State of Confusion

Many of the local patriots sport a bumper sticker on their giant flag waving trucks that say: "love my country- fear my government". They have no problem volunteering for the military because that is protecting their country and has nothing to do with government. Right? And they love Trump because even though he was president he wasn't part of the government. The country they love is the landscape they can drive their truck through, the actual dirt and now private property that was stolen from the natives. They don't fear the capitalists that profit off their labor and sell them all the junk they are enslaved by, no, it is the government with its mandates and regulations and bureaucracy that strikes terror in their hearts. Because they would rather die a free man than be forced to wear a mask. And they do, every day. Because masks are for girly men, for wimps who are afraid of a lttle virus, when they should be afraid of legislators and government agencies and the evil civil service people who staff them. Like the Forest Service. And FEMA. Patriots aren't afraid of bankers, because what could a banker really do, except maybe foreclose on your house. And repossess your Truck. And Boat. And Camper and Jet Skis and Snowmobiles. What you should fear is the IRS and the police- no, actually the police are fine- except when they aren't. Whatever. Game wardens, yeah, they're scary. Don't tread on me Warden dude.

"Creating an Understanding"

Reading the excellent report put out by the Indigenous Environmental Network on carbon taxes/ pricing schemes, I found this at the very end in the "what-is-to-be-done" section. Somehow, the work of "creating an understanding" has to take priority. Coincidentally, because this is a subject I have pondered a great deal on, I picked up a couple of books on the subject of ideology and its hegemonic power. This is basically the complex task of "creating an understanding", one which proves popular and spreads, ultimately affecting the political sphere. Capitalism is the near perfection of this process. From its roots as an economic system, it has successfully spread and embedded itself in every sphere, from philosophy to popular culture. And most sucessfully, it has neutered politics, turning them into a Spectacular form of enetertainment for your passive enjoyment ( even joissance). By co-opting the primary sphere in which it was theoretically able to be challenged, it has achieved a hegemony barely dreamed of by its early proponents. That means this project of "creating an understanding" which is countervailing to the imperatives of capitalism is a tricky bit of business. And not as easy as setting up billboards, writing books or blogs, or giving good speeches. The indigenous folk, along with Deep Greens, are prosletyzing, promoting a spiritual cosmovision for us moderns to adopt. Gramsci saw the process unfolding thusly: "The realization of a hegemonic apparatus, in so far as it creates a new ideological terrain, determines a reform of conciousness..." The project is the creation of the New Man, as Durkheim and Che Guavara hoped to achieve. Again, capitalism has been incredibly successful at this project, creating what we can call homo economicus, the satisfied customer/producer.

shocked

The Last Hopeful Ones over at DSA are shocked and dismayed that the Democrat's infrastructure bill is rapidly becoming a thoroughly hollowed out piece of shit. Not "a place to start" or "the most we could hope for" but a total corporate gift filled with privitization scams and piles of pork. Who could possibly have predicted such a fiasco? Of course there will be no PRO Act attached, much less any climate finance. And with Biden stridently defending the filibuster, there won't be any additional spending or voting rights protection. Still, the DSA stalwarts urge us to "call your Senator!". Unbelievable faith in a corrupt system that screws them over and over and over ( think Lucy and Charlie Brown football).It borders on the pathological, this willingness to trust in the process of "democratic" capitalism- despite everything. So they quickly come up with another "campaign" we are all supposed to get behind; Green New Deal for Public Schools. As the world burns, we turn to schoolchildren and their progressive teachers. Speaking of schoolchildren, Fridays for the Future has a smart, cute little Swede for its poster child. The indigenous environmental sovereignty water protector movement has Winona La Duke. I mean, c'mon. This is the public face of your movement? Where is Black Lives Matter? If they are upset about voting rights, they should talk to Jim Clyburn, Democrat Party stalwart and another great "leader" who made sure Bernie wouldn't bring up the filibuster. Addendum: The Clyburn backed moderate Shontel Brown won a Cleveland area primary over progressive Nina Turner, who was backed by Bernie Sanders and AOC. Clyburn is described as a "kingmaker" and the royal interests he promotes are the black bourgeoise.

Land Back

Revolutionary indigenous ecosocialists write in their manifesto "A Red Deal" that Land Back be a primary demand. I admittedly struggled with this in the same way I have struggled with the BLM slogan Abolish the Police. If I maintain the goal of building a mass movement of any kind, these two demands are absolute non-starters with "the masses" I live among. But at this stage of the game, maybe impossible demands are the way to go. There isn't the vaguest hint of any "mass movement"building , even to support tepid, pro-capitalist growth Green New Deal legislation. So one might as well demand the US give back all the land it stole from the Indians. Why not? Abolish prisons and set everyone free, abolish the military and stop colonizing the planet. While we are at it, we can make the Deep Greens happy and call for the end of "industrial civilization" and a make-over for consumer culture. Ban agriculture! End Electricity! At this stage of the "game", any of these are just as likely as Keep Fossil Fuels In the Ground. When you have reached a point where an old white male Senator or two (Manchin and Tester) can prevent any climate legislation from being considered, as floods and fires rage across the landscape and the perma-frost melts, it is time to abandon pragmatism. If humans won't get vacinnated, what chance is there they would give up any part of their lifestyle? In his novel Ministry for the Future, author Kim Stanley Robinson imagines that a heat wave killing 20 million people in one week finally kicks elites into gear, pushing them to accept the crisis and enact emergency measures. This is terrifyingly all-too plausible.

Nothing But Flowers

In their post-apocalyptic song, the Talking Heads imagine a world that has been quickly de-modernized, where parking lots are covered in daisies. The New Adam and Eve characters are "strong and brave" yet miss the comforts of their old life, growing tired of "nuts and berries". Having just watched a video introducing their book "Bright Green Lies", I can't help envisioning Derrik Jensen and Lierre Kieth huddled around a small fire, brewing dandelion tea to go with their rattlesnake dinner. Not to disparage those parts of their critique which require a considered response.But to say we need a new culture (in a decade or less) isn't really helpful when it comes to solutions. Certainly, ecosocialists don't have it all figured out either. Too often the eco gets left out of the socialism as they struggle for a transitional program or political line. This then is the immediate quandry: given the time frame, what might be salvaged? What level of extraction or agriculture might be acceptable? Though their primary target is the mainstream environmental movement, one of the "Lies" Jensen and Co. go after are techno-modernist proposals, and here I am wondering about the Jacobson Stanford study that claims we can supply all our electricity needs with renewables (WWS or wind, water, solar). My question is: why does it have to be a binary, either/ or? Could we see some de-growth and some technology? Couldn't we say yes, "industrial civilization" is messed up without having to jettison the entire structure? Couldn't we accept certain conveniences to alleviate back-breaking drudgery? Couldn't we accept certain trade-offs (a limited number of grizzlies, less than historic salmon runs, etc) in order to make the proposal a little easier to sell? It needn't be hunting and gathering versus techno-luxury communism. But yes, species with no voice deserve to be considered.

LaLa Land

The Saudi energy minister was interviewed following the latest OPEC meeting and called the latest IEA report "a sequel to the La La Land movie." The report called on "the world" to halt investment in fossil fuel exploration and production to meet climate goals. The minister asked "Why should I take it seriously?" Why indeed? Who is going to enforce restrictions? There is no "world", only competing nations, governments and corporations. And because the Saudis have the cheapest oil, they answer to no one. Anybody who thinks they give a shit if millions die of heat prostration is living in La La Land. Progressives who think "green capitalism" and some nice co-op housing are going to slow the catastrophe are living in La La Land. The fact is, we are all living in La La Land; a place where shieks decide the world's fate, where poeple think a mask thwarts their freedom, where leftists think "the working class" is going to rise up and take power, is going to withhold their labor...

"Racial Capitalism"

Reading an online mag called The Forge I keep running into this term "racial capitalism" and references to "the uprising". What I am hoping, seriously hoping, is that these folks can do some comparative analysis with Occupy Wall Street, so as to avoid similar pitfalls. The other thing that jumps out at me (old white man me) is the call to "center Black leadership" in the movement and here I am reminded of Standing Rock and the calls to "center indigenous leadership". The other problematic similar to Standing Rock is the rejection of "isms". Fortunately no one reads this blog or cares what I think, so my critique won't induce attacks, but this is a good-faith effort: the uprising, standing rock and occupy need to be looked at in their historical context, both in terms of similarities and differences. These events, along with the anti-Iraq war movement, define the popular protest of a generation and from my perspective, it's not a pretty picture. One of the key frictions in all three events has involved the definition and parsing of the term capitalism and the purposeful avoidance of class analysis (whether one accepts or rejects it). I truly hope "racial capitalism" is not that. I truly hope Black academics do not resort too quickly to the term "class reduction" as they theorize the conjunction of crises that is upon us. Policing (especially racist policing) and gun violence are symptoms, and unless you are willing to talk about "isms", you will not get to the root, the disease, the terrifying trauma. As for "centering", let's also remember that the trauma can affect leadership, that leading has its own set of problems and inclusion and intersectionality have to work both ways. Ecology might not be the first thing you think about waking up in the inner city but it is no less Real. Out here where I live there are wide-open spaces but no Black folk to speak of and the cops deal with meth addicts and wife beaters and teen suicides and all kinds of well-armed humans damaged by plain old capitalism. Not to mention criminals. Abolishing them requires fixing the world first and I'd like to collaborate on that project, not follow. Finlly, The Loud Right-Wing Media is calling BLM "Marxist" in the hopes of driving a wedge and I hope the movement doesn't go all liberal and fall for the trap. What would Fred Hampton do? He'd preach a little Marx- ism.