Dandies skull-to-skull
Nov. 13th, 2007 10:44 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
imomus"I've concluded that it is far better to borrow elements of dandyism rather than merely trying to actually become one. It's far less predictable and far more interesting. Better dandyish than dandy," says Lord Whimsy, very sensibly, in his entry today about London self-promoter Sebastian Horsley.
Horsley, oddly enough, agrees. "Dandyism" completely fails as an idea," he wrote in his New Statesman pan of Whimsy's book. "How can originality replicate to create a whole movement? How can you dress alike to assert your individuality? How, on the one perfumed hand, can you talk about freedom when you willingly give it up with the other ungloved mitt? How can you be unique and yet part of the gang? ...Clownish eccentricity is often a mask for nonentity."
[Error: unknown template video]
Since there are none in the room, let's make no bones about dandyism. Dandies -- rather than people who are merely elegant and poised, like Whimsy -- are tiring to spend time with, because they really are larger than life. They glaze over when they aren't talking about themselves. They've arranged everything in their lives (except possibly their accommodation: Horsley lives in a tiny flat in Soho) to be bigger than yours, so the casual trading of anecdotes that happens in any normal conversation becomes a contest in which the dandy trumps you time after time. Eventually you just shut up and let them speak, and it's entertaining for a while because they've collected a lifetime's-worth of Wildean one-liners (common sense turned through 180 degrees to make it "interesting") and insist on repeating them to anyone who'll listen. (This, by the way, is why you should never, ever become a dandy's girlfriend. The repetition will drive you insane.)
Soon, though, you feel energy draining away from you. You start to feel the weight of your own skeleton. You'd rather take a walk through the dusky streets with the waitress, the cashier, the Filippino chef. You'd rather have someone say "I don't really know," and proceed to think things through in real time rather than tug an endless supply of handy, witty, polished me-axioms from their frilly me-sleeve.
That's not to say Horsley doesn't have some good riffs up his ruffs. The strongest are about the universality of artifice, the unavoidability of performance, and the realness of fakery. "Show me a man who doesn't paint himself a face," he says in the video below. "We all perform our lives. Look at the doctors, the lawyers, the accountants, the artists. They think they're real people. They're not, they're just face paint. The reason that I piss people off is that I make the joke explicit.... Because everybody else is just as phoney as I am. I'm just a real fake."
[Error: unknown template video]
Like all 180-degree inversions of common sense that depend on the very logic they seem to deny ("property is theft" is another example), this one self-destructs if examined too closely. But never mind, it entertains for seconds before dissolving in the mist.
What's -- for me, anyway -- most interesting about Horsley is his face. Turn the sound down and watch it. Somehow, his face in motion has inscribed in it the entire history of British dandyism, post-punk. He's every sacrificial dandy the British have ever ushered toward the pyre of destruction-for-amusement.
There are wide-stare flashes of his hero Johnny Rotten, and of Rotten's pantomime villain svengali Malcolm McLaren. That takes us neatly to the era of New Romanticism, in which Horsley is Adam Ant without the songs. Then there's the decline and fall of New Romanticism, hastened by Bowie as Screaming Lord Byron, Brideshead Revisited on TV, and Rupert Everett as, well, every English male lead that isn't Hugh Grant. And Horsley looks like Rupert Everett gone slightly Cro-Magnon, or a degraded Peter York drinking at the Coach and Horses with a permanently-queasy Jeffrey Bernard. Then Goth takes over, and you can see it all in Horsley's face, and explicitly in the snapshot of Nick Cave and Horsley in the desert, trying to get off drugs. Then of course Morrissey becomes the big star and Oscar Wilde and Quentin Crisp are everyone's heroes, including Horsley's.
In the 90s he fossilizes into a Dickens character just in time for BritPop, also headed by two fossilized Dickens characters called Liam and Noel. Then, for a blink, new Romanticism is back -- it's called Romo, it happens in the Melody Make for a few months in 1995, and it gives the world Dickon Edwards -- and Horsley can ride that wave too, before jumping off when he discovers Johnny Depp's belated discovery of Goth. By mid-decade, though, he's more interested in being a confessedly-crap YBA artist, collecting Damian Hirst-style skulls and sharks and staging self-crucifixions. As the millennium approaches he becomes a too-old Nathan Barley. Now, just in time for Retro Necro (and to go skull-to-skull with our own Lord Whimsy's Bloomsbury book), Horsley has published a memoir, "Dandy in the Underworld: an unauthorised autobiography" (Sceptre). And for this period, sinking elegantly into middle age, Horsley looks a bit like Retro Necro figurehead Jools Holland.
[Error: unknown template video]
The truth is that we British and Americans can't really do dandyism. We're too cuddly, too eager to please, too unscary, too self-deprecating. Our dandyism, as a result, becomes self-sacrificial. We mount the cross before we're asked.
When the British dress up in old clothes they look like genteel imperialists, and when Americans do it they look like traitors to a republic which broke away from Britain's genteel empire. The people who do dandyism best are the Germans. Mad King Ludwig of Bavaria is the perfect dandy, because to be a real dandy you need unlimited power and wealth, unbridled egomania and bad craziness. Recent German dandies include Klaus Kinski and Jonathan Meese. Oh, and mustn't forget that wretch Adolf Hitler. Lots of skulls on his mantelpiece too.
Horsley, oddly enough, agrees. "Dandyism" completely fails as an idea," he wrote in his New Statesman pan of Whimsy's book. "How can originality replicate to create a whole movement? How can you dress alike to assert your individuality? How, on the one perfumed hand, can you talk about freedom when you willingly give it up with the other ungloved mitt? How can you be unique and yet part of the gang? ...Clownish eccentricity is often a mask for nonentity."
[Error: unknown template video]
Since there are none in the room, let's make no bones about dandyism. Dandies -- rather than people who are merely elegant and poised, like Whimsy -- are tiring to spend time with, because they really are larger than life. They glaze over when they aren't talking about themselves. They've arranged everything in their lives (except possibly their accommodation: Horsley lives in a tiny flat in Soho) to be bigger than yours, so the casual trading of anecdotes that happens in any normal conversation becomes a contest in which the dandy trumps you time after time. Eventually you just shut up and let them speak, and it's entertaining for a while because they've collected a lifetime's-worth of Wildean one-liners (common sense turned through 180 degrees to make it "interesting") and insist on repeating them to anyone who'll listen. (This, by the way, is why you should never, ever become a dandy's girlfriend. The repetition will drive you insane.)
Soon, though, you feel energy draining away from you. You start to feel the weight of your own skeleton. You'd rather take a walk through the dusky streets with the waitress, the cashier, the Filippino chef. You'd rather have someone say "I don't really know," and proceed to think things through in real time rather than tug an endless supply of handy, witty, polished me-axioms from their frilly me-sleeve.
That's not to say Horsley doesn't have some good riffs up his ruffs. The strongest are about the universality of artifice, the unavoidability of performance, and the realness of fakery. "Show me a man who doesn't paint himself a face," he says in the video below. "We all perform our lives. Look at the doctors, the lawyers, the accountants, the artists. They think they're real people. They're not, they're just face paint. The reason that I piss people off is that I make the joke explicit.... Because everybody else is just as phoney as I am. I'm just a real fake."
[Error: unknown template video]
Like all 180-degree inversions of common sense that depend on the very logic they seem to deny ("property is theft" is another example), this one self-destructs if examined too closely. But never mind, it entertains for seconds before dissolving in the mist.
What's -- for me, anyway -- most interesting about Horsley is his face. Turn the sound down and watch it. Somehow, his face in motion has inscribed in it the entire history of British dandyism, post-punk. He's every sacrificial dandy the British have ever ushered toward the pyre of destruction-for-amusement.
There are wide-stare flashes of his hero Johnny Rotten, and of Rotten's pantomime villain svengali Malcolm McLaren. That takes us neatly to the era of New Romanticism, in which Horsley is Adam Ant without the songs. Then there's the decline and fall of New Romanticism, hastened by Bowie as Screaming Lord Byron, Brideshead Revisited on TV, and Rupert Everett as, well, every English male lead that isn't Hugh Grant. And Horsley looks like Rupert Everett gone slightly Cro-Magnon, or a degraded Peter York drinking at the Coach and Horses with a permanently-queasy Jeffrey Bernard. Then Goth takes over, and you can see it all in Horsley's face, and explicitly in the snapshot of Nick Cave and Horsley in the desert, trying to get off drugs. Then of course Morrissey becomes the big star and Oscar Wilde and Quentin Crisp are everyone's heroes, including Horsley's.
In the 90s he fossilizes into a Dickens character just in time for BritPop, also headed by two fossilized Dickens characters called Liam and Noel. Then, for a blink, new Romanticism is back -- it's called Romo, it happens in the Melody Make for a few months in 1995, and it gives the world Dickon Edwards -- and Horsley can ride that wave too, before jumping off when he discovers Johnny Depp's belated discovery of Goth. By mid-decade, though, he's more interested in being a confessedly-crap YBA artist, collecting Damian Hirst-style skulls and sharks and staging self-crucifixions. As the millennium approaches he becomes a too-old Nathan Barley. Now, just in time for Retro Necro (and to go skull-to-skull with our own Lord Whimsy's Bloomsbury book), Horsley has published a memoir, "Dandy in the Underworld: an unauthorised autobiography" (Sceptre). And for this period, sinking elegantly into middle age, Horsley looks a bit like Retro Necro figurehead Jools Holland.
[Error: unknown template video]
The truth is that we British and Americans can't really do dandyism. We're too cuddly, too eager to please, too unscary, too self-deprecating. Our dandyism, as a result, becomes self-sacrificial. We mount the cross before we're asked.
When the British dress up in old clothes they look like genteel imperialists, and when Americans do it they look like traitors to a republic which broke away from Britain's genteel empire. The people who do dandyism best are the Germans. Mad King Ludwig of Bavaria is the perfect dandy, because to be a real dandy you need unlimited power and wealth, unbridled egomania and bad craziness. Recent German dandies include Klaus Kinski and Jonathan Meese. Oh, and mustn't forget that wretch Adolf Hitler. Lots of skulls on his mantelpiece too.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-13 12:02 pm (UTC)That doesn't work! Here's the recursive circle.
The Dictionary: Property is when you own stuff. Theft is when you take it without owning it. The terms are antonyms; there is no concept of theft without a concept of property. Generally speaking, property is seen as good, theft as bad.
Proudhon: Property is theft!
People: That's a striking phrase! But what do you mean, Proudhon?
Proudhon: I mean that property is bad, because theft is bad.
People in the world: So you're not saying that theft is good?
Proudhon: No, no, I'm saying that property is good. No, wait, I mean property is bad! Because theft is!
You see what knots we get tangled in when we try to invert the semantics of mutually-defining terms 180 degrees? They won't stay there, defined as the same thing. They swing back to their original positions very, very quickly.
In a world without property, there is no theft. But we don't live in a world without property. Best, then, to modify the concept of property, leaving it -- and its relationship with its antonym -- intact and meaningful. We do this with ideas like "public property" or "collective property". It's still property, but everyone owns it. This is a very powerful and stable concept. Property-as-theft is a weak and unstable one.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-13 12:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-13 02:06 pm (UTC)> We do this with ideas like "public property" or "collective property".
Which are defined in oppostion to "private property", which is what the "theft" accusations tend to be levelled it.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-13 02:26 pm (UTC)Who gets to decide what qualifies as "over and above" what I need? What if my emotional constitution and general happiness requires that I have my very own mountain? Who are you to deny me that?
And not all property is equal. Lets say theres a small dwelling by the sea that allows the owner to see beautiful sunsets and one thats next to a smelly bog that doesnt smell too great. Both perfectly habitable but one is more desireable than the other. Well, who gets to decide which property goes to whom?
And there in the lies the problem with communism -- its bullshit that never has and never will ever work in practice because human beings cannot and will not ever agree on every little detail of how to do things "fairly".
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-13 03:47 pm (UTC)That's individual well-being versus the greater good. It's impossible for every individual to have total freedom and everything they want, because one person's inevitably infringes someone else's. To launch a Godwin - what if Hitler's emotional constitution and general happiness required that he live in a Jew/gay/Slav-free Germany? Of course, people who need to own a mountain for their emotional well-being fall into two camps - those who can afford to buy their own mountain, and those who can't, who have to be defined as mentally ill for wanting something they can't have (and we're back to the ever-present Foucault again).
"human beings cannot and will not ever agree on every little detail of how to do things "fairly"."
Yes, but I'd far rather live in a world where people argue over details than one where people fall back on absolutes like "property is good". The difference is that fundamentalist capitalism not only doesn't work on paper - it's actually not working across the planet at this very moment. We may argue about whether one person's house is nicer than another's, but when gene sequences, plant seeds, rain which hasn't hit the ground, and individual words become "property", it becomes very hard to argue that this is beneficial to humanity.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-13 04:23 pm (UTC)You've completely missed my point. What is "the greater good"? And who gets to decide something like that?
"To launch a Godwin - what if Hitler's emotional constitution and general happiness required that he live in a Jew/gay/Slav-free Germany?"
That's his freedom of choice. But it's also my freedom of choice to implore my government to bomb the living shit out of him for it, and luckily thats what we did. Thats how life works.
"Yes, but I'd far rather live in a world where people argue over details..."
I'm not entirely sure youd be all that keen on it if you lived in a country where people couldnt completely agree how to govern themselves and you ended up with corruption, famine and destituton as a result, like North Korea. But of course, ive never come across a Pinko whos not sitting there, sucking on and getting fat off the teat of capitalism whilst they condemn it.
We're animals, we live by the laws of nature, and the laws of nature say survival of the fittest. In a capitalist society we allow those who can thrive to thrive. And before you say "well, is it fair that some people are born into money while others are on the pverty line", well, is it fair that some people are more beautiful or intelligent than others? Nobody is born equal, some have more power than others, and trying to change that very essential aspect of nature is an impossibility. "Fairness" doesnt exist because its an imaginary, abstract concept that has no fixed meaning and no universal implimentation. For every human to agree on a fixed idea of fairness would require them to have a labotomy, to strip them of their individuality. And even if that was possible "for the greater good, for that concept of "fairness" to even be implimented would require the world to be blank canvas for communism that it just isnt and you'll inevitably end up with inequality somewhere, like the Sunset house Vs the bog house.
Capitalism works. Britain is proof of that, American is proof of that, the entire industrialised world is proof of that because we're powerful and live comfortable lives in relative freedom. Name me a communist country that has that... you cant, and you never will.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-13 09:24 pm (UTC)North Korea is a horrible example, given the role of the West in creating and maintaining its current situation. I would like to suggest that in no country do people agree on how to govern themselves. You might look into the role of capitalist institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank if you're interested in the creation of corruption, famine, and destitution, especially the consequences of their structural adjustment programmes.
We're animals, we live by the laws of nature, and the laws of nature say survival of the fittest.
You gloss over a lot of important nuance here. Laws in the scientific sense aren't things one 'lives by', they're merely descriptions, as specific as possible, of the way things appear to usually work. "Survival of the fittest" isn't one of these; it's not specific enough and 'fittest' has incorrect connotations. "The creature which adapts best survives" is more accurate, but I don't think a single sentence can get the entire theory of natural selection across.
"'Fairness' doesnt exist because its an imaginary, abstract concept that has no fixed meaning and no universal implimentation."
This is no argument, as you unproblematically use many other terms which fit the same description--"communism" and "capitalism" for example. Philosophers of language from Quine to Derrida have argued that the same is true of every word. Yet we can still talk about capitalism and communism. Surely we can talk about fairness too.
What do you think about this statement: "no one deserves to be poor"?
Capitalism works. Britain is proof of that, American is proof of that, the entire industrialised world is proof of that because we're powerful and live comfortable lives in relative freedom.
Again you overgeneralize. Britain and America as they are could not exist without the rest of the world. This is trivial in the historical sense, but even as history becomes the present, their economies rely too much on third world labor and economic agreements. Again I've got to mention the Structural Adjustment Programmes. Even allowing for one sentence an imaginary self-sufficiency, there is still tremendous suffering within both of these countries. You may claim the existence of upper and middle classes as evidence that capitalism "works", but it's a poor sort of working.
Name me a communist country that has that... you cant, and you never will.
I'd suggest Bolivia as a country currently doing well under collectivist policy, and Venezuela as another.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-13 10:32 pm (UTC)Looking at one controversial institute within a capitalist society and finding faults with it is not the same as looking at the society as a whole. On the whole, people within captialist societies are much better off than people in communist societies.
"You gloss over a lot of important nuance here. Laws in the scientific sense aren't things one 'lives by', they're merely descriptions, as specific as possible, of the way things appear to usually work. "Survival of the fittest" isn't one of these; it's not specific enough and 'fittest' has incorrect connotations. "The creature which adapts best survives" is more accurate, but I don't think a single sentence can get the entire theory of natural selection across."
youre splitting hairs. We live by the laws of nature because we have no choice. "Survival of the fittest" = "the creature that adapts best survives". 'Fit', Noun.- To make suitable; adapt.
"This is no argument, as you unproblematically use many other terms which fit the same description--"communism" and "capitalism" for example. Philosophers of language from Quine to Derrida have argued that the same is true of every word. Yet we can still talk about capitalism and communism. Surely we can talk about fairness too."
When I say "capitalism", I can then go on to say "British model capitalism" or "American model capitalism" and a sociologist/economist could give you specific descriptions of the foundations of those societies. You cant give me a specific destription of "fair" thats gonna be agreed on by every member of humanity.
"What do you think about this statement: "no one deserves to be poor"?"
I dont agree with it. If you cant be bothered to work, you dont "deserve" to have wealth, thats one example where I think poverty is self inflicted and deserved. But that statement is too broad anyway.
" Britain and America as they are could not exist without the rest of the world. "
I never said they could survive without the rest of the world. They just survive.
"their economies rely too much on third world labor and economic agreements."
"too much" as in its immoral or inherantly destined to failed? The way I see it at the moment; if it works, dont fix it.
"there is still tremendous suffering within both of these countries."
"poverty" in the UK and the US is nothing compared to poverty seen in other part of the world. it's relative poverty.
"You may claim the existence of upper and middle classes as evidence that capitalism "works", but it's a poor sort of working."
thats your opinion. You will never create a classless society because you need people to govern the masses and control societies. Capitalism isnt a perfect system, but its the best we have.
"I'd suggest Bolivia as a country currently doing well under collectivist policy, and Venezuela as another."
Bolivia
"Political instability and difficult topography have constrained efforts to modernize the agricultural sector. Similarly, relatively low population growth coupled with low life expectancy has kept the labor supply in flux and prevented industries from flourishing. Rampant inflation and corruption also have thwarted development."
What a surprise.
"Bolivia’s energy sector changed significantly when the government allowed privatization in the mid-1990s."
Privitization of the energy sector? This must be like "Chinese communism" ie. not really communism.
"In April 2000, bolivia privitized it's water supply. Shortly thereafter, the water company tripled the water-rates in that city, an action which resulted in protests and rioting among those who could no longer afford clean water."
If Bolivia is the best example you can find of communism working youve just proved my point. And as for Venezuela, it isnt communist, its a Mixed economy. You can be capitalist with socialist policies, but you cant be communist with any capitalist policies.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-14 11:49 pm (UTC)These two instititutions, and others like them, for example the WTO and the Group of Eight, set the economic policies which define the flows of global capital, not only that spent by corporations but by governments as well. You may as well say that the Kremlin was only one institution; well yes, but it's the ruling institution.
I think that talking about societies as capitalist or communist is a little inaccurate. Economics and society are two different things. Also, by "capitalist societies", it sounds like you mean Europe and America again, and not the countries whose labor supports their standard of living. The two aren't separable.
youre splitting hairs. We live by the laws of nature because we have no choice. "Survival of the fittest" = "the creature that adapts best survives". 'Fit', Noun.- To make suitable; adapt
I think you're not nuanced enough, you think I'm splitting hairs--this may be a personal issue. I have to point out though that fit, as you've defined it, is a verb, not a noun; and that in "survival of the fittest", it's actually an adjective (a nominal relative). My problem with "survival of the fittest" is that the comparative form implies an absolute "most" of a quality which is polysemous. I tend to geek out about linguistic issues like this.
I don't want to argue the existence of choice, but I'll say that we at least perceive ourselves to be choosing, much as we perceive the world around us; and in my opinion doubting the perception of choice is as solipsistic as doubting the perception of soid matter.
You cant give me a specific destription of "fair" thats gonna be agreed on by every member of humanity.
Sure, but again I don't think this is a real problem. We can approximate economic fairness, with the GINI coefficient for example; we can simply ask people whether they think something is fair or unfair and go with the majority; or we can talk it over. And let me repeat that no word has an unimpeachable definition.
I dont agree with it. If you cant be bothered to work, you dont "deserve" to have wealth, thats one example where I think poverty is self inflicted and deserved. But that statement is too broad anyway.
Ok, maybe I went too far, how about this one: "No one deserves to suffer"?
"too much" as in its immoral or inherantly destined to failed? The way I see it at the moment; if it works, dont fix it.
"Too much" as in, you can't consider either of them separate from the countries which produce most of their goods and supply most of their raw materials. It's false or misleading to use them as examples of an economic system, as you did in your earlier comment, because they're only one part of it.
thats your opinion. You will never create a classless society because you need people to govern the masses and control societies. Capitalism isnt a perfect system, but its the best we have.
And that's your opinion.
Rather than quoting you on Bolivia, I'd suggest looking at what the country's been doing since 2003, after the water war, now that the utilities and natural gas have been nationalized again; I especially recommend Forrest Hylton's articles on the subject, as he was there during the revolution. I'd also like to say that modernization, development, and flourishing industry are not necessarily virtues, especially in the third world.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-13 10:30 pm (UTC)ROFL. capitalism works? for whom? the 1% of the population who own 40€ of the world's wealth?
Glib, partial statements like 'capitalism works' not only demonstrate a lack of intellectual rigour, they do not take into account the fact that under this system the majority of the worlds population, are condemned to one role: to suffer. Precisely so that places like the US and Europe can 'live comfortable lives' - and let's not forget the consumerist mentality capitalism nurtures, which as we speak is responsible for depleting the earths resources and causing environmental side effects that almost defy contemplation - whilst paradoxically offering us 'comfort'.
yes, deregulated global capitalism 'works' alright- in furthering injustice and conflict.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-13 10:39 pm (UTC)Its not Britains or Americans job to save the fucking world. Capitalism isnt a magic cure all for the world, just like communism isnt, but it works for the people who impliment it effectively.
"and let's not forget the consumerist mentality capitalism nurtures, which as we speak is responsible for depleting the earths resources and causing environmental side effects that almost defy contemplation"
Totally different issue. You can live in an communist society and still be totally callous regarding enviromental issues ie. China.
Capitalism might enable unscrupulous people to destroy the enviroment, but its not the specific cause. "guns dont kill people, people do".
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-13 11:34 pm (UTC)'save the world?' who is talking about that? read the post again.You misunderstand. it's more about not fucking over vast proportions of the worlds population - billions of people - so that the few can 'live comfortable lives.'
"Capitalism isnt a magic cure all for the world, just like communism isnt, but it works for the people who impliment it effectively."
'impliment (sic) it effectively? what does that mean? please elaborate.
"You can live in an communist society and still be totally callous regarding enviromental issues ie. China. "
Do you want to think about that last comment a bit? who does the chinese economy supply - the west! trying to find a consumer product NOT made in china is getting nigh on impossible these days.
whether or not you agree with china's silde away from communism towards a class system and free market, responsibility for the damage to the environment must be shared by those in the west who demand an unceasing supply of cheap consumer goods in the pursuit of profit - and who keep the chinese factories burning and the emissions pouring. You can't just say china is to blame when the capitalists are such a big part of the equation.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-14 07:54 am (UTC)Thats a very controversial statement. You have to elaborate.
"'impliment (sic) it effectively? what does that mean? please elaborate."
China and Bolivia are countries who are kidding themselves that communism actually works. So what we're seeing is are government half-hearted adopting capitalist policies like privitization of major institutions and the like that are clearly the road the capitalism. America and Britain and countries that are both economically prosperous and politically stable thanks to capitalism.
"whether or not you agree with china's silde away from communism towards a class system and free market, responsibility for the damage to the environment must be shared by those in the west who demand an unceasing supply of cheap consumer goods in the pursuit of profit "
Again, this is the slightly different issue. You can be a capitalist who believes in enviromentalism, and you can be communist who has no regard for enviromentalism. It's not a requirement that to be capitalist you rape the planet so your gripe isnt with "capitalism" its with the callous implementation of it. I agree with you that we shouldnt be so callous, but to scrap capitalist systems all together is nonsense.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-14 01:26 pm (UTC)ok. the vast bulk of the world's wealth is concentrated in a handful of rich western nations, whilst elsewhere populations live in dire conditions and suffer invasions as the said nations move in, economically , politically or militarily, to sustain that system of inequality known as capitalism. (Iraq is currently a battle for control of petrol and an opportunity for capitalist defence contactors, as is Israel; most of resource-rich South America has been suffering at the hand of US-led dictatorships for decades; Indonesia was a golden chance for imperialist Britain and the US to sell weapons in the 80s, etc...need I go on?)
"China and Bolivia are countries who are kidding themselves that communism actually works. So what we're seeing is are government half-hearted adopting capitalist policies"
come on, you're too intelligent not to see the blatant inconsistency of that last argument. what you're saying it they're so ocnvinced communism works they're changing to capitalism? hardly the action of a convinced marxist, is it? capiltalism policies are a move away from communism to inequality, not the other way round!
"It's not a requirement that to be capitalist you rape the planet"
No, but when profit is the bottom line, NOTHING can stand in its way, including the environment, which is precisely why we need a strong state in the face of deregulated global corporate power. Experiences shows that, left to themselves, corporations would never adopt environmental protection procedures, don't kid yourself. The ideal you mention of being a eco-capitalist is one I applaud, but sadly history shows us that it is unlikely to transpire in reality....
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-14 04:01 pm (UTC)Like I said, it's not the west's responsibility to bail the rest of the world out because they cant manage themselves properly. When Britain ruled Zimbabwe, it was known as the breadbasket of africa. Then we gave it back to them and they turned their economy to shit through corruption and mismanagement. Some societies are better than others at prospering, thats just the way it is. 'White man's burden' is what you're talking about.
" suffer invasions as the said nations move in, economically , politically or militarily, to sustain that system of inequality known as capitalism."
I dont agree with the war on Iraq. It was a mistake, it's none of our business. and yes, Corporate America has taken complete advantage of it's position in Iraq now, that I'll agree with you about, but implying that the entire war was a big scam to get oil is pushing it into the realms of conspiracy theories.
"come on, you're too intelligent not to see the blatant inconsistency of that last argument. what you're saying it they're so ocnvinced communism works they're changing to capitalism? hardly the action of a convinced marxist, is it? capiltalism policies are a move away from communism to inequality, not the other way round!"
This is what I'm arguing: Communism doesnt work. Take china. It used to be communist, but then it started to adopt capitalist policies under the guise of "socialism with chinese aspects"... everyone can see what they're doing is no longer communism, it's a mixed economy under the guise of communism so the ruling parties dont lose power.
" Experiences shows that, left to themselves, corporations would never adopt environmental protection procedures, don't kid yourself. The ideal you mention of being a eco-capitalist is one I applaud, but sadly history shows us that it is unlikely to transpire in reality...."
So, because corporations cant be trusted to do whats best your advocating the entire upheavel of an entire society? its economic and political stability? Im not as callously radical as you. I believe we can work towards ecologically responsible capitalism through government policies.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-15 12:11 am (UTC)here we go, the daily mail clichés get trotted out to defend the indefensible. Ok, so you claim under the whites, zimbabwe was 'organised' - what disgusting doublespeak that is. You call it organized, I call it repressed: thousands of Africans were driven off their land and herded onto communal “reservations”, or into forced labour in mines and factories. A racial land division preventing Africans from owning farmland in white areas; denial of rights and votes. And despite having to deal with the chaos left by the departing white supremacist regime, between 1980 and 1985 infant and child deaths fell by about half. Education spending more than doubled between 1979 and 1990. So please stop repeating this white power nonsense.
re.iraq - so, you dismiss the idea the US sought to get control of the area and its oil resources? what was the war for then, do you take the official line that it was to spread democracy and find WMD? I think you need to start looking at history a bit more: there are many other countries on the 'axis of evil' ,but coincidentlly they don't have oil and weren't invaded.
what a surprise.
"Im not as callously radical as you."
callously radical, thats the nicest thing anyone's said to me all day ;-) still, if that term is applied to someone advocating a firm line against explotative global interests then yes I qualify. apologies to those poor CEOs who may have to buy one less private jet....
" I believe we can work towards ecologically responsible capitalism through government policies."
when the main parties such as those found in our representative democracy are owned and operated by big business, thanks to the concentrations of wealth in few hands under capitalism, it is pie in the sky to believe that governments can afford to challenge those forces in any but the most trivial ways. These corporations have enough loose cash to buy up chunks of a nation on a whim! take a recent example: look at all the hoo-ha about recycling. it isn't the corporations who are being forced to toe the line, and stop producing more overpackaged, aggresively marketed shit - the onus falls on the people and taxpayers to pay through the nose for recycling schemes to offset the damage caused by the consumer industry. There is so little ideological variety to differentiate the main parties
that they will follow the neoliberal agenda and make only cosmetic changes to the system as it stands. And profit is far higher on the priority list than ecology and always will be.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-15 11:17 am (UTC)It's not a cliche, its a fact regarding Zimbabwe's past economy. I dont read the daily mail, but I dont read the Independent either... some people's politics arent as simple as that.
" Ok, so you claim under the whites..."
slow down there Skippy, dont start dragging race into this. youre trying to imply that I'm saying is "White people = capable, black people = incapable". thats not it at all. I'm pointing out that Africa has the capacity for change as has been shown, but it's failing because of mismanagement and corruption. You however, decide to take grossly oversimplified self-hating radical liberal view of "ALL THE WORLD'S SUFFERING IS BECAUSE OF CORPORATE AMERIKKKA!!!"
so, you dismiss the idea the US sought to get control of the area and its oil resources?"
Its hard to say. For example, other nations made special deals with Iraq to buy its oil, and if the US were interested primarily in oil, it could have made a deal as well, a much easier route than war. Oil was also more instrumental in creating opposition to the war than support for it, since many nations in Europe wanted to maintain the oil supply they were receiving from Iraq.
I believe that 9/11 happened, Bush kneejerked over "the war on terror" and targeted Iraq and Afghanistan, other nations got dragged into it... they soon found out there were no weapons of mass destruction, there shouldnt have been a war, but instead of holding their hands up they tried to put a human liberation spin on it. That war shouldnt have happened.
"if that term is applied to someone advocating a firm line against explotative global interests..."
No, its about people who advocate communism. Thats what this debate is about. I dont agree that capitalism as it stands is perfect, but it works much better than communism. The upheavel of capitalism isnt gonna create this magical land of pure streams and rainbows, all you have to do is look at communism everywhere else -- the best we can do is protest and vote.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-15 01:07 pm (UTC)Wrong. If you're going to slide into this line that a lie repeated 1000 times becomes truth, you still have 999 copies to go. Zimbabwe 's economy in the 90s suffered more AFTER the country was opened up to the IMF, at the pressure from international bankers. I saw this for myself in fact, in 1996, on a visit there.
Not only that, you have completely ignored the stuff about zimbabwe's repression under the racist colonial regime, which served only the economic interests of oligarchial white ruling class. Instead you are at pains to point out that Zimbabwe was a better /more 'organised' place under such a system. If that is the criterion which seems to demonstrate a respectable, functioning state to you, the only conclusion I draw from such comments is that you are sadly adherent to a colonial mentality which was responsible for the suffering of millions (black) so that a white colonial class could profit.
then you try to wriggle out of it by saying :
"dont start dragging race into this. youre trying to imply that I'm saying is "White people = capable, black people = incapable". thats not it at all."
That is precisely what you are saying.
just read your earlier comments on how under white, racist, european rule Zimbabwe was better until 'we gave it back' to the natives who 'ran it into the ground' (competely untrue as it happens, as the evidence shows). Either you are deliberately being contradictory or are too stupid to realise the inconsistency of what you say.
"I dont agree that capitalism as it stands is perfect, but it works much better than communism. The upheavel of capitalism isnt gonna create this magical land of pure streams and rainbows,"
This really comes down not so much to an argument about capitalism versus communism, but one's ability to respect the rights of others, especially the right to be treated as equals and participate in a society, which is incompatible with suffering unnecessarily so that a minority can profit. This is where we disagree: You clearly feel that 'capitalism works' , as your definition of what 'works' seems to be 'generates wealth for a small quantity of the worlds population'. You conveniently ignore the millions at whose expense the western economy is propped up. The 'first world' are the parasites. a recent study showed that the Uk lives off its own resources for only THREE MONTHS of the year. To sustain capitalism continual economic exploitation of the southern hemisphere and its resources is required.
And we do agree on one thing - protesting and voting are essential. But beyond this is where a crucial worldview difference arises. I believe that society and power structures can and should change and inequality can be tackled. history has shown this. You seem to feel the reverse: that this is pure utopia and capitalism and colonialism are the best way forward. Shame you don't seem to have any empathy with the millions who lose out in that stare of affairs.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-15 01:55 pm (UTC)...the British gave Zimbabwe independence in the 1980s. What are you trying to prove by pointing out bad decisions made after the British werent in charge?
"Not only that, you have completely ignored the stuff about zimbabwe's repression under the racist colonial regime, which served only the economic interests of oligarchial white ruling class."
More like youve chosen to hi-light it when its not entirely related to what I said. Britain was capable of making a much better economy for Zimbabwe than its currently government. Does that mean I necessarily advocate their colonial methods? No. It means that the resources and potential for success are there, but arent being met because of corruption and mismanagement.
"This really comes down not so much to an argument about capitalism versus communism, but one's ability to respect the rights of others, especially the right to be treated as equals and participate in a society"
Never going to happen unless you strip humanity of everything that makes it human. We're animals and we arent all born equal. Some are born more beautiful some are born more intelligent. Are you also arguing that people should be stripped of their individuality to create equality? What you're ultimately advocating is we create a society of clones and robots.
There will always be someone with "more" than the next person. Life isnt fair.
"You conveniently ignore the millions at whose expense the western economy is propped up."
Whos mouth are we stealing food from exactly? You havent given any examples. Just because we're rich enough to import our energy resources doesnt make us parasites, infact some what argue that stopping trade with the 3rd world would be detrimental to them.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-15 11:04 pm (UTC)sorry, should have clarified that point a bit. I was trying to illustrate how things went downhill (again) after the IMF got involved and zimbabwe moved away from socialism. that move to capitalist values probabbly did more damage to their economy than anything else.
"Britain was capable of making a much better economy for Zimbabwe "
Not true. it enriched the few at the cost of the many. that is not a 'better economy'.
"Are you also arguing that people should be stripped of their individuality to create equality? What you're ultimately advocating is we create a society of clones and robots."
It's not about reaching the extremes you paint where everyone is identical and has the exact same amount of wealth. it's about self determination, participative democracy and not allowing big business to do what it wants. That is not the same as promoting 'clones' and uniformity. the first world has to stop treating the rest of the planet as if it were its personal property.
"Whos mouth are we stealing food from exactly? You havent given any examples."
European and US corporations have been exporting all the wealth from south america for decades if not centuries. Banks have been getting richer off third world debt. UK, French and US arms industries continue to get fat off the back of conflict in the middle east, iraq and elsewhere.
as for stopping trade with the third world, even oxfam have complained that those countries don't export hardly any of their products and food due to the perverse form of 'socialism for the rich' in place in the richer countries which impose high tariffs and subsidies in their little 'club'. and then, (when the third world is not competing on a level playing field), the hypocritical right wingers call africans scroungers who can't 'sort themselves out' and live on handouts!