Two Video Interviews with Two Great Philosophers

I know it may seem like I'm posting a lot of videos lately, and this format may be a bit clumsy (you can just watch them on Youtube if you want), but these are really excellent multi-part videos featuring two of my favorite philosophers (Jacques Ellul and Herbert Marcuse) discussing imminently important subjects which are often misunderstood.

We'll start with Ellul and you can click the little "read more..." button below (if necessary) to see the rest. BTW, the first interview is given in French (w/ English subtitles) and the second, with Marcuse, is given in English.

It was dehumanizing... completely.

Anarchy, Technophiles, Freedom & Primitivism

(The following piece was written to create a dialogue in response to an article entitled: "Anarchy Would Most Likely Prevent The BP Oil Disaster" written by someone known as ComradShaw.)

The ideas presented in ComradShaw's article are somewhat ideal, but they seem to rely too heavily on a misguided notion of self-restraint -- when such a thing seems to be seriously lacking in actual reality. The author seems to think that everyone could vote and agree on everything -- which, while potentially nice in practice, may or may not actually be somewhat more ideal in the consequences. My point isn't that people shouldn't rely on self-restraint in many matters, nor am I suggesting that they shouldn't have a much greater say about what goes on in their world. But even free people in a far more egalitarian society could make horrible mistakes. And hubris, whether coming from the whole or from even just a segment of society, can lead to disaster.

The Oil Spill Disaster & Fundamental Flaws of the Overall System

As many of my regular readers might suspect, I've been following the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico rather closely. But a particular event related to that catastrophe really brought together my overall opinion of the whole mess. In an obscenely ludicrous turn of events, those applying to respond for the clean-up efforts on the gulf coast were subjected to drug tests and immigration raids! I was almost too furiously disgusted to guffaw.

But, frankly, maybe this potentially predictable event is just what was needed to allow us a chance to see the oil spill in a broader and more comprehensive context. As destructive, disruptive, and outright calamitous as this epic and growing oil spill has been... it's easy to forget or overlook the fact that humanity was already in and facing serious crisis. Even without our terminal addiction to oil (which is easily one of the most comprehensive and pressing issues) we still face issues which are often, at best, only incidentally related to petroleum extraction.

Infiltration, Surveillance, Brutality: The Police State is Issue #1

No matter what your primary concerns about society are -- environmental degradation, sweatshop labor, war, racism, etc. -- without foremostly addressing and scaling back the corporate police state, i.e. the prison-industrial complex, any progressive social change you are advocating for can, and will, be thwarted. This matters not if you are part of the most non-violent vegan sewing circle or if you are prepared to throw down in the streets for the dignity of humankind. Any perceived threat to the status quo, to profits and destruction, will be subjected to the evermore brazen and militarized forces of the state.

Noam Chomsky and Mild Reformist Tactics

The following was inspired by a recent interview with Noam Chomsky which was coordinated by people working through the anarchist subreddit at Reddit dot com.

As a chronicler of modern history, Noam Chomsky is something of an icon. The number of people he has influenced with his writing in favor of general social justice is probably beyond measure. He has highlighted things with his political writings that may otherwise not have received the attention they deserve, and I'm sure he'll be the first to admit that they still do not get all the attention they deserve. He's talking about very serious things in terms of apartheid, genocide, and war.

Unfortunately, with his latest interview, he has proven that simply being aware of many serious problems does not necessarily give you any real insight on how to effectively deal with them. And I might point out... some of the issues he brings up in passing, like environmental degradation, seem to be thrown in as a token for the effect of appearing comprehensive. On the particular subject of environmentalism, for instance, he offers nothing substantive with his suggestion that anarchists should be concerned with such issues. Unsupported by what human beings have already done, he suggests that humanity will be able to technologically engineer it's way into a more peaceful, less polluted, less devastated world. Perhaps so, but that's pretty vague, at best.

A primitivist response to Andrew Flood's question: Is primitivism realistic?

The following is a response to an article written some time back by Andrew Flood (hereafter often referred to as "the author"). The article is in circulation again on one of the social networking/bookmarking/link-sharing sites (reddit.com) which I peruse. Although this response is somewhat late, I feel it's still relevant and will remain so. I should also point out that I do not primarily identify myself as a Primitivist, but I do see much worth in the ideas of anarcho-primitivism. My response starts and continues by taking on quoted statements made in the original work by Andrew Flood: Is primitivism realistic? An anarchist reply to John Zerzan and others.


Since when was the "basic purpose" of anarchism "the creation of a free mass society?" And if that was the simplified basic purpose, why does it have to remain so? Maybe these are word games the author is playing, but a free society doesn't necessarily have to be a "mass" society and I personally could see complications arising in a mass society that was too large. This would be especially true if the mass society was constantly encroaching on bioregions and cultures that could not survive the intrusion. What does freedom really mean if your version of mass industrialism imposes itself as far and as densely populated as possible? More to do with "faith than reality" indeed.

Zero Point Indeed: A Response to Chris Hedges

In his latest article, Zero Point of Systemic Collapse (February '10 Adbusters),Chris Hedges analyzes the breakdown of the modern socio-economic & global political system. Anyone on the eyes-wide-open radical fringes is likely to have seen elsewhere many of the points Hedges makes in his article. However, as always, such work is often worth a look as it may challenge or clarify some of the ideas you may have had on the various subjects presented. Personally, I took issue with some of the things he wrote and found some theoretical shortcomings which were not very enlightening.

Resist Do Not Comply

More Wood for the Fire: Capitalist Solutions for Global Warming

(This article, by Peter Gelderloos, I originally found at AnarchistNews.org [which reposted it from Counterpunch.org]. It's one of the best articles I've seen in a long time and I had to repost it here for your consideration.)

More Wood for the Fire: Capitalist Solutions for Global Warming

While some people were shocked when Obama revealed himself to be an energy policy rightwinger in his State of the Union address, advocating more oil drilling, more nuclear power, and uttering that egregious Bush-era term, “clean coal,” I think the most remarkable aspect of this portion of his speech was that a politician had uttered the plain and obvious truth about the future.

Revolution is not just a word, but why revolt?

Revolution is not a word often used today in the meaningful way that it was in the past. The mildest reform or a new safety net put in place is often considered revolutionary. Advertisers of the latest product frivolously use the word in a way that nevertheless seems to subconsciously convey the inspirational meaning it had in the past. Smug academics and mainstream political partisans seem to scoff at the idea that a true revolution of values could occur by means of actual revolutionary activity. Others are so placated by the modern bread and circuses that they fail to notice growing crisis all around them.

This article is written with the intention of showing why a revolution is necessary and offers suggestions about how to make one manifest in practical reality.

Why and how I oppose the G-20

As they ride in limousines from their mansions to sip champagne with the other aristocratic oligarchs, I don't feel that the G-20 leaders really understand or care about the state of the world or the people in it. It is my contention that they believe their opulence and power is well deserved – despite the wars they orchestrate and the suffering they intentionally allow to continue. Hundreds of millions go hungry each day around the globe and the G-20 ministers facilitate the policies which allow that so that they may maintain the status quo of their power. They are the modern day ladies and lords of the kingdom and they rule over others as if they were serfs or slaves (which for all practical matters they are).

G-20 Protest Links (will be updated regularly)

Dignity, Freedom, Idealism & Expectations

"We are far too slow to outrun it now but not too far gone to care"
--Balance by the Mountain Goats

I was recently chatting with a dear friend about various philosophical perspectives and, being mildly provoked and not completely devoid of ego, I felt the the need to defend my own perspective. People always seem to try and pigeonhole me as being an excessively idealistic hippie or an excessively cynical anarchist. Perhaps there is some truth in both assessments (I can only hope that Derrick Jensen has the same problem). In any case... this is my personal perspective/self-assessment in regard to what I write and stand for philosophically.

Definancialisation, Deglobalisation, Relocalisationn (by Dmitry Orlov)

This post is in reference, and redirects, to an excellent article appearing at the Cluborlov blog which I highly recommend.

The talk from which the article was derived was presented at The New Emergency Conference in Dublin, on June 11, 2009.

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/06/definancialisation-deglobalisation.html

Twitphilia & Twitanoia: Controlling Technology

An in-depth analysis of Twitter from a radical perspective.

I created a Twitter account during the planning phase of the protest surrounding the 2008 Republican Nation Convention. I had heard about it's text-to-phone cababilities and thought it might be useful to help organize the protesters and provide them with up-to-the-minute logistics while they were in the streets. This still seems like a potentially viable use of the system (capable of bringing flashmobs to a whole new level), but I had neither the time nor the technical understanding before the protest to make a serious push in this direction. I simply posted a prescient "tee hee" tweet and abandoned the endeavor.

You Don't Have to be a Chomsky to Know Something is Wrong...

The following text was prepared as a leaflet and was distributed at a talk given by Noam Chomsky in Madison, WI., April 7th, 2009 about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. A review of the talk is given in the comments.

The squalor and apartheid in Gaza is truly horrible but, to mix a metaphor, focusing too much on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is like hacking at the branches on the ship of fools. The involvement of the U.S. government is clear with this problem (as it is with so many others -- wars, famine, sweatshop slavery, and environmental disasters all over the world). Nuclear weapons continue to be produced, proliferated and perfected with broad taxpayer support. Environmental scientists are the equivalent of modern day Cassandras to whom the masses give only token credence while humanity is on the brink of an unprecedented historical disaster which will pale the black death. On the heavily surveilled State Street, in Madison, WI., we have sweatshop storefronts and the worst forms of consumerism. These are the ways in which the masses are made complicit and these are the things which we must actively resist and overtly oppose. We need something beyond dispassionate lectures, hollow petitions, and milquetoast reforms. We need a comprehensive and radical dismantling of this system of war, famine, slavery and environmental devastation. We need subtle and pointed organization, locally, in various forms, of street-level revolt.

Crash & Collapse: This is more than a depression.

[UPDATE: June 1st, 2001 -- I have removed the 2 opening paragraphs (which listed my weak and boastful credentials) and have decided to let the article speak for itself -- other than that it is unchanged. This article is a few months old now but it is still relevant as the economic crisis has worsened. This is a partial account of how I see the crisis unfolding as well as where I see humanity going as a whole. And it may contain some information that you have overlooked or forgotten as the crash was gearing up. The original article with the weak opening remains unchanged at OpEdNews if you'd like to read the 2 paragraphs which I've now deleted here. Anyway, here remains the rest of the otherwise unchanged article...]

Money: derived from the Latin "moneta" which originally meant "warning" (as Juno Moneta was the goddess of warning). "When coinage was devised by the Romans, they set their mint in her temple and the goddess became the guardian of finances."

CRASH

The stock market has lost nearly a third of it's value since it's peak (14093). In the past week the DJIA has had it two worst daily downswings ever. Since Oct.1st, the market has dropped 1383 points (and counting as of 10/07/08) from 10831 to 9447. While the overall crash from the peak has happened more slowly than in 1929, the loss of value has been of a greater percentage than what took place in the initial days of that historic collapse. And, while certain computer automation techniques have been introduced to prevent more sudden single-day crashes, like the one in 1987, the markets are still plummeting and the results are the same.

Just as in 1929, the common citizen had been encouraged to invest more regularly in the stock market, right before it's peak, and now the rug has been pulled out from beneath them. Touted as the soundest, surest, most profitable investment... many average citizens tied their hopes and their retirement funds to the stock market. As before, many have already lost their life savings.

A brief socio-economic point...

Looters in New Orleans, after hurricane Katrina, were shot on sight. Looters on Wall Street were given a bailout.

Is that not the ultimate of double standards and irony? I mean come on, who needed the bailout more and who was really looting?

Anyway... here is a link to a video of a U.S. Congressman, speaking in congress, stating that members of congress were threatened with martial law if they didn't immediately pass the $850billion bailout plan.

Dystopia Now! How bad does it have to get?

Humanity is in crisis, bodily and spiritually. Humans are the direct cause of the current mass extinction. The biosphere is being laid to waste, in new ways all the time, at a quicker rate each passing day. The evidence, from prestigious bodies of scientists, is readily available via our toxic computers and the world wide web. We who are fortunate enough to get these facts ignore the information, dismiss it, or don't act upon it nearly to the degree which we ought. Human caused mass extinction will eventually catch up with our own species.

Despite pockets of affluence, more people around the world are starving today than at any point in human history OR pre-history (both in total numbers and per-capita). Agricultural practices have allowed for a global population boom but they also deplete the capabilities of the soil with each harvest. Deforestation and petro-chemicals only temporarily alleviate the problem by creating more farmland and fertilizers. But these tactics are not a long-term solution by any means and, in fact, make the long term consequences much worse. Unfortunately, these are the most common solutions implemented.

The potential for devastation caused by war has not lessened since the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. More devastating technologies have since been developed and more groups have an easier time gaining access to them. Intelligence agencies designed to prevent it are often complicit in proliferating the technology. Archaic religious wars have reached the age of nuclear weapons and hostilities are just as great as ever. It is only a matter of time before a new Hitler or an evil Ayatollah/Pope gets access to this technological power.

I would make the case connecting the progress of industrialized education with the progress of technological weaponry, but the institution is sacrosanct and scientific progress is presented as both unstoppable and desirable. Consequently, whether that's true or not doesn't matter... too few question or resist it. Most luddites are presented as historically irrelevant, currently misguided, or revered only in the realm of science fiction. Let me just say that primitive children living in the wilderness know as much about the world as children repeating their abc's and multiplication tables.

The prison-industrial complex is a fast-growing business. Already though, in America, more people are imprisoned in total numbers (and per-capita) than in any other nation. Land of the free indeed.

To the extent that other oppressive regimes exist around the world, they work with each and/or the United States of America. The Peoples Republic of China, for example, is the number one trading partner of the U.S. and both benefit by keeping large portions of their population repressed. Oligarchic powers around the world all benefit from (and desire to keep) large segments of the global population repressed and in poverty. They are able to pit these oppressed people against each other by old religious and nationalistic methods as well as modern media propaganda -- and do you think that the U.S. leaders would really want the Chinese to rise up in liberation to throw off their oppressors? No more than the Chinese oligarchs would want domestic upheaval in the USA.

This all amounts to modern humanity, and all life on earth, being in an unprecedented crisis. Our ethics and morality have only kept up with our technological capabilities insomuch as the more that we could do, we did. And make no mistake, supposedly benign mathematics can have surprising implications towards less noble pursuits -- Einstein should have taught us that (if Alfred Nobel didn't). And who are the esteemed intellectuals of science? Why they are rocket scientists, of course. But the point is that the fruits of benign sciences can plant the seeds of further devastation. This is a point that should not be as readily dismissed as it often is.

What we need is a fundamental break from the technological oligarchy, but this is no small chore. Those in power will not accept this because they don't have to face the common realities of the masses and, even if they knew of our crisis, they may be content to let the world die with them. How unprecedented is it that so many care so little about their children and their subsequent descendants? How much more true must this be for a high-tech war-profiteering arms dealer? We are talking about people who don't really care even about their immediate families -- much less you or any of the other billions of people on this planet!

Momentarily, I will get on to a milder response to the present situation but, what we really need is a revolt against the whole techno-industrial oligarchy. Even if they can't be stopped, even if they wholly intend to take the world with them, basic human dignity demands that we resist and rise up against their efforts. It may be wholly futile, but at what point is your entire lineage essentially dead anyway? In the name of non-violence, some people wouldn't punch someone in the nose to prevent them from launching a nuclear holocaust -- I am not one of those persons. As the most domesticated animal, humans have been bred into passivity or blind servitude, but I suggest you break those mental chains and act for the greater good of not only yourself, but also future generations.

In less dramatic terms, we must push the precautionary principle as far and as hard as it will go! The current wikipedia definition will suffice:

The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action. But in some legal systems, as the European Union Law, the precautionary principle is also a general principle of law. This means that it is compulsory. The principle aims to provide guidance for protecting public health and the environment in the face of uncertain risks, stating that the absence of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone measures where there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm to public health or the environment.

There are many definitions of the precautionary principle. Precaution is caution in advance, or ‘caution practised in the context of uncertainty’. All definitions have two key elements.

1. an expression of a need by decision-makers to anticipate harm before it occurs. Within this element lies an implicit reversal of the onus of proof: under the precautionary principle it is the responsibility of an activity proponent to establish that the proposed activity will not (or is very unlikely to) result in significant harm.
2. the establishment of an obligation, if the level of harm may be high, for action to prevent or minimise such harm even when the absence of scientific certainty makes it difficult to predict the likelihood of harm occurring, or the level of harm should it occur. The need for control measures increases with both the level of possible harm and the degree of uncertainty

Full implementation of the Precautionary Principle is just a start of the epic project which humanity must commence with. Not only must we work to prevent the implementation of new potentially devastating technologies, but we must stymie the usage of several ubiquitous technologies which already cause great amounts of destruction. Even simple projects protecting local green spaces are useful endeavors. Horticultural gardening to prevent the need for so much industrial agriculture (and processing) is a simple step which not only works towards these ends, but it is also a pleasant activity which can considerably help preserve financial resources. The list goes on, but moving away from the industrial cycle of consumption is key.

Again, however, we are faced with the problem of power dynamics. As a twist of Margaret Meade's famous statement about activism... I like to point out, "It only takes small group of committed individuals to do a great amount of environmental and social harm." Those who have demonstrated their commitment to environmental destruction and promote policies of war must be stopped. The key is consciousness of our own complicity within the destructive systems and an honest effort to move away from such practices -- without that we are less than human. But you are not on the same scale of a Hitler if you fight back against a rapist and using a tissue is not the same as enthusiastically encouraging the destruction of the rain forests. It is foolish not to consider intent or scale when thinking about such matters. Violence in self-defense (or in defense of others, or in defense of the environment) is not the same as aggressive violence for the purposes of greed and destruction. Do not let people convince you that saying a hurtful word is the same as the President, on national television, encouraging war. Yes, we are all sinners and are flawed, but some of us are just human while others are absolutely diabolic.

Preemptively, in terms of my own personal computer use, I like to say, for example, "The best uses for the tools of destruction are against the other tools of destruction." I hope that makes sense to some people.

Finally, I'd like to take a moment and talk about suppression and repression of radical environmentalists. In the past it was the communists/socialists who were seen as the preeminent threat to big business interests, but now it is the radical environmentalists (who often have a more anarchistic stance). The "red scare" has become the "green scare" and the tactics used previously are being used again. Before 9/11 it was the Earth Liberation Front that was considered by the U.S. government as the #1 domestic terrorist threat. This despite the fact that no one was ever physically harmed in an action claimed by that group. This despite the fact that the KKK still exists and neo-nazi's still flourish. This despite the fact that the police forces in this nation still kill innocent people every day.

So take this as a warning... if you want to struggle against the state's interests, even if you organize in the most peaceful ways, the state will take notice. Resistance is needed, but you must fully consider the consequences of even your most trivial participation in such activities.

With any luck, someday the value system of techno-industrialization civilization will be completely turned on its head. We will have peace and not war. Freedom and not constant surveillance by our so-called leaders. Conservation and sustainability rather than unhindered environmental degradation. But we must work and struggle for these things if we truly want change. It won't come from above, not from god or a politician. We must take it upon ourselves to bring about this the reality or it's not going to manifest. It is our responsibility. It is our duty as human beings.