"When this circuit learns your job, what are you going to do?"
Marshall McLuhan
THE MEDIUM IS THE MASSAGE
"From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared."
George Orwell
1984
We know the jobs are not coming back.
First they went to Third World sweatshops, now they are being done by robots, which never complain, which are not paid--slaves requiring neither food nor whipping. Assembly lines, road crews, even food service and farms--are now highly automated, with no end in sight. Already more humans need work than are needed to do work, producing what we can buy. Ongoing debates are held about competition for jobs--between countries, between states, between cities. This competition means that no matter what strategies are used, somebody winds up unemployed--no matter how low the rich peoples' taxes are, no matter how many regulations are ended, no matter how long and hard the workday. As this trend proceeds, humanity has arrived at a crossroads. We could enter a future in which we are freed from grueling labour, freed to create, to express ourselves, to interact and build a world of peace and comfort--to play, and benefit from the inspiration that play provides. Or we could live in a science fiction dystopia: a tiny few owning everything, trying to keep a slightly larger support group from getting it, while the overwhelming majority of mankind has nothing to do and is dependent for subsistence on whatever the owners feel inclined to spare.
Missing from the future is anything like the social framework we have gotten used to: a society in which goods and services are bought by people who work to produce them, who buy them with money they earn from working. We are nearing the logical conclusion of five centuries of mechanization, a time when everything people need will be mechanically produced. People will not be needed to work for a living. They will still need a living. Who gets what they need will depend on who is in charge.
We now live in a global village, as Marshall McLuhan observed half a century ago. We are all dependent on each other--a discommoding concept to many of us who were born and raised in cultural adulation of the "rugged individualist"--steeped in the notion that humanity progresses to the extent that individuals are left alone by society and its "hideous offshoot," government. While individualism is desirable in many ways, while few of us would do without it, individualism, like any other human trait, can have harmful results when left unchecked. As the Industrial Revolution progressed, creative, inventive, persevering individuals gave way to shrewd, greedy, relentless ones, whose greed came to dominate the world. "Individuals" (the single humans who can not be divided into smaller groups) gave way to "capital"--individuals who made their way to the "head" of organizations--invariably by ruthless means. Capitalists use their resources to satisfy their greed, which like any addiction, can never be satisfied. Since capitalists' profits prevent paying workers enough to buy back all they can produce, surpluses build up, workers are no longer needed, and unemployment rises. The capitalists solve this problem with war, whereby surplus production is blown up, along with unneeded workers.
Socialism arose in reaction to individualism's perversion into capitalism. If rugged individualism leads to such misery, then society must retake control. This solution then proceeded to recreate the problem, as the heads of the "socialist" states quickly became crueler and more power-mad than the capitalists had considered, up till then. If we have learned anything of value in the century of chaos involving those actions and reactions, it is that individuals and societies are quite interdependent, each becoming oppressive and destructive when "thinking people" are left out of the plans. The elusive yet desirable goal is to balance the needs of society with the aspirations of individuals. While we all have differing opinions regarding where the balance is, and these opinions will change depending on circumstances, a healthy respect for both individuals and society as a whole is apparently necessary for general human satisfaction. People instinctively think, and humanity is better off when more people do think, and trade their thoughts. Our civilization is not founded on the limited thinking that improves the processes of making and distributing goods and services. Rather, productivity is a result of unlimited and unimpeded human thought. But within the strict zone of production for compensation, thinking people get in the way. In the end, thought becomes a criminal act. To both capitalist and socialist ruling elites, working people are problems to be solved, and workers who think make the problems worse. Both types of rulers are firm believers that "Ignorance is Strength."
Whenever society comes under the control of a small clique, individuals no longer matter...in fact, they turn troublesome. God becomes power, war consumes surplus production, and humanity ceases to progress. But production and distribution nonetheless become more efficient, increasing the obscene wealth of a few. Or we could use the immense productive capacity of automation to reap a world of plenty for all. We may still have a choice, but it appears we will not have it for long. The jobs are not coming back. Time to commit thoughtcrime?
Thursday, August 31, 2017
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
RADICAL REVIVAL
"I would bet that fewer Americans have read WALDEN than have heard that Thoreau's mother did his laundry."
Jedediah Purdy
THE NATION, June 19/26, 2017
"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived."
Henry David Thoreau
WALDEN
Thoreau, hugely influential in those times known as "the sixties", is somewhat a dud nowadays...not enough of a corporate man. Peaceful resistance? Dropping out? Hippie stuff. Practical modern folks know there is but one game in town, and it is corporate. Anybody who knows which side of the bread has the butter needs to know the company line, and that line could change tomorrow, so better pay attention. No need for radical ideas like living simply, or going to jail in a righteous cause. If you want to be a player, you've got to play the game. Shame on Thoreau, for proposing a different way of living, and more shame for showing it could be done. Well, his mommy washed his clothes, so back to the corporate ladder.
Thoreau inspired Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. to wage their peaceful (and successful) revolutions. But history shows those two were human, no better than you or me. And are we going to change the world? Of course not. Why should Gandhi or Dr. King try? The people in charge can be generous when they want to be, to those they believe can help and serve them. Serve them well, and hope for the best. Those who dissent, who drag their feet, are holding up progress, and need to abandon all hope. The defiant are insane, and we dare not forget the fates of Gandhi and King: both shot. They learned their lessons. They should have packed heat.
Research holds that Dr. King, late in his life, began to entertain the prospect of violence as a possible solution to racial inequality. We all entertain many differing thoughts throughout our lives. But the fate of black militants ought to answer that question. Early in this new millennium, the armed potential revolutionaries tend to be white and radically conservative in their outlook, in reality supporting and strengthening the corporate state. Should they decide to oppose, they play into the rulers' hands. The power structure is well-equipped to deal with violent revolt. And historically, even where violent revolutionaries have come to power, the military organization and cruelty of war replace old dictatorships with new ones. But the "here's to the new boss, same as the old boss," adage applies to peaceful revolts as well. It is human nature for those who take power to want to keep it, to increase it, by any means necessary--unless the people continuously resist.
In the corporate world (bedrock of modern society) thought comes from the top down, and every other thought, from whatever source, no matter how much sense it makes, is considered resistance, therefore not tolerated. Thinkers do not earn themselves a stay in Orwell's Room 101, but while some corporate leaders may pretend to forgive, they never forget. There are consequences. Mankind, creator of the corporation, derives benefits from this useful tool. Its organized structure makes it capable of producing and distributing abundant goods and services, as long as it works for the people who allow it to exist. For people to remain in charge of their world they must think freely and openly, which the established top down structure cannot tolerate. While it is true that in a strictly legal sense thought is not crime, it is a discouraged activity.
So powerful is the corporate state in 2017 that it can simply ignore and sweep aside "radical" thinking. Corporate leaders did pay lip service after the upheaval of the sixties (when radical ideas and observations of Thoreau and others were openly explored by leaders within the establishment) to alternative ideas: tolerance and open-mindedness; importance of individuals; community interdependence. There is none of that today. In pursuit of profit and power, the rulers now destroy the environment, bankrupt millions of people, wage endless war, and reap profits of ugly proportions (enough to buy governments wholesale) so that they are allowed to keep doing the same destructive things. Everyone knows this is happening, yet seven billions are powerless to stop or even slow down the juggernaut. In this way, corporations have actually become people: super people who never die, who are impervious to bad weather, who need not eat or drink or breathe. Yet, they can give large sums of money to individuals seeking elective office, individuals who, if elected, then owe favors to the people/corporation. Corporations wind up controlling governments--which is the definition of fascism, at least according to Mussolini, who ought to know.
The doublethink required to elevate corporations to personhood is astounding. Those who accomplish this trick need lifetimes steeped in corporate thought, which is riddled with doublethink, also defined by Orwell as "reality control." Those who can do this trick well can reach the summits of wealth, influence, and power. No wonder so many people strive to prove and improve their skills. No wonder they revive someone like Thoreau, for no other reason than to bury him again. The people in control like that...it leaves no room for dissent. The possibility that people could consciously simplify their lives gets no credence in the corporate world. People might just try it.
Jedediah Purdy
THE NATION, June 19/26, 2017
"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived."
Henry David Thoreau
WALDEN
Thoreau, hugely influential in those times known as "the sixties", is somewhat a dud nowadays...not enough of a corporate man. Peaceful resistance? Dropping out? Hippie stuff. Practical modern folks know there is but one game in town, and it is corporate. Anybody who knows which side of the bread has the butter needs to know the company line, and that line could change tomorrow, so better pay attention. No need for radical ideas like living simply, or going to jail in a righteous cause. If you want to be a player, you've got to play the game. Shame on Thoreau, for proposing a different way of living, and more shame for showing it could be done. Well, his mommy washed his clothes, so back to the corporate ladder.
Thoreau inspired Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. to wage their peaceful (and successful) revolutions. But history shows those two were human, no better than you or me. And are we going to change the world? Of course not. Why should Gandhi or Dr. King try? The people in charge can be generous when they want to be, to those they believe can help and serve them. Serve them well, and hope for the best. Those who dissent, who drag their feet, are holding up progress, and need to abandon all hope. The defiant are insane, and we dare not forget the fates of Gandhi and King: both shot. They learned their lessons. They should have packed heat.
Research holds that Dr. King, late in his life, began to entertain the prospect of violence as a possible solution to racial inequality. We all entertain many differing thoughts throughout our lives. But the fate of black militants ought to answer that question. Early in this new millennium, the armed potential revolutionaries tend to be white and radically conservative in their outlook, in reality supporting and strengthening the corporate state. Should they decide to oppose, they play into the rulers' hands. The power structure is well-equipped to deal with violent revolt. And historically, even where violent revolutionaries have come to power, the military organization and cruelty of war replace old dictatorships with new ones. But the "here's to the new boss, same as the old boss," adage applies to peaceful revolts as well. It is human nature for those who take power to want to keep it, to increase it, by any means necessary--unless the people continuously resist.
In the corporate world (bedrock of modern society) thought comes from the top down, and every other thought, from whatever source, no matter how much sense it makes, is considered resistance, therefore not tolerated. Thinkers do not earn themselves a stay in Orwell's Room 101, but while some corporate leaders may pretend to forgive, they never forget. There are consequences. Mankind, creator of the corporation, derives benefits from this useful tool. Its organized structure makes it capable of producing and distributing abundant goods and services, as long as it works for the people who allow it to exist. For people to remain in charge of their world they must think freely and openly, which the established top down structure cannot tolerate. While it is true that in a strictly legal sense thought is not crime, it is a discouraged activity.
So powerful is the corporate state in 2017 that it can simply ignore and sweep aside "radical" thinking. Corporate leaders did pay lip service after the upheaval of the sixties (when radical ideas and observations of Thoreau and others were openly explored by leaders within the establishment) to alternative ideas: tolerance and open-mindedness; importance of individuals; community interdependence. There is none of that today. In pursuit of profit and power, the rulers now destroy the environment, bankrupt millions of people, wage endless war, and reap profits of ugly proportions (enough to buy governments wholesale) so that they are allowed to keep doing the same destructive things. Everyone knows this is happening, yet seven billions are powerless to stop or even slow down the juggernaut. In this way, corporations have actually become people: super people who never die, who are impervious to bad weather, who need not eat or drink or breathe. Yet, they can give large sums of money to individuals seeking elective office, individuals who, if elected, then owe favors to the people/corporation. Corporations wind up controlling governments--which is the definition of fascism, at least according to Mussolini, who ought to know.
The doublethink required to elevate corporations to personhood is astounding. Those who accomplish this trick need lifetimes steeped in corporate thought, which is riddled with doublethink, also defined by Orwell as "reality control." Those who can do this trick well can reach the summits of wealth, influence, and power. No wonder so many people strive to prove and improve their skills. No wonder they revive someone like Thoreau, for no other reason than to bury him again. The people in control like that...it leaves no room for dissent. The possibility that people could consciously simplify their lives gets no credence in the corporate world. People might just try it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)