One State Solution

Watched the documentary film Israelism last night and in the discussion with one of the filmakers following, he suggested America's treatment of the indigenous peoples could serve as an analogy with Israel / Palestine. Those who advocate a secular one state solution ( the South Africa model) would then have to consider one state being shared here in the U.S., rather than our system of semi-autonomous Indian Nations. This gives a new meaning to the Land Back movement. It is not clear which borders those calling for a two-state solution wish to see: 67? 48? If taking land through military conquest is "stealing" you open a real can of worms. If "free Palestine" refers to the 48 Mandate borders, if that is the "stolen" land referred to, then the U.S. should return the whole continent to the indigenous peoples. Other nations should have to return the land taken, though it is unclear how far back such claims might go. On the way in to see the film we listened to an interview with Iyad el Bahgdadi in which he called for one secular democratic state along the lines of South Africa. Of course, Capital wasn't mentioned so It could only be "democracy" with constraints and limits. We could look to Ireland as an example of conflict fueled by religious fanaticism and historical trauma that has resolved but while there are parallels, the analogy is not perfect. None are. The "Israelism" which has infected the U.S. is currently being challenged by a mostly younger cohort but do not expect quick results in terms of a just settlement. Not mentioned in the film are the evangelical Christians who support Zionism. And then there is the whole dismissal of "social justice" by conservatives as a commie plot.

Liberal Dissonance Or Dissociation

"Pull the wool over your own eyes" instructs Bob, the sub-genious. This is the motto for the US "progressive" liberal who is now fretting over the 2024 Presidential election. They bemoan the Supreme Beings decision to stall Trump's trial because "a surprisingly large segment of the electorate has either no idea or slight knowledge of the charges against Trump," according to Thomas Edsal in the NY Times. He (like every liberal) is worried about Trump taking power when the real worry should be that many incredibly stupid people running through the streets of America. How do they imagine a democracy could exist amongst that much ignorance? Paul Krugman, Michelle Cottle, Ezra Klein, and all my progressive friends flail as they try to explain the man's support because in Liberaland, capitalist democracy, like the "arc of history", tends toward justice. It is rational and outcomes depend on reasoned debate and consideration of the "issues". You remember: Kennedy vs Nixon, William Buckley vs Gore Vidal or James Baldwin. Intellectuals with opposing ideas. The "good old days", back when "ideas" had some cache. Having no way to analyze the ways today's capitalism is different from that time's capitalism, liberals can only remain, befuddled, outraged, astounded at the "degradation of discourse". They want to make America great again. Go back to the time before clowns, when serious folks ran things. But that horse left that barn for a reason and if all you can do is moan and wail and pull your hair...The fact is, in capitalist "democracy", everyone is voting for "uncommited".

Against Gorz

Sorry to burst the bubble, but there is no such thing as "non-reformist reforms". Because the revolutionary horizon is so distant, radicals are relying more and more heavily on the promise of "revolutionary reforms" but I think the results of the last decade speak for themselves. It is a convenient illusion that incremental reforms are getting us any closer to a just and sustainable society, much less mode of production. Name one that has furthered revolutionary aims. All reforms to the current system function as affirmations that the system is flexible, adaptable, reformable and therefore the best of all possible systems. At the psychological level, this re-inforces the hegemonic ideology already prevelant throughout all classes. Yes, there are challenges, but the system is resilient and overcomes all barriers. It is in this sense that all reforms are reformist and therefore counter-revolutionary.Sorry Rosa. Sorry Andre. The other big problem with reforms is you have to ask or "demand" them from the government, affirming the illusion that governments are in control of the hegemonic system of production and social reproduction. We are all taught our government is "of the People, by the People, for the People". Sure, we are told by the cultural apparatus, there are some "bad corporations" and "bad lobbyists" trying to subvert this lovely democracy, but reforms can thwart them. Through the so-called "political" process. This is a well-managed distraction from the actual relations of power. Citizen agency is directed toward voting for their representative in government. Toward useless protest such as signing petitions, marching and going to rallys. This reliance on capitalist governments to solve issues is why greenhouse gasses and other pollutants and waste and destructive land-use practices etc. etc. are destroying the biosphere. They can negotiate international agreements all they want, but they can't end capital accumulation. Governments are therefore reduced to "green capitalist" false solutions to maintain GDP growth. Reform the banking system. Reform the regulatory agencies. Reform the judicial system. Reform the schools. This is why liberalism vs conservatism is a false dichotomy; Capital loves it when we are engaged in useless reformist battles, expending all our energy railing against the latest clown politician, the latest threat to our "rights", the latest decision by the Supreme Beings. This is all background noise as Capital does what Capital does. Left wing "non-reformist reforms" theory asserts that as more and more "demands" are met the People realize their power and begin to make radical demands that challenge the rule of Capital. History provides a different story. In reality, as demands are met, people are increasingly satisfied with the status quo. They become defenders of a system which appears willing to compromise and share some wealth or status. But if the People demand too much, expect Capital to go on strike and impose discipline. or start a new round of culture wars. Or real wars.

National Unity

An article in yesterdays Times describes Israeli reservists, just back from the onslaught of Gaza, who want their country to be "unified again". These young soldiers loved serving with those from every political persuasion and were amazd at how killing women and children brought them together and erased the acrimony. You want National Unity? The answer is simple: just stage another attack by "outsiders"! This is a common refrain heard from clueless liberals everywhere you go: we hate this division and polarization, if only something could bring us together as a nation. Getting attacked works every time, guaranteed. So I propose arranging for your country to be attacked by "terrorists" on a regular basis. It doesn't require many casualties, certainly not Trade Tower 9/11 numbers. The problem is, the warm feeling of unity tends to wear off quicker and quicker so you will need increasingly frequent attacks. Freedom isn't free. But nothing is quite as cozy as being brought together as a nation, as a People, as a Volk. Meanwhile, the Biden administration "mourns the loss of innocent life" as Israeli soldiers open fire on people rushing to get food aid in Gaza. African migrants are flying through Bogata to get to Nicaragua, then El Salvador where they will try to make their way north to the U.S. Putin warns us that he has nukes if he needs them. I won't even mention the global warming. None of this ends well.

A Deliberate Cruelty

I just returned from a three week visit to Cuba, that oh0so0dangerous country lying ninety miles off the Florida coast. A country still on America's terrorist watch list (the hypocricy almost too much to bear), a country being purposely strangled by a blockade and trade sanctions, a country filled with struggling people who just want the opportunity to create a decent life. And but for the neighborhood bully, they certainly could. We met lots of warm and generous people who make amazing music and art and who love to sit and chat, to be social, to hang with friends and family and discuss this or that. They have, as a collective, a very small carbon footprint and make do with what little they have; old cars they keep repairing, horses to pull their cart of produce into town, oxen to plow their small plot of red soil. Ways of being we could definitely learn from (but won't). But being slowly strangled means you do what you can to better your condition. For some that means leaving, emigrating to a place where the future holds more promise. Many Cubans have relatives in America, especially Florida, and this means a leg up in their efforts. The U.S. also makes special provisions for those immigrants who can reach our shores, special funding and programs that immigrants from other places do not enjoy. America's little way of further undermining their poor neighbor. Another way people can improve their circumstances is through the tourist economy. To get a hold of U.S. dollars. This economy is a less-than-subtle way to create inequality and division, the hallmark of capitalism. The goal is obvious; to bring down the socialist government and drive a nail through socialist ideology. Still smarting from the humiliation of the Bay of Pigs and the missle crisis, the bully is relentless in his efforts. Astounded that this small island survived the fall of the Soviet Union and persists in its goals and revolutionary values, the bully is patient but deliberate. The population may or nay not desire socialism but they are proud of their country's ability to fight back against imperialist greed and ambition. It is the kind of pride you will only find among the ignorant in America, those ignorant of their country's history and continued naked aggression.

Here It Comes

From today's Wall Street Journal: "Scientists Resort to Once-Unthinkable Solutions To Cool The Planet". I can't access the article but basically they are describing the research and deployment of various geoengineering schemes, now that it is understood there will be no reduction in emissions or the production of fossil fuels. I remember Guy Mc Pherson years ago predicting this would happen; capitalists and their clients in government would stall and stall and pretend to be making progress and there would be all this greeenwashing and "blah,blah, blah" until the day they announced that due to the emergency it was necessary to deploy geoengineering. That day has arrived. In my novel a sinister collaboration of private and state actors results in a disastrous geoengineering deployment, leading to societal collapse. This was my most optimistic scenario. Because the sooner this thing implodes the better; for species losing habitat, for people being oppressed and exploited and annihilated in various parts of the globe, for the very concept of justice. In an essay in VOX, Eric Levitz takes issue with Andreas Malm's call for the use of property destruction, believing we must wait till enough renewable energy production is installed to replace our current use of fossil fuels. Until the "price goes down" or it is "economical" and there need be no sacrifice. Waiting for the Market, waiting for Godot. Levitz's argument echoes that of COP28 president Sultan Al-Jabar, who quipped that those wanting to halt fossil fuel production wish to "take the world back into caves". This from a man who lives in a palace. But decarbonisation is not anti-modern ( though I personally have no problem with de-industrialization and believe Bruno Latour is correct that climate change signals the end of the modern project) and we can live nicely with considerably less stuff. Instead we can expect our skies to turn a sparkly white sooner than later.

There Is No Off Switch

Ezra Klein : "Capitalism is itself a kind of artificial intelligence, and it’s far further along than anything the computer scientists have yet coded. In that sense, it copied OpenAI’s code long ago." Kevin Roose : "Now, the utopians are in the driver’s seat. Full speed ahead. Team Capitalism won. Team Leviathan lost." Even smart people confuse capitalism and Capital. In the ideological/cultural/political matrix that is capitalism, "utopians" could perhaps be "in the driver's seat." But Capital has no driver's seat. No one or group of people steers it. It careens along its own trajectory, guided by its own logic. Capital is in no sense "managed". M > C> M is all you really need to know, the relentless cycling. This Kevin character is worried that government over-reach (Leviathan) will stifle the awesome innovation represented by Open AI. I mean, what could possibly go wrong with an artificial intelligence smarter than the general population and most of their leaders? Liberals are in a tizzy over the state of our "democracy" and Trump's hostile rhetoric toward our allies. Rachael Maddow, Paul Krugman, even Jon Stewart is inspired to jump back into the fray and defend the precious liberal values they hold dear.