Perhaps a Bit Jealous?

Liberals/ leftists are terrified the established order is being dismantled before their eyes, but might there also lurk a bit of jealousy? Progressives plod along decade after decade, incrementally passing their precious policies through the regular channels. They slog through the sacred institutions only to see it all undone in an instant backlash. Along comes this wacky MAGA revolution where all the deliberate processes of legislation and consultation and bi-partiship get tossed overboard like so much compost. Think of how awesome the MAGAs must feel seeing shit get done instantly, the very shit that was promised! That never happens! Your guys march around the globe throwing their weight around as the mainstream media goes beserk. What could be more fun. Your leader sits at his desk issueing order after order with child-like glee, re-ordering the world like you always dreamed of doing yourself. What could be cooler. Meanwhile the liberals turn to think tanks and drinking. Leftists turn to theorizing. Or re-theorizing; is this neofascism? Neofeudalism? Perhaps Techno-feudalism? One clear goal is profit: Gaza real estate, Ukranian and Greenland minerals, What Trump and the MAGGATs understand and the liberal never will is that the Game is called capitalist "democracy, emphasis on the C word. The D word is for chumps. This works great when your constituency is homo economicus, those looking for cheap eggs. Those who want to see shit git done and don't care if you have to break a few of those eggs to make an omelet. Liberals instantly become conservatives, insisting (as the world burns) on preserving the status quo and proceeding cautiously, incrementally, tiny reform after tiny reform. Maybe an Infrastructure or Inflation Reduction bill. Wow, huge deal, so impressive. Until you see Trump turn the global order upside down in two weeks.

Dumb or Not Dumb?

So are The People stupid or not? When they support MAGA are they hoodwinked simpletons or simply reacting rationally to objective conditions? Liberals and leftists struggle with this question, much as they do with the question of "deplorables". It's a little hard to quantify empirically but there are lots of opinions on the subject. Masha Gessen from the NY Times has an opinion: "and has had such a dumbing-down effect on public conversation...But a lot of people, as it turns out, are a lot like Donald Trump. They think they’re much smarter than they are." Democrat Ruben Gallego has an opinion: "Every Latino man wants a big-ass truck, which, nothing wrong with that. “And you’re gonna go start your own job, and you’re gonna become rich, right?” These are the conversations that we should be having. Because people that are working class, poor, don’t necessarily look at the ultrarich as their competitors. They want to be rich someday. And so they don’t necessarily fault the rich for being rich." Now we are back to class analysis: everybody hates rich people but they all want to be one. As for gaining their vote, it's easy. Give people treats. Votes for treats. Simple enough, right? Liberals are kvetching that Trump is "transactional" but c'mon; the capitalist world goes around on contracts. At issue is what I call the Chomsky contradiction: is there a "democracy deficit", in which the popular will is ignored by the "ruling class", or do they "manufacture consent"? If there is a deficit, people are smart and understand their interests but are dismissed by the powers that be. If their consent can be manufactured by media, popular culture, etc..if they are easily manipulated, then they are not so intelligent. If you crave a "big-ass truck" and don't recognize your own exploitation, sorry, you're dumb. I can buy your vote but the next guy who comes along and offers more will turn you. Welcome to "non-ideological capitalist "democracy".

Live by the Vote - Die by the Vote

I haven't seen liberals this freaked out since the last time Trump won. Now they are searching for a new "Resistance" and honing their messaging and raising money for the next election cycle. Next time they will vote harder and try to re-establish the Old Order. The one of common sense and upholding of norms, even ( having learned their lesson) gender norms. In the meantime they will whine and moan about oligarchs suddenly running things. Yeah. The interests of the wealthy were never considered by the Democrats, but of course the real concern is the fact that it is now so blatant. Our culture has for decades drilled home the idea that rich successful businessmen make the best leaders ( the innovators) so it should hardly come as a surprise when people elect them. Are they fascists or ubermensh? I'd say they are CEO's doing what CEO's do. The question here is how much of the liberal capitalist state do you want to preserve? What part of the government was going to prevent overshoot? Sure, it's a wacky dumpster fire with ideological rubble piled higher than Gaza, but no government has any plan for managing collapse. Can't afford eggs or home insurance? Just put it on your credit card. Too much stress? Go shopping. Buy some memecoins. Fuck if I know. It appears my Ukrain prediction was correct. A million Ukranian dead (according to the NY Times), at least that many Russian "working class" men. Not sure what class the Israeli soldiers come from. Or Hamas. Or Modi's Hindus. I guess we'll see U.S. mining conglomerates in joint ventures with the Russians. This new virtual economy needs a lot of metals.

Moderate Israelis

As the legacy media tells it, all the pressure for annexation of Palestinian territories comes from the Israeli "hard right". They make it sound like it was the "extreme right-wing" members of Netanyahu's governing coalition that pressed him to commit the genocidal destruction and terror in Gaza. This is a very convenient narrative for the so-called "moderate" Israelis who can wring their hands and whine about the terrible situation and the dangerous neighborhood and blah blah. Poor us. After all we've been through. These so-called "moderates" were fine with the situation pre-Oct.7 when Gazans were living in an open-air prison and settlers were attacking residents of the West Bank and the Israeli military was murdering civilians with impunity. Those moderates believed their "one state solution" of apartheid would last forever. In a comment to an article on Trumps plan for forced removal, an Israeli moderate spells it out quite clearly: "The Palestinians, on October 7, made sure they'll never realize their dream of statehood. It's all on them. Your sympathy for them is wasted." Because in their collective mind the occupation began on Oct.7, the planned ethnic cleansing "is all on them". They were on a path to statehood but got impatient. All the oppresion before that date is washed clean. The genocide and demolition and murder of journalists and doctors and children they just watched is all washed clean. The moderates just want to turn the page and move on. In this sense, Trump's insane proposal articulates the fantasy most Zionists have harboured for decades: maybe the Palestinians will just disappear! Maybe we can tap our heels three times and when we open our eyes The Territories will be a fantastic beach-front resort! And all this horror will have just been a bad dream. And I won't have to feel any guilt and my children won't have to live with this legacy of genocide. This is not unlike climate denialism. At its core a fantasy that it will just go away if we wish it hard enough. Who wants to stare into the abyss? No one.

Art of the Deal

Trump has layed out his opening gambit, and as all the great real estate developers do, he starts by knocking people back on their heels. Of course he knows from experience that he is going to have to sweeten the pot and I have a suggestion. This is a man who knows the power of burgers. What he could do is promise a years supply of Big Macs for any Palestinian willing to accept his buy-out plan. A condo in Jordan with nice trees and a year of burgers - who would say no? You avoid all that ugly "expulsion, ethnic cleansing" talk. You don't need the military. You have "magnificent" housing in "six or maybe seven different places" and voila- another deal done! From the shit-eating grin on Netenyahu's face it is easy to imagine this re-development plan has been in place since Oct.8 and that Bibi has shares in the company. He does the extermination and de-construction. Jared Kushner builds the resorts and golf courses. Gaz-a-Lago. What The Donald understands is that everything is transactional and everyone can be bought. The trick is finding a price everyone can agree on. And who better to build a new "Riviera" in Gaza than Trump Associates? You could do mixed development: lower end ranch-style homes for the Israeli settlers, Neo-Kibutzian, and snazzier sea-side digs for the global elite. Unlike the U.S., Trump says "anyone from around the world" can move there. Palestinians could work as maids and gardeners, clean the pools, bartend etc..

Could Be Worse?

For argument's sake; had all the mainstream climate/ environmental groups declared themselves anti-capitalist 15 years ago, how much worse could the outcome have been? Compared to what they now face? Had they called bullshit on Obama's "de-coupling" and worried less about access to Biden. Speaking of, why wait till the last days of your administration to take Cuba off the list of states supporting terrorism? Knowing full well Trump would put them back on? Truly an asshole move, thanks for nothing, Genocide Joe. Speaking of Trump, he could kill two birds with one stone by deporting all the homeless people in America along with the immigrants. There's lots of extra housing in China, they might take em. Or El Salvador. I see where the Donald sent the military into California to free some of that extra water they had sitting there. Take that, latte libs! Totally un-woke and fuck a bunch of little fish or whatever. Guacamole might be a little expensive for your superbowl party but you might consider pistachios. I watched Ross Douthout interview Steve Bannon, and I learned a lot about populist economic nationalism. Except for some small differences around immigration, he could run on the same ticket as Bernie. Cut the defense budget, stop the tax cut for Wall Street elites, build working class power- it's all there and more. A kinder, gentler capitalism with some masculine traits, a little Mother Mary, Bud Light and pick-up trucks. A lot fewer immigrants. Lastly, State Farm is asking the California regulators for a 22% rate increase on top of the 20% they asked for in March. We'll see what the Market will bear.

We Will Run the Experiment

Doomberg, my new source for capitalist thinking around energy, wants us to accept reality. He asserts that there will be no stopping the juggernaut and so the only relevant question is one of adaptation. Like Nordhaus, he hopes the wealth created by fossil energy will help us adapt to future impacts. This is magical thinking, but since the current (and mostly future) impacts fall on poor black and brown people, who gives a shit, right? According to research out of Cornell University, 1.6 billion people may become refugees due to global warming by 2060. By 2100, one billion deaths may be attributable to the climate crisis. These are the subjects of the "experiment" Doomberg accepts as inevitable. Laboratory rats. And capitalism is the laboratory. Do we count the dead in the latest LA fires? The 219 killed by Helene? It is unclear when the count begins and what metric is used to determine the success or failure of the experiment. I suppose you could come up with a formula: deaths per point of GDP growth? Again, we are only talking about humans, as if theirs are the only lives which count. Doomberg's investment strategy is astute. As the experiment is run, lots of money will be made by those making the smart bets. The gambling part is on the temporal plane: how long can you go before the experiment's failure- climate chaos - puts the kabosh to the accumulation and profit. Bet long, bet short. Winners and losers. The world runs on contracts. But physics eventually has its way.

Sleepy Time Time

Now that decarbonization is woke we can sleep our way into the catastrophe. A flood here, a fire there, wake me when it's over. A conversation between Times Opinion deputy editor Patrick Healy and columnist David Wallace-Wells, where they try to parse the new climate "political" landscape, is instructive as to the liberal panic around this dreamscape. Although they avoided the word capitalism they did use the term spectacle. Although not in the Debordian sense. More like "it's a show you know". Wallace-Wells begins by claiming the U.S. is "neck deep in de-carbonization" then immediately contradicts himself by admitting how paltry the investment and progress actually is. And of course he gages "progress"by the number of EV's out there on the road. Healy posits the theory that Trump senses that "climate voters are on the ropes" ( there was virtually no mention of it during the capmpaigns) and he is using the moment to finish them off. Sorry 350, but it's for the best. Wallace-Wells tries to salvage some bit of hope by claiming conservatives may, following the LA fires, want to see "more done on the adap[tation and resilience side by government investment". More fire hydrants perhaps? That should save us. That and "fuel thinning", that is, white workers chopping down millions of acres of tinder-dry brush ( brown ones are all to be deported). Yes. Brilliant idea. Another source of "hope" for these liberals is that Trump recognizes a resource crisis and then wants to expedite the sourcing of critical minerals. And get rid of those pesky "permitting problems". So we can have unlimited electricty forever. Awesome. The fact is these liberals are also asleep to the fact that, as Naomi Klein observed, the Right is right; capitalism cannot solve the crisis that it created. Because the Right understands this inconvenient truth, it suggests sleep. A widely accepted alternative to all the anxiety (and thoughts of limits and relinquishment) that consciousness brings.

A New Working Class / Oligarch Coalition of Collapse

MAGA has achieved the liberal dream of frictionless capitalism. It turns out the best way to discipline labor is to incorporate it, or, as the Situationists described it, recuperate it. The technique starts with atomizing, alienating and individualizing the worker, stressing the competition between Her and Her Fellow Workers. Dog eat dog, as Joni Mitchel sang it. Then you add some stimulus/ reward - just enough treats so the worker won't take any risks -like a long line of credit,( personal debt is at a record high) a house in the suburbs, a nice vehicle or two. For their part, the oligarchs need to do some serious grooming. They polish up the image, projecting htemnselves as humanist disrupters, radicals, revolutionaries. In Gramsci’s words, this trade-off comes from “collusion in the success of a strategy of passive revolution, which responds to pressures from below by incorporating popular demands. Such a strategy can succeed in improving the lives of enough of the population to legitimate hegemonic claims as long as economic conditions permit”. In other words, as I have long argued, elites/"ruling classes/ the "capitalist class" will grudgingly incorporate social democratic reforms into their agenda when it serves their purpose of legitimization. It can be as simple as the price of gas, or eggs. This supports the "metanarrative" that markets and the profit system are the only way to organize society. They give a little then take a lot. Which is all well and good until the oligarchs start believing their own hype and they too are subsumed in the Spectacle. As Joao Camargo puts it: "The elites themselves, instead of just using these vast set of ideas to dominate the other classes, actually came to be dominated by them. They came to believe the mystical hype about their role in the world and in society, about capitalism as the only way to organize human societies, about historical miracles and about the end of history. They are still doing so despite their tiny historical existence and despite the fact that some of their own institutions recognize that they are jeopardizing the subsistence of global civilization." The rulers themselves are mired in "a compulsory need derived from their very own metanarrative in which they are stuck. They can’t help themselves, it is their core social and cultural programming. They will never be able to solve the crisis, but only to deepen it. We need to overthrow them or their death pulse will lead us all into collapse."

Got A Feeling About The Future

And it ain't too good. I know I'm supposed to feel profound sympathy for the people losing their homes to fire in LA, but instead I feel much more sympathy for the people who live in tents or cars on the streets of America. Or the people who live in shacks throughout the so-called "developing world". People who don't get "homes" , but basic shelter. Speaking of homes: "The numbers show how climate change is eroding the underpinnings of American life by making home insurance costlier and harder to hang on to, even as wildfires, hurricanes and other calamities increasingly threaten what is, for many people, their most valuable asset." Gee, who could have predicted that insurance would be the Achilles heel? In his book Against the Crisis;Economy and Ecology in a Burning World, author Stale Holgersen argues that rather than crisis undermining capitalism, it actually serves to strenthen the system. Basically taking shock doctrine to the next level. What seems to be undefined, however, is the difference between, or dialectic of, crisis and rupture. I get that "creative destruction" is a feature of capitalism but what we will soon be looking at is uncreative destruction. The shattering of the last, tenuous social bonds. Klein also wrote This Changes Everything, with an understanding that unlike other "metabolic rifts", climate change will not be a linear progression of events. it accelerates exponentially till you've plunged off the cliff. Capitalism will not thrive under this regime. As for today's inauguration of Trump, the American People just want cheaper groceries and if it takes burning fossil fuel, whatever. It is a simple, transactional formula. Votes for treats. Of course physics doesn't argue and more houses will burn or be flooded or blown away, the sooner the better IMO. One of Trumps executive orders does away with "the social cost of carbon", one of the linchpins of green capitalism. The formula, first proposed by Nobel winning economist Nordhaus, was supposed to make markets more rational and efficient but it ignored Capitalism's ideological component.

Stampede to the Exit

According to influential financial analysts, the era of ESG (concern for environmental, social and governance issues) is over. The model is already in retreat, but when Trump takes the helm we will see a "stampede to the exit". After all, any corporation will be at a "competitive disadvantage if you don't end all that stuff." No matter how much gloss you want to put on it, COP 29 was a disaster in the sense that time is running out and there is still zero sense of urgency. Stalling and posturing and dissembling followed by lofty pronouncements. Sound familiar? As the analyist succinctly puts it: "It doesn't matter if it's ( meaning ecological breakdown) is real or not, because the occupants of this planet are not going to do anything about it. Brace yourself for impact, we are going to run the experiment." What he means by "brace" is position yourself to make as much money as possible in the time remaining. A rather insane, fatalistic cynicism, grasping for justification as the rational means to promote development forA the needy poor people of the planet. He continues: "If it is as calamitous as they (science, physics) claim it is going to be we will have to deal with such impacts as they arise.Because that is what is going to happen." The "we" he is talking about has already shown how it plans to deal with impacts. Push costs ( human sufering and monetary) off onto the periphery (those least responsible). Live it up while the band plays on then grab a lifeboat and shove off. The Doomberg Postulate: Every molecule of fossil fuel will be burned by somebody somewhere. Climate change is a "narrative" you can choose to adopt or reject. All those "green" capitalists will burn through their subsidies and find themselves building more solar-powered sweatshops in order to compete. And the end game, you ask? Sorry. There isn't one.