Republicans won the Senate. It doesn't matter. If anything it is a good thing because they are a joke and anyone who doesn't know they are a joke will get to see it on an even larger scale.

The 2016 elections matter, but only because it could signify the formal and explicit beginning of American Oligarchic rule. These next two years, this is it, you get two choices: a type of absurd authoritarian spectacle that resembles a Hunger Games reality TV show, or a real revitalisation of the left that demands a systemic reorganisation of political structures and a permanent de-concentration of power. In the end, I believe, the choice between the two comes down to leftist theology. Here me out.

If you live in America, or have been strongly influenced by American political culture, there is no getting around the fact that the American nation-state is not just political entity. It is a theopolitical entity. On a deeper level, I would argue that this is not just an American phenomenon, but rather, that there is no such thing as a secular political entity. This is the lie of the modern world. The nation-state itself is theopolitical, just as all political structures from the emergence of agriculture, have been theopoltiical. As classics scholar and psychoanalyst Norman O. Brown stated in The Challenge of Islam:

    To come to understand the true nature of the polity is to understand the true nature of God. Or, if you prefer, the function of the idea of God in human affairs, in the human psyche, and in society.

What is this God up to? Well of course, as any good God, it is up to Creation. Not the Creation of the Universe, but Creation of a "living" (or jobs). What does this say about America, and what does this say about our current situation between the present moment and 2016.

When analyzing the American right, it is quite explicit that the American state is both a religious and a political entity, and not just one or the other. For the American Conservative, the God here is the Free Market (the job Creator), and the true form of government that they desire is not at all a democracy, but rather, a monarchy. After all, for the American Conservative heaven is a monarchy, not a democracy. What this means is that they will defend the free market, even if it means giving up democracy. They do not care at all about true democracy, which is why Obama is an idiot for trying to negotiate with them over the past 6 years.

The problem for America and the rest of the world is that, this blind faith in the free market, is going to drive the country, and perhaps even the planet, off a cliff. This is because the free market as it currently functions cannot work in a world of increasing automation, which makes labour far less important to economic growth. As Martin Ford plainly explains in Lights in the Tunnel (2009):

    Conservatives generally favour low taxes and minimum regulation of producers in the expectation that this will result in increased economic activity and job creation, which will lead to strong consumer demand. The problem with this way of thinking, of course, is that, in an increasingly automated economy, the job creation will not occur. Consumers will have little opportunity to participate in the production process as workers and will lose access to the wages that sustain them. In the absence of an alternative income mechanism (i.e., basic income), a collapse in consumer spending will be the inevitable result.

In other words, as long as conservative free-market ideology (religion) continues to dominate the U.S. government (which seems probable), another financial collapse is as inevitable as large-scale automation from advancing computing is inevitable. American Conservatism is simply not built for the future; it is in fact, built to delay the future, as it has been doing just this since the 1970s at least. It got a taste of the hippies (or "godlings" of the 60s) and said "fuck that".

The religion in the liberal democratic side of America is less obvious, and they are less devote about it, but it is still obvious: the State itself. The government is God and that is where we will create our jobs. But the problem is that many government jobs are bullshit and mindless, we don't actually need them, and creating a bunch of government jobs doesn't solve the problems presented by automation anyway.

However, more importantly, the nation-state is not a structure that makes any sense in 2014. I cannot stress this enough. The nation-state was enabled by print culture. Meaning that, with the emergence of print, you get the concept of "public opinion" -- of an imagined community that must be taken into account (but mostly manipulated) by a small group of rulers. But print culture is obviously dying or is already dead. And the Internet creates a new type of public consciousness and attitude. This public consciousness is still forming but it certainly is far less concerned with the nation-state in particular, and boundaries of all kinds, and far more concerned with the world and humanity as a whole (i.e., the beginnings of a global brain).

But the problem then is that Conservatives, who are far more immersed in the politics of the nation-state because they are still inhabiting the past and their print culture ideology, are far easier to mobilise (read: manipulate). And of course, they are being manipulated on a large scale, and will continue to be manipulated on a large-scale between here and 2016. We cannot underestimate the stupidity of American Conservatism, and the inability for most people to understand the present moment.

And so this is why I would argue that the only real solution to a complete nightmare in 2016, is the outright rejection of the current political system, and the rejuvenation of a new radical leftist movement. It seems that now is the time for this as the insanity of the current structure should be obvious enough. Everyone knows that the Emperor has no clothes: the market and the state are both non-solutions.

That is why I think the solution involves the formation of an international re-organization of the leftist dream for an equal cooperative society. Enough with the nation-state. It once served a function, but doesn't work anymore. Enough with politicians. They once served a function, but don't anymore. We can organise collectively using the Internet. People think this is a dream but it is not. We can design large-scale decentralized argumentation systems. Enough with poverty. Everyone gets food. There is enough to go around. But achieving this would require liberals to wake up to the fact that we are never going to win while we play by the rules of an ideological group operating under totalitarian theology:

    Events like the Occupy Wall Street protests, the Arab Spring, demonstrations in Greece and Spain, have to be read precisely as signs from the future. We should turn around the historicist perspective of understanding an event out of its context and genesis. Radical emancipatory outbursts cannot be understood in this way. Instead of analyzing them as part of the continuous development from past to present. We should bring in the perspective of the future. We should analyse them as limited, distorted, sometimes even perverted, fragments of a utopian future, that lie dormant in the present as its hidden potential.
- Slavoj Žižek

    What civilization is, is 7 billion people trying to make themselves happy by standing on each others shoulders and kicking each others teeth in. It’s not a pleasant situation. And yet you can stand back and look at this planet and see that we have the money, the power, the medical understanding, the scientific know how, the love, and the community to produce a kind of human paradise. But we are led by the least among us, the least intelligent, the least noble, the least visionary, we are led by the least among us. And we do not fight back against the dehumanising values that are handed down as control icons. This culture is not your friend. This culture is a perversion.
- Terence McKenna

kleinbl00:

WOW.

So this is going to take some effort to unpack. You have a lot of assumptions stacked on top of each other and some inferences that become full-blown self-evident conclusions without pausing for introspection. I think this is a valuable discussion to have, but I think we need to start off with the acknowledgement that I disagree with your assertions and I disagree with your conclusions.

The flow of your argument seems to be this:

1) Left and Right are both so ideologically driven that they are immune to pragmatism, much like the devoutly religious.

2) Conservative governance will cause a complete collapse of government due to technological advancement that leaves no place for the underclass.

3) But government in general is an outdated idea because the Internet will permit an altruistic, decentralized system of wealth and goods distribution to create a Utopia if only liberals recognize that conservatives will bring about their doom.

I looked up "theopolitics" just to be sure. It doesn't seem to be an agreed-upon term. I think you intend it as "rule by ideology" which would allow you to call the USSR a "theopolitical entity." Even there, though, you'd be mistaken - The Soviet Union was ruled by apparatchiks and the nomenklatura, professional and hereditary bureaucrats and intelligentsia whose social structure had far more in common with czarist Russia than the collectives that replaced it. Attaturk banned Islam and islamic affectations because he saw the European way as the way forward, but most Turks under him maintained their culture on the sly. You could perhaps argue that the United States theopolitically "worships" free trade, but Chief Justice Roberts upheld Obamacare on the basis of the federal government being constitutionally entitled to regulate free trade.

Your statements for authoritarianism and idealism are assertions, not arguments, and I don't think you can state them as unassailable facts. If the Right and the Left were so ideologically driven, why was voter turnout the lowest it's been since 1940? And you can't argue that the election didn't matter to both sides, as it was one of the most expensive in history - $3.67b on house and senate races alone (India's last election - India's - cost $5b). It's easier to argue that our current political state has more to do with apathy than ideology.

But enough of that. Republicans took the House, the Senate and the Presidency in 2004 and while it was a shitty, shitty time, the country recovered enough to elect a black man four years later. Let's suppose they don't, though - you want to argue that automation will replace unskilled labor leading to widespread poverty. China, however, has risen from widespread poverty to a burgeoning middle class, largely through automation. There's an optimization here - at what point does handwork become cheaper than letting the robot do it? Because if the robot costs you $4 a day to operate but you can get 2 laborers for $1.50, it starts looking attractive to hire grunts. And even if you don't, because you can afford robots, you'll find yourself competing with opportunistic handworkers. That's pretty much the essence of trade and labor - I have a Roomba, but I also have a couple nice ladies who come by every six months. And you know what? They cost more to hire now than they did before the invention of Roombas. Market forces.

So in the end, it doesn't come down to ideology - it doesn't even come down to pragmatism. It comes down to "the free market" which, at its most unregulated, creates some pretty heinous dystopias. The test question is then whether the Conservatives would rather roll in their own filth or start talking about the Tragedy of the Commons and the need for "compassionate conservatism" - Ayn Rand was on food stamps and Rush Limbaugh is a big tipper.

Then, the leap to "annihilate the government." And I'm sorry, I just don't see how you got there. I don't see how you can defend it, and I don't see any systems-level analysis as to how to get from here to there, let alone why. Contrary to your experience, one in four Americans don't have a computer or internet-connected device at home. Are they going to do stuff at the library? Who controls the library? Who controls their access? I've been giving money to Black Box Voting since 2001; if it's taught me one thing, it's that you don't want to give over the reigns of your freedom to the guys who thought Bitcoin was a good idea. One thing about bureaucracies is they're nearly impossible to knock over. I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of a flash crash in my electoral process.

I admire your passion. I even admire your vision. But I find neither compelling. Conservatives are people, too, and while they may not want the world to run the same way you do, they most assuredly want the world to run. I'm not predicting great things from the next two years but I'm also not predicting doom'n'gloom. You might still convince me but you'll need to take smaller steps.


posted 3457 days ago