig (David Koch ran a tight second, may he rot in hell)and as such has put a spotlight on political economy that would not have existed if some moderate was president. The antagonism and division which Obama hoped to paper over is exactly what we need to effect radical change. We see clearly now the absurdity of "post-racial" America as well as the brutality of the capitalist war on nature, both deliberately kept from view by liberalism. Without Trump, Greta's call for panic would have fallen on deaf ears.

But as radical as Bernie's climate plan is, we should be critical of a few aspects while supporting it in general. For instance the claim we can "build enough renewable energy generation capacity for the nation's growing needs" will help sell it to "progressives", but needs to be challenged on it's face. Obviously no politician is ready to say growth is the problem, but sooner or later we will have to face this key, foundational contradiction. We see the same approach when it comes to air travel; progressives need language which reassures but "fund a $150 billion dollar effort to fully de-carbonize aviation and maritime shipping and travel" is just pandering. That technology is like direct-air capture of CO2, nowhere near realization at scale. By reinforcing a religious belief that technology can save us, they set themselves up for failure. Best to not make promises you can't keep.

Back in Business

Cloud Peak energy jut sold its holdings, including Montana and Wyoming coal mines, to the Navajos. According to their CEO: "NTEC will continue its efforts to lead conscientious energy development while striving to balance job growth and protecting the environment for future generations.”

You can "strive" all you want, that ain't happening. The Navajos bought this at a bankruptcy auction so maybe it's a good deal? And maybe if we are going to continue to have coal jobs and coal profits they should be going to indigenous folks.... but we can't burn coal. So they will have to be bought out pretty quickly and given some other way to make a living.

It's the optics that are most troubling, especially at a time when we are told by climate movement theorists that we have to put indigenous folks in the leadership position. That their spiritual connection guarantees they will be good stewards of the earth ( and strategic leaders). Which is problematic on a number of levels and a form of essentialism we wouldn't impose on other subjectivities without a twinge of embarrassment.

Missing Identity

How come, when reporting on "white nationalists", the media consistently fails to mention any religious affiliation? Because most of these guys (they are mostly guys) identify as Christians and use lots of Christian symbols and biblical references. Yet we never hear about this part of their ideology. Strange.

Interestingly, it is just the opposite when they do a story about Israel, for instance, the latest dust-up over Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. Because in those cases, they ONLY use the religious identity- Jew and Jewish- never the political identity, Zionist. So yeah, racism is a convoluted discourse and how it is described and reported on seems to depend on the reporters sympathies or sensitivities.

It is funny that it wasn't so long ago liberals were celebrating the ascendancy of secular humanism as part of the "end of history". Guess they didn't foresee a backlash of the Believers but it is coming at us with a vengeance, in the Biblical sense.

Good News Wrong Reason

Many environmentalists are happy with the news that Colstrip power plants 1 and 2 are now slated for closure this year. According to Talen Energy, the operator, these older, inefficient coal-fired plants have become "uneconomical" and so have to close down three years sooner than planned.

So Yay! The price of renewables like wind and solar are out-competing fossil fuels! Oops. Twenty years too late. Having used the metrics of "economical" and "profitable" to determine our collective fate, we are now looking at 414 ppm CO2 (as of June7 at Mauna Loa).

What are the economics of getting back to a safe level of 350 ppm? The cost will be 3 million human lives at 0 dollars per life (pretty reasonable) plus 15,000 species at o dollars per species ( still affordable) plus 4-7% chance of 2 trillion in lost economic activity ( wait a second!) minus clean-up costs and re-locating 300 workers, divided by a breakdown in civil society = well, this depends on the modelling of course,and numerous amorphous variables and... I'll run some numbers and get back to you.

Our political "leaders/ representatives" express dismay that an "extreme environmentalist agenda" is hurting Our Way of Life, explaining that "the economics" would be favorable without Regulatory Burdens. It could be cheaper to burn coal ( more "economical") if we focused less on health and safety (amorphous variables) and more on the bottom line. Of course, everyone is concerned about "the Colstrip Community", a set of individuals who share a specific form of employment. Concern for the slave, concern for the slave owner- everyone deserves some concern.

Now The Investors will start looking at the favorable economics of renewable energy and environmentalists will put another feather in their cap and I can start feeling a little better about this greener power I am using to maintain my lifestyle. Colstrip folks can start micro-breweries or raise quinoa. Or marijuana. whatever. The main thing to remember is that everything works out in the end if you stick to the logic of economics. I'll get back to you with those numbers.

Economical?

Not too long ago the United Nations had a mock exercise in which it was discovered an asteroid was bearing down on the planet and an emergency response had to be formulated and executed in time. To deal with this extreme scenario they called in various experts. Most of these were, of course, scientists trained in various disciplines and physicists able to perform complex calculations. They did not, however, seek help from economists. They did not need to know how much it would cost to save the earth, whether it was economical; that calculation was both obvious and irrelevant.

Coincidentally, Jacobin magazine published a piece last January in which the author asks us to imagine that an asteroid is approaching earth. In this case the asteroid was a metaphor for climate catastrophe. The article makes the point that both political parties in the U.S. share an attitude of climate denial; one is simply overt and the other tries to obscure the fact with sympathetic sounding rhetoric. What the piece failed to articulate is that both parties and virtually all mainstream media rely on the analysis put forth by economists. These non-scientists make various claims about how much it will cost to stop climate catastrophe; how much it will effect the economy, how to maintain economic growth while slowing emissions, etc.etc. But again: why would we care one whit what it "costs" to save the earth? Without a planet there is no "economy". We need scientists to tell us what must be done and how to do it. Period. The cost is irrelevant and yet the attention it is given is indicative of the irrational system which rules our lives.

The best example of this absurd prioritization of "cost-effectiveness" is the Climate Leadership Council.This organization, clearly dedicated to protecting the sanctity of Markets ,boasts the backing of "3554 US economists,4 former chairs of the Federal Reserve, 15 former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors", etc. etc. We are supposed to be impressed somehow that the same non-scientist ideologues who got us into the crisis in the first place have stepped up to help solve it- cheaply of course, using "sound economic principles". This is code for no regulations- let the Market determine our fate.

At the heart of the fight between supporters of the Green New Deal and the Climate Leadership Council is the cultural power of "economists and experienced policymakers" versus science and the scientists whose research it is based on. If you just started with the scientific consensus and worked back you would ban fossil fuel extraction and deal with the economic fallout using the State as stimulus and safety net. If you want to preserve the system of profit, accumulation and unlimited growth, you turn to economists and their weak, too-little-too-late tax proposals.

The definition of economical is being careful not to waste, the very antithesis of capitalism, a system built on waste and excess. CLC economists fail at this most basic level. The real question is; if you are seeking data and analysis on which to base decisions about ecology, do you look to scientific journals or the Wall Street Journal?

Adaptation

The city of Missoula is making a good faith effort to identify and mitigate the impacts of climate change but those "futurist" planners can only imagine scenarios that fall within their collective experience. Local drought affects local farmers and local politicians can devise policy "fixes" to help. But what happens if you try to imagine global drought and its geopoliticl effects? What if we envision a 2050 where governance has broken down, where local warlords control all economic activity? Where all the pollinators have been destroyed, where methane is boiling out of a melted perma-frost and there is no grain market or copper market or beef market? How does a local taskforce plan for that level of collapse?

Should they be planning to stockpile guns? Naomi Klein tried to warn us that "this changes everything" but local policy wonks operate in a well-worn framework using a standardized playbook. We are told "our house is on fire" so we gather "stakeholders" who meet regularly and come up with documents. These get explained to the public which then submits comments and a taskforce comes up with policy proposals. It is time to panic and yet that is not a mode civic leaders are keen to embrace.

And this is where the ambiguity, so disorienting for the general public, begins. On the one hand we are told it is an emergency and yet the activity to address it looks like any " agency planning process", a forest plan, a recreation plan, a subdivision proposal etc..The local techno-managerial types seem to see a path through and it hardly feels like a "crisis". Just enact some forward thinking policies and mitigate the identified problems! You're welcome!

Handing Out Prizes

You know things are heating up when Pulitzer Prize winning NYTimes columnists start pontificating on climate change. Today we see a piece by big-time insider David Leonhardt bemoaning the fact that the carbon pricing scheme put forth by his Nobel Prize-winning hero economist, Richard Nordhaus, hasn't taken hold. Both of these famous "intellectuals" exist to promote "democratic" capitalism, making the apologetics on display a bit embarrassing, but of course blame can be directed at those silly conservative Republicans who don't know how to use "government" to correct market failure. It may be "politically impossible" he tells us.

The title of the article is Putting a Price on the End of the World but what he really can't imagine (you guessed it) is the end of capitalism. Or economic growth measured as GDP. The indefatigable Thomas L Friedman also has a column about climate change, claiming the issue is Trump's Achilles heel. I can't bother reading the article but I imagine it contains all the "new research" about green capitalism and 100% clean energy and all the millions of new high paying jobs and clean growth the Democrats should be promoting. Thomas loves all that optimistic stuff about progress and all.

Leonhardt notes "the middle class and poor have been struggling with slow income growth" and a tax on energy is not popular to voters. And stops his analysis there- a conundrum. Because as we all know, voters are not allowed to tax only the wealthy in "democratic" capitalism, after all, they are the investors and job creators and will go on strike. The answer of course (as always) is simply more growth.

Notice the euphoria over recent US economic performance: the stock market at record levels, unemployment as low as its been since the sixties, even ( sorry, Leonhardt) slight wage growth in certain sectors! Happy Days Are Here Again! Have you noticed any mention of emissions in this reporting? No. More income trickles down, more consumption, higher emissions and Trump's re-election all but guaranteed. If I can suddenly buy a new IPhone you know who I'm voting for! And if it sounds like the Green New Deal threatens that you know who I'm not voting for. Voila, Capitalist Democracy in a nutshell. Patiently awaiting my Pulitzer and Nobel prizes.

Class and Collars

One reason the discourse around class has become so muddled is the language around divisions within classes. If we simply use the Marxian distinction concerning ownership of the means of production things appear pretty straightforward. But reality in the 21st century doesn't conform to the simple formula. Instead we have such categorical disparities as "white, blue and pink collars" which (supposedly) denote the level of mental versus physical labor a worker performs. One might as well judge the callouses on peoples hands.

At some level we are supposed to then correlate these "collars" with upper, middle, lower and working class as objective distinctions, in this case generally based on income. So if these distinctions aren't murky enough, consider a woman wearing a blue collared shirt doing manufacturing, but she runs a complex piece of machinery and has a college degree. Now layer on the fact she owns several rental properties (as well as her own home) and owns stock in the firm she works for. Hardly a classic member of the proletariat, right?

Marxian dogma would have us believe that members of this "working class" would literally starve without the ability to sell their wage labor and that this source of their exploitation, their sheer desperation, is also the force that unites them in class belonging ( a "class-for itself") and eventually struggle. How does the terminology of "rank and file worker" sound to a young member of the gig economy who considers himself an associate, a team member highly valued ( both in status and monetary compensation) for his creativity and drive? At the level of subjectivity, this new worker can fully identify culturally with those in any any income bracket, can purchase luxury items and live well, even if on credit. It was Laclau and Mouffe's belief that

" the fullness of class identities of classical Marxism has to be replaced by hegemonic identities constituted through non-dialectical mediations.”

None of this is to suggest that class as a category has disappeared. But the issue of "fullness" is real and has to be considered. Jacobin Magazine tries to make the divide simple by equating capitalists with "the boss" but this is its own obfuscation. It ignores the hegemonic dimension of ideology and identificationor subject formation. When it comes to our social movements, so often focused on "centering the working class" in the leadership, it is going to be difficult to not look at shirt collars or pay stubs or cultural markers. Especially true in the climate movement, a persons level of exploitation or oppression may be less relevant to their level of engagement than other, less material factors.

A worker can have inherited wealth, can collect rent, and can own capital which she invests as well as collecting a wage. We can elide this truth by inventing new categories ie "professional- managerial class", "ruling class", "contradictory class" and we can call people traitors or "cultural lieutenants of the capitalist class" but the contradictions won't disappear.

Critically Support the Green New Deal

This was written by BC scholar Brad Hornick:



Brad Hornick

For many decades, scientists have warned that the window for the kind of widespread economic, political, and policy reforms required to avert ecological catastrophe is rapidly closing. Warnings from the scientific community concerning the threat of ecological collapse are universally built around the concepts of “thresholds” and “tipping points” which explicitly refer to threats to the physical preconditions that permit life in the entire biosphere.

These warnings posit a window of opportunity that if not responded to in a dramatic and urgent manner, will be surpassed. The stakes mark a divide between the remaining potential for the exercise of purposeful human action versus the extinguishment of that potential, after which an adequate collective response to ecological crisis becomes perfectly irrelevant as more extreme changes to the climate system become self-generating, locked-in, and irreversible.

So far, authoritative scientific evidence has done nothing to move the world away from a “business-as-usual” socio-economic model that is inherently destructive. “Faster-than-expected” impacts from global warming such as extreme heat and cold, drought, floods, fire, etc. have been met with promises of technological innovation and narrow policy instruments disciplined by neo-liberal capitalism – rather than more profound political engagement and proactive emergency planning.

Today’s political and moral calculus could not be more clear. We can either “give-in” to the ruling class that guarantees a world firmly on course for imminent, intractable and catastrophic ecological and social crisis, or we can begin to recognize our predicament, mobilize, constructively critique, support, and protect the vision for an unprecedented collective response commensurable to the threat.

The challenge is an immense one. Emergency response to a crisis means there is no longer any time for gradual, incremental or “non-disruptive” reductions in emissions. Meeting the obligations that many scientists now say are critical, getting to “net zero carbon” virtually instantaneously, requires more than an immediate shut-down the planet’s fossil fuel industries.

It also implies a radical retrenchment or collapse of the dominant industries and infrastructure based upon fossil fuel production, including automobiles, aircraft, shipping, petrochemical, synthetic fabrics, construction, agribusiness, industrial agriculture, packaging, plastic production (disposables economy), and the war industries.

Such massive structural changes in our industrial base will only be productively managed if society develops the resiliency and flexibility to withstand the challenges of social transformation. Most importantly, this requires an active participation of organized labor and environmentalists to ensure all people continue to have work, food, shelter and other basic needs met.

Political organizing around the Green New Deal represents a potential breakthrough for many – a recognition of the magnitude and urgency of the social and political changes that are required for civilizational survival. Inevitably, this call to action will require popular mobilization to compensate for the power of intransigent vested corporate and political interests.

The GND stakes new ground and proposes new battle-lines for the climate justice movement to authentically challenge the priorities of capitalism over people and the planet. It will be denounced as “radical,” “idealistic,” and even “socialist” by those intent on ratcheting-up the ideological battle. Supporters and constructive critics of the GND should prepare themselves to unapologetically lead the charge.

Taboo and Discipline

Nancy Pelosi says Ilhan Omar "may not have had a full awareness" of what her words about AIPAC might signify. In other words, she broke a taboo and had to be disciplined, personally, made an example of. But the "awareness" had to be reiterated to the whole society as well; we do not broach the subject of Zionism. In any form. There are ways you can speak of Israel but if you even infer Zionism you will be condemned for antisemitism. The gatekeepers have enormous influence, not just monetary (which is considerable), but culturally, thanks to a perpetual identity of horrifically wronged victim. The reparations demanded for the historical wrong is silence about their State and the ways that State is maintained.

This reiteration occurs every few years. Some person will mention Palestine, or the nature of a Jewish State, and they will be made an example of by the AIPAC crew, dozens of pro-Israel groups which include Christians or atheists who just want "support" from the lobby. Or someone like Larry Summers will pipe in as he did as Pres. of Harvard in 2005:
"Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in effect if not their intent." This was over folks calling for divestment. Judith Butler destroyed his argument in her great essay The Charge of Anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel and the Risks of Public Critique.

All this is old news, a thing we all know but most Americans disavow. The paradox is that the trope itself- associating Jews with money and influence, or with dual loyalty- is maintained by Zionists to be used specifically in these instances. They are the ones who weaponize it, as much as real anti-semites, and therefore perpetuate it.

Think of the way Trump goes on and on about Europe not paying their way for security. Try saying that about Israel.What if you said somebody famous loved both America and Mexico, the country where they were born. Would you have a powerful lobby come down on you demanding an apology for exploiting a dual loyalty "trope"?

Here is what Netanyahu, quoted in today's NYTImes: "Israel is a Jewish state" where Arabs have rights. Like the Pakistan is a Muslim state. Where everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.

Creeping Exposure

Capitalism is a herd beast, easily stampeded because everybody is following everybody else. And if it looks like they are headed to the exits, look out. Right now there are lots of sideways glances by those industries who have exposure to climate related risk. Many coal investors have pulled the plug in the last six months but of course those with a higher risk threshold see that as a window to extract even greater profit.

If you read the Business Press right now (the Economist, Forbes,Fortune, etc) you will see articles about new climate risk assessment companies starting up. They offer high-priced consulting on "preparedness" and when to make a move. Of course, nobody wants to incur the "first-mover disadvantage" in a market but neither do you want to be left holding the bag (stranded assets) when poop hits fan. Think especially of the insurance business and those biggies who insure the insurers.

Of course, government is getting equally nervous so they are setting up such instruments as the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority (Europe) and a Taskforce on Climate Related Financial Disclosure, supposedly to protect shareholders and private investors. Since no one wants to hear the truth (that the whole system is racing towards a precipice) they instead engage in abstract "Climate Stress Tests for the Financial System" and other esoteric exercises to gauge liability and "exposure". Then there are the big credit rating agencies, the Moodys and S&P Global Ratings and such that give grades to countries

Climate Leviathon

If emissions continue unabated throughout the 21st century, the climate of North American urban areas will become, on average, most like the contemporary climate of locations about 500 miles away and mainly to the south.

The original New Deal of the 1930s was not a single program or piece of legislation – it was a whole era of turmoil in which contesting forces tried to meet a devastating crisis and shape the future of American society.
Jeremy Brecher Labor for Sustainability

Lots of policy wonks out there trying to put meat on the bones of the Green New Deal. After wandering in the wilderness for so long, focusing on the COP gatherings, going to TED talks by Al Gore, dragging through divestment campaigns and forming climate non-profits, they finally get a spark of tangible activity to glom on to. An actual Resolution put forward by actual elected officials. A charismatic champion gaining celebrity status. And so a thousand proposals bloom explaining how the government "should" create new agencies, "should" fund massive projects, "should" employ everyone with high paying jobs. However, one senses a bit of irrational exuberance considering the actual "political" landscape.

This government everyone is suddenly so confident about, how is it imagined into being? Lots of people voting for the good guys? There is just a sudden, willful, collective historical amnesia infecting "progressives"; write a position paper and will it into existence. Hope for Change and start fundraising.

Or techno-engineering optimism like this from Albert Bates, a scientist: "In this moment of crisis, we are blessed with emerging technologies, cognitive sciences and holistic management practices that open previously undisturbed system dynamics to our thoughtful, meticulous, deliberate consideration."

Thoughtful consideration? Really? Is he talking about human governance or the thing scientists do (research and writing)? Where we find the most interesting, nervous analysis is the business press. This is an example from The Economist:

"But recurrent droughts, floods, heatwaves and storms can all hurt—particularly in a world of complex, just-in-time supply chains readily thrown out of whack."

Bern or Burn

As expected, the old war horse Bernie Sanders has jumped into the fray, lifting the spirits of the left with a promise of big change. There is also a sigh of relief, because a "political revolution" against "the billionaire class" is a lot less frightening than a social revolution against Capital and the State. Nothing too risky involved here; just debate and fundraising and canvassing etc..election campaigning made to sound radical but pretty standard fare. Yes, the rhetoric will be heated, a good thing. The issues brought up and positions taken will no doubt cause some controversy and a lot of young people will be mobilized. The question is: to what end?

Bernie is labeled a socialist and so he can either try to diffuse the meaning or expound on it. His primary opponents will take all kinds of "progressive" positions to separate themselves from "the radical fringe" and a rare, actual choice will be presented. Especially when it comes to climate policy, there will be an opportunity to spell out the REAL difference between democratic, just and sustainable solutions backed by science or solutions designed to appease investors and The Market. And conservatives will be forced into accepting science as a discipline or rejecting it.

Glen Corp., the global mega mining firm, is reading tea leaves and making a predictable move by capping its coal production at 150 million metric tons per year. This brings accolades from environmentalists and higher profits in the kind of win-win we will be seeing much more of as things "heat up". As everybody sends Bernie 27 dollars, they tend to forget the Fossil Capital is also strategizing and they have trillions of dollars and a huge megaphone to work with.

Let's imagine Bernie wins and the Dems also gain a majority in the Senate; what now? If the left pushes too hard, Capital will threaten to go on strike. The stock market will slump, the US credit rating will drop, unemployment could start to rise... You think we have "polarization" now? So what happens to all that rage in the streets? Under what slogans are people mobilized? What other events are creating their own narratives, for instance extreme weather, Brexit and the global economy, oil markets, mass migration, terrorism, who knows what kind of crazy shit is headed our way? We can count on hurricanes and fires, mass civil disobedience and right-wing reaction, scandal and corruption, high crimes and misdemeanors.

But to get the ball rolling, Bernie has to make one crucial decision: green capitalism or big time State intervention. Carbon taxes or bans on production. Public utilities or private. GDP growth or carbon budget?

Rumblings

In an unexpected twist, Senate Leader Mitch Mc Connel, the very smirking face of cynical capitalist realism, has called for a vote on the GND. His calculation is that the vote forces Democrats to choose between socialism and capitalism. Which could actually be true. And be amazing. At the most Spectacular level, the Repubs have been busy painting the GND as a subversive plot to undermine Free Enterprise ( I only wish) and many centrist Dems are no doubt sensing a trap being laid. Progressive Dems will try to minimize the re-distributive aspects of the resolution and pooh pooh the crazy talk about socialism. Which puts a self-avowed socialist like AOC in a strange position as well.She can't settle for solar powered sweatshops and yet she has to navigate a corrupt system of patronage and power.

So there's a lot of moving parts here but it is as close to a moment of political rupture as we've seen in some time. Young people are pissed and want action. Puts me in a spot as well; could I support an effort to get the resolution passed, with all the electoralism and voting shit it implies? Is it too reformist, putting too much faith in party politics? I kind of feel like old Eugene Debs:

“There was a time in my life, before I became a Socialist, when I permitted myself as a member of the Democratic party to be elected to a state legislature,” he later said. “I have been trying to live it down. I am as much ashamed of that as I am proud of having gone to jail.”

On the one hand, if all the Dems just called Mitch's bluff and said yeah, we want to re-structure the economy and finance it with the wealth of the plutocrats, well, I just gotta join the Party. If every kid in America went on strike and shamed their parents into going on strike and the GND just kept getting more and more radical, I would have no choice. However, if they win the vote by making it sound like a capitalist stimulus plan and then start squashing the more progressive elements, we are back to square one.

We have to wait to see how this plays out. Much depends on what kind of tactics and messaging Sunrise goes with in this decisive moment. If they go conciliatory and start talking about markets and incentives and investment bullshit, they lose that important, militant energy from the Left. And if they lose the Senate vote as well, they are toast. If they stick to the science and the imperative of structural change they could still lose the vote but battle lines will have been drawn; as stark as they have ever been. The legislative process will be de-legitimated and the grassroots energized. Then we have a real fight. AOC can call for worker ownership of the means of production. Bernie can call for a general strike.

Green Dream Spectre

Now that I have a Medicare gym membership, besides eavesdropping, I get to listen to FOX News while treadmilling my way to fitness. This week they are giddy over the Dems being invaded by socialists and Trump's red-baiting in his State of the Union. They see a big split coming, much like the Tea Party did the Repubs. As I have long argued, the issue that animates the right, their "master signifier", is capitalism. All the guns and abortion and immigration stuff is click-bait for the rubes; real conservatives know the battle is over private ownership of the means of production. And having had zero ideological challenge for sixty years, their only response to a resurgent Left-left is amusement. So that when the guillotines start being sharpened there is going to be some real bewilderment.

Unfortunately, the democratic socialists are a little ambivalent about capitalism as well. The newest high profile "spokesperson",DSA member and newly elected Congresswoman AOC has expressed the notion they can co-exist, that rather than taking power it means workers having more say. Like a big union. Bernie has always hedged when it comes to long-term goals. But this issue which AOC has chosen to highlight, global warming, forces the question front and center. As Naomi Klein perceptively pointed out, the Right understands that it is capitalism itself that is threatened because it has finally found a barrier it cannot overcome. Their plan, Thelma and Louise style ecocide on a global scale, is obvious. From a piece by Carolyn Kormann in the New Yorker:

If emissions are an accelerator on the climate, Schmidt said during his presentation, “We still collectively have our foot on that accelerator. While there are some indications in some parts of the world that people are working quite hard to reduce those emissions, collectively, we are not doing so.”

Or this from an article in The Economist:

"ExxonMobil, the giant that rivals admire and green activists love to hate. As our briefing explains, it plans to pump 25% more oil and gas in 2025 than in 2017. If the rest of the industry pursues even modest growth, the consequence for the climate could be disastrous."

The trepidation is there but the dots can't be connected. The most any mainstream pundit can propose, is that the US somehow achieve "the goals of the Paris Accord", which in themselves are a terrifying example of global inertia. Voluntary reduction targets, right?. Our Montana legislature is considering a bill to put a $10 a ton tax on emissions, so much worse than a joke and it stands no chance whatsoever. All of it a huge waste of time and effort, designed to be such. The only way the shit will be left in the ground is if the machine is dismantled.

New Strategy

From Politico.com:
"Leading climate scientists and meteorologists are banking on a new strategy for talking about climate change: Take the politics out of it.

That means avoiding the phrase “climate change,” so loaded with partisan connotations as it is. Stop talking about who or what is most responsible."

Yeah, this is real. It is sort of the George Lakoff approach to language; only use bullshit that skirts the real issue. It is both condescending (those people can't understand what we understand do to THEIR bias)and counterproductive. Oh, and not a "new strategy" at all. "Leading scientists and meteorologists" have been avoiding the subject for decades, at least the hard discussion about what needs to be done.

Then there is the recent article in the NYTimes where the author wonders why skiers, being rich elites and all, aren't more "political" when it comes to global warming.And why resort owners aren't more active. But of course the whole frame for "politically active" is legislative, lobbying your representative to pass climate/environment friendly bills. The owners mostly say they don't want to sound too strident and scare off investors, wealthy clients etc..as if passing some bill will slow the economy.

The truly perverse part is the photo towards the end showing a bunch of coal miners standing around listening to some guy talk about "clean energy". Apparently they trap some methane from the coal mine to power the chairlifts. What the Davos. Fortune 500 crowd calls a win-win. Doing good while doing well. Crush with one hand while pretending to help with the other. The Times journalist was impressed.

Entrepreneurial Spirit

Celebrated as a transcendent, morally attuned and even Divine force, the "entrepreneurial spirit" continues to hold extraordinary force and power in the Western imaginary. It is certainly one of capitalism's most potent narratives, lending an aura of grace to the otherwise fairly base motive of self-interest. Although Ronald Reagan was not the first to exalt this mystical drive, he definitely popularized it and placed it firmly in the mainstream of liberal discourse, where it maintains it's power today. In fact with the rise of the gig economy and the tech-geek hero model, the Spirit is held out as the new savior and those endowed with it's blessing objects worthy of our worship.

In the popular culture, this "spirit" combines courage, determination, brilliance and exceptionalism, leading Regan to declare those post-Carter years "the age of the entrepreneur". All that was needed was to get government out of the way so the supernatural energy of these alpha Americans could be unleashed. Unlike simple workers, these heroes view risk as opportunity. The spirit helps them envision the possibilities to which the rest of us remain blinded, and they are driven, imbued with a passion for making their dreams come true. At a time when our other mythical heroes (soldiers, cowboys, adventurers, etc.) have fallen on hard times, this Warrior for Capital Accumulation fills the vacuum and his/her virtues are extolled on both sides of the "political" aisle (binary Dem-Repub- Lib- Conservative).

The Spirit also serves as the answer as to why socialism can never succeed. Collectivism smothers the egoistic Spirit, hence undermining the foundation of morality, not to mention stifling all ambition and pride (not to be confused with egotism). It is this dominant narrative which pushes the libertarian Silicon Valley "start-up" mystique, with its "high creatives" in their incubators, busily conjuring new revenue streams from a monetized, transactional commons.

And it is the narrative that must be buried as the mystical, romantic bullshit that it is.

Elite Concern

John Lennon sang "We all want to change the world" and now, after a bit of hesitation, this includes the alpha elite. Confused John believed the answer was to "free your mind". The Davos crowd rally under the banner of "do good AND do well", as evidenced by the 2018 "Change the World issue of Fortune Magazine (Sept.) Titled Make the World Great Again ( remember these folks are transnational) How to Profit While Fixing the Planet, the cover article highlights the greenwashing efforts of "concerned companies" and how their share prices have risen; "profit for progress" the editor calls it.

A few slightly less optimistic voices can be heard at Davos, such as billionaire investor Seth Klarman who warns: "social cohesion is essential for those who have capital to invest." Not to worry says Fortune, with some snazzy incubators and lots of amazing technology, those with a high tolerance for risk will make a world that works for everyone. (The entrepreneur/ saviors will need lots of massage to maintain a "mind-body-spirit connection", vacations on the corporate yacht don't hurt...)

Slowing emissions, pulling plastic from the ocean, fighting cancer, connecting people to the internet, ethical fashion products, hunger relief, it is all "corporate social responsibility" and "solving problems through the only sustainable and scalable problem solving machine we know of: business." The one thing that seems to escape them, that is never asked: after all these years of industrial capitalism, why are all these problems so acute, so massive, converging into such an existential crisis? A classic example is a piece on the Dutch corporation DSM; "a company with roots in coal mining and chemicals re-invents itself as a planetary problem solver..." What a business model! "It's stock price has climbed 63% in the past five years." How? Aquaculture to replace the natural, wild fish stocks they murdered. The GAP hires "at-risk teens" giving them their first "opportunity" to be exploited, and they probably send a free pair of shoes to Congolese cobalt miners with every purchase over $1000 !

"If you go carryin pictures of Chairman Mao, you aint gonna make it with anyone anyhow". If you want to make it, you're going to want that MBA and a firm belief in this cultural capitalism. If you had a degree in public relations you could work for one of these companies needing an image make-over. What I find curious is the fact that this optimistic, high tech propaganda isn't just in Time Magazine or NPR but in the elites own rag. Do they believe this shit? Do they need to believe it?

More Green New Deal and Elections

A number of critical debates are taking shape in the Eco-Left community around strategy, around a Popular Front or Dual Power or Deep Green Resistance. Much of this revolves around the question of who gets to define The Green New Deal; progressives or radicals. This is a reply to those like Mc Kibben that cling to the dream of green prosperity in the hopes of attracting unions and "the masses":

"Some in the climate movement believe in the 100-percent dogma and the dream it holds out: that the (affluent) American way of life can keep running forward in time and outward in space without breaking stride. There are others who know that to be an impossibly rosy vision but urge the movement to limit public discussion to such green dreams, because talking about a regulated, low-energy economy would crush hope and enthusiasm at the grassroots."

The concern is that the masses aren't ready for a cultural shift towards limits, that is sounds too much like austerity. The other heated debate, brought on by Bernie and Alexandria Occasio Cortez (AOC)concerns the role of elections. Lots of smart people trying to get the camel through the eye of that needle:

From Mathew Andrews (SCNCC) : But I also think it is simplistic to throw out all electoral strategies under our current system exactly because independent voices are so excluded. This harsh exclusion is what makes independent challengers so radical."

What is mostly missing in so much of this analysis is the remorseless ticking of that climate clock. Each minute that passes, more bad shit gets locked in. This is a grim, but linear progression, still comprehensible. But what is harder to think through is that singular minute that passes by where you have locked in unstoppable, cascading, self-reinforcing effects (climate forcing), the point where your possibilities are foreclosed, where drinking becomes the only viable strategy. All these well-meaning leftists think there is still time to build this social movement from below, this mass revolutionary organization or this radical Labor Party that represents " working class" interests. How can that be?

This is how the EZLN expressed the dilemma on the 25th Anniversary of the War Against Oblivion:
"Alone we rose up to awake the people of Mexico and of the world, and today, 25 years later, we see that we are still alone. But we did try to tell them, compañeras and compañeros, you were witness to the many gatherings we held as we tried to wake others, to speak to the poor of Mexico in the city and in the countryside.

Many people did not listen. Some did and are organizing themselves—we hope they continue to organize themselves—but the majority did not listen."

They have tried dual power and electioneering. This is why we need to introduce one more critical element into any strategy, one that accelerates the process. Run for office if you wish, but with a platform that is guaranteed to lose. Demand the impossible if you expect to be heard at all. And then create the conditions of possibility, the conditions that would allow a break from this inertia.

Hate Me

From a speech by FDR in 1936 for the second New Deal:

"Give me your help not to win votes alone, but to win in this crusade to restore America to its own people."

These words could be those of Ocasio-Cortez or any populist who believes capitalist democracy can be reformed in service of the majority. And of course, FDR showed that it could be...temporarily. He famously "welcomed the hate" of Big Business and its ideological allies and pushed through programs which made life better for workers and which we still enjoy. But Capital has played the long game.

Lately, a version of those words was spoken by arch-conservative Tucker Carlson. He sees Capital gouging a little too deeply, stirring up anger and resentment at both ends of the ideological spectrum. Like FDR, he hopes to maintain labor peace, make a few concessions and let some steam off. Another temporary fix remarkably close, ideologically, to Jon Stewart or liberals of that ilk. Of course, Tucker doesn't hear the climate clock tick. Liberals plug their own ears and pull the wool over their own eyes.

On a more radical front, a group calling itself Symbiosis is planning a conference to help unite libertarian ecosocialists on a program focused on local initiatives. Then there are the debates within The Great Transformation folks around de-growth and the role of markets. Over at SCNCC there is a fierce debate around the anarchist/ munincipalist critique of The State and how to "scale up".

Voting, building local co-ops, engaging in protest, in strikes, proposing legislation, supporting "blockadia"; basically Alinsky-style community organizing in general is the question of the day. It is universally accepted (even by Tucker Carlson)that this is how change happens,a basic orthodoxy ; at the level of tactics it is Nation Magazine versus Jacobin Magazine versus Anarchismo; but is it strategically correct? Or is it enough?

I claim community organizing is probably necessary but certainly not sufficient. That before a new script can be written the old one must be demolished in some fashion. You can talk and reason with people and get them to come to a meeting perhaps, but they will be carrying tons of baggage in the door. Bags and bags of ideological rubble which they are willing to carry as long as the illusion of order is maintained. The illusion of systemic coherence and function.

FDR could welcome the hate of capitalists because he effectively employed Americanism to serve his cause. The system was not functioning and had lost its coherence. Most of the bourgeoisie realized it was a long game and he was just saving capitalism from itself. And they had all the time in the world. Which we don't.

Porcupine Angel

In an interview with China Mieville, the subject of Klee's "Angelus" comes up again, with an interesting twist. He envisions:

the “porcupine angel,” a creature who takes shelter from the winds of history within the wreck of civilization itself.

CM: I mooted the “porcupine angel,” Angelus erethizon, as an exemplary figure chimera-ed from two travelers in the storm of history: Walter Benjamin’s back-blown angel, and Ursula K. Le Guin’s articulation of a Swampy Cree notion of the porcupine bracing itself in a crevice in the face of danger, “to speculate safely on an inhabitable future.” We are buffeted, but still we might brace, and bristle."

Mieville helps publish the magazine Salvage, along with Richard Seymour. He says the dystopia is already here. Because it matters which baseline you use- the Dark Ages? Mad Max? The 1950's America.


As for strategy moving forward, Michael Lowy ( who collaborated with Joel Kovel) tries to articulate "non-reformist reforms" but I remain skeptical. He writes:

"Without illusions about the prospects for a “clean capitalism,” the movement for deep change must try to reduce the risks to people and planet, while buying time to build support for a more fundamental shift."
Michael Lowy

Buying time? Interesting analogy,that. If we had 30 years I would buy in ( pun intended). I still contend the work is to create not a crack but a major faultline, a 10.0 quake that makes today's rubble look smooth. Everyone was getting ecstatic over Alexandria Cortez and her Green New Deal. Here is some of the language that is,how should we say, problematic?

"A Green New Deal creates signals that encourages private capital to move into these new and expanding markets, and new businesses will generate demand for more workers."

From the Data for Progress report lead author Greg Carlock. Of course Nancy Pelosi and the other Democrats are putting the young upstarts in their place ( Shocker!) and the "select committee" is not to be. Even this corporate ejaculation is too radical for these guardians of the status quo.


This we can call Annihilation by Attrition. To stall is to kill. Each day the sun comes up and the coal is mined and the oil pumped. Each evening the sun goes down and the Guardians have done their job and can rest easy.

Kind Slave Master

Once upon a time in The Gallant South, a benevolent slave owner named Orrin noticed some of his property acting...restless. When I say benevolent I mean he recognized that a well-fed slave, one with decent housing and a mattress would be more productive. So Orrin went the extra mile to provide certain amenities, certainly more than his neighbor the Cruel Slave Master, who had a different business philosophy. This Cruel man starved his chattel and then whipped them to extract as much labor as possible before they perished. The Kind Slave Master thought this foolish in the extreme. Like leaving a perfectly good tool out in the rain.

Still, he was nervous about his slave's grumbling and the hard looks they would at times send his way. So he came up with a brilliant plan. He called them all together one Sunday after Church and announced that he had decided to let them vote! Not on everything, of course, but on minor decisions. For instance; whether to have grits or oatmeal for breakfast, when to plant the corn and cotton, or which mule to use for the day's plowing. The slaves knew these "choices" were predetermined and of course the Master knew this was a stylized, ritualistic exercise but both parties played their parts in this kabuki dance and called it "politics". The kind slave master let his slaves elect a representative who might visit the Big House on occasion. He even began to address the slaves as "associates" so they might feel invested in the operation.

All this accommodation was looked on as madness by the neighboring slave owners but it proved itself to be a brilliant stroke of...well, you hate to use the word, but yes, genius. Where the other slave holders faced violent revolts, the Kind Slave Master found his property thoroughly immersed in "politics", forever deciding where to build a soccer field or whether to ban abortions. Where cruel Slave Masters had to spend all their profit chasing runaways, the Kind Slave Master just threw in a Bingo Night! Where the cruel Slave Masters were slaughtered in their beds, the Kind Slave Master found his property arguing among themselves. They fought over who was corrupt, who was extracting a few more favors. They fought over their various identities, they fought over religious differences, they fought over Outsiders and Rights and morals and such. They argued over whether it was better to vote or to pray. ( Both equally effective, it turns out)

What they never argued about, however, was over who was the most cruel; the Slave Master who treats his property poorly or the one who treats them nice.

Shamefully, I have not read Sheldon Wolin but from listening to the description Chris Hedges brings, I believe this formula is related to what Wolin called "inverted totalitarianism". Here we have the prisoners, granted enough liberal, social democratic reforms, locking themselves up at night. This could also extend to the Gramscian notion of hegemonic control or internalized coercion. Who needs a slave master when his legitimacy has been thoroughly embedded into our consciousness!

First and foremost we have to fight for our mind. Nothing less than full and total emancipation will do. Demand full control over your destiny and true self-determination over all aspects of your existence. The illusion of "democratic politics" has been carefully constructed by slave masters who understood how easy it is to kill through kindness. A little salary raise at work, maybe a little subsidized health insurance, we'll even throw in a no-down, low interest loan so you can buy that thing that makes you feel whole. But you won't find dignity in any of those catalogues. And as Audrey Lord instructed, "the Masters tools will never dismantle the Masters house".



.