Zoeken in deze blog 🔎🔎

zondag 7 augustus 2022

Zizek als Reactionaire Oost-Europese Filosoof


Uiteindelijk is voor elke marxistische ideoloog de totalitaire staat het beoogde doel, zo blijkt nu weer uit het betoog van de Oostblok-filosoof Slavoj Zizek in de neoliberale spreekbuis Project Syndicate (Soros) van 3 augustus 2022. Zodra zich een werkelijke crisis aandient, gaan dit soort marxisten uit van de simpele, cynische stelling: het is niet belangrijk of je gelijk hebt, maar of je gelijk krijgt. En daarom kiezen zij voor de powers that be, en neigen zij tot een verstard mens- en wereldbeeld. Deze mentaliteit heeft tot zowel het Amerikaanse neoliberalisme als tot Sovjet-communisme geleid. Ziehier Zizek's reactionaire conclusie, juist op het moment dat het neoliberalisme voor onze ogen in elkaar stort:

To prevent a total collapse into disorder, the state apparatus, in close coordination with other states and relying on local mobilizations of people, will have to regulate the distribution of energy and food, perhaps resorting to administration by the armed forces. Europe thus has a unique chance to leave behind its charmed life of isolated welfare, a bubble in which gas and electricity prices were the biggest worries. As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told Vogue, 'Just try to imagine what I’m talking about happening to your home, to your country. Would you still be thinking about gas prices or electricity prices?' 

He’s right. Europe is under attack, and it needs to mobilize, not just militarily but socially and economically as well. We should use the crisis to change our way of life, adopting values that will spare us from an ecological catastrophe in the coming decades. This may be our only chance.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/woke-alt-right-fake-civil-war-between-capitalist-interests-by-slavoj-zizek-2022-08




The Fire Inside Mike Davis.

 AUGUST 5, 2022

The Fire Inside Mike Davis

 Facebook

Mike Davis (Literary L.A. | Facebook)


“This is not a time for despair”, says historian Mike Davis, currently navigating the final stages of terminal cancer, but speaking about the ubiquitous climate crisis: “We’re in the ring, and you have to be ready to go for as many rounds as it takes”. At once pugnacious, declarative, cogent, and inspiring, such advice, in a certain sense, resembles its originator, who has been challenging capitalist and imperialist power systems, analysing their many attendant ills and manifestations, since his early days as a civil rights organiser in the 1960s.

The occasion for such remarks, with their pugilistic zest, was the thirtieth anniversary of the publication of his path-breaking City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles (1990), long regarded as both a classic and an outlier, with its blend of noir-haunted conjuring and granular, sociological exploration of L.A.’s myriad political ecologies. “In Los Angeles there are too many signs of approaching helter-skelter”, Davis writes near the close: “cops are becoming more arrogant and trigger-happy, and a whole generation is being shunted toward some impossible Armageddon”. Within 18 months, the reckoning he had intuited came to pass, when the city erupted in a cataclysmic uprising, sparked by the acquittal of four LAPD officers charged with the use of excessive force during the arrest of Rodney King: a typically brutal incident, but unusual in having been captured on videotape by an onlooker. As chants of “no justice, no peace” echoed through downtown L.A., swathes of the city were reduced to rubble and ash – leading President George H. W. Bush to declare a “federal disaster area” – as protestors exposed and countered a long-standing tradition of police violence with tactics of civil disobedience, arson, and looting. Six weeks after the conflagration, Daryl Gates, the notoriously authoritarian and techno-militarist police chief (accused of instituting a de facto racist law-enforcement regime), resigned his post.

America’s intellectual establishment, meanwhile, shaken from its foggily panoptic perch, began to pay attention to Davis (once viewed as a fatalist, prone to hyperbole, even by fellow radicals), deeming him worthy of a MacArthur Foundation grant in 1998. For this self-described “wild, extreme leftist”, however, such plaudits, and the milieux they emanated from, have generally been treated as distractions from the work, to which he consistently brings a virtuosic analytical rigour, as well as an omnivorous array of personal passions. What other Marxist scholar has thought to compile a history of the car-bomb, as Davis did in Buda’s Wagon (2007), or invested time and energy in writing a trilogy of science fiction novels for young adults, as with his Islands Mysterious series (2003)? Wild originality is one of his hallmarks.”

Davis’s preferred habitat has always been in the struggle. As he recalls in a recent interview, remembering his time spent “wrapped up in the whole strange world of the New Left Review” in London during the 1980s: “I couldn’t wait to be back to Belfast”, where he lived, intermittently, in the same period. “The real warmth in the British Isles, the real grit”, he adds, with typical disdain for the metropole, “is all in the north of England and Scotland.” As such comments imply, a current of instinctive internationalism runs through his politics, which flicker, brilliantly, with a spirit of pugnacious proletarian rebellion (he was a truck driver for years, and only embarked on his university studies at 29). “Never give up the streets”, he’s been quoted as saying, and it’s a principle that animates much of his writing.

In Prisoners of the American Dream: Politics and Economy in the History of the U.S. Working Class, the scope of inquiry is expansive and thorough-going, but the sympathy that infuses the narrative, as it were, belongs firmly with the workers themselves. “The harnessing of industrial unionism to renovate the vote-gathering machinery of the Democratic Party” in the New Deal era, Davis observes, with a kind of cantankerous clarity, “was an effective instrumental relationship in one direction only”, benefitting the “quasi-aristocratic” Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the interests he served, rather than union memberships. Later – in a conclusion that may hold added resonance in the aftermath of Bernie Sanders’s presidential runs in 2016 and 2020 – his analysis is similarly unsparing of Jesse Jackson’s campaigns for higher office (in 1984 and 1988). The “ascendancy of electoralism on the left”, he finds, “far from being an expression of new popular energies or mobilizations, was, on the contrary, a symptom of the decline of the social movements of the 1960s”. As in his political memoir, Set the Night on Fire: L.A. in the 1960s (co-written with Jon Wiener), for Davis, such mass movements are the energy-efficient locomotives of historical progress, assembled and sustained from the grassroots up.

His memories of “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland are characteristically grounded, and often funny. As one of only a handful of non-Northerners in Belfast at the time, he says,

I felt like we were existentialists in the French Resistance. Because my friends faced extraordinary risk and really didn’t worry about it too much. And I became just addicted to that, the staying up all night… we stayed up every night, drunk, eating soda bread. You know, playing the guitar, telling stories, slagging and being slagged.

In its vivid (and rambunctious) sense of camaraderie and life-in-motion, this reminiscence could belong to a revolutionary conspirator of 1848 or 1798, rather than an eye-witness to the outwardly drab and brutal war-zone that was Ulster in the 1980s. As one headline puts it, Davis is nothing if not a “damn good storyteller”. For all the fierce clear-sightedness of his research, he frequently comes across as something of a romantic and insurrectionist in the nineteenth-century mode. It seems apt that his deep-delving essays in social and climactic investigation, collected in Old Gods, New Enigmas (2018), should reference anarchist geographers Elisée Reclus and Peter Kropotkin, and on the basis (in his words) that “only a return to explicitly utopian thinking can clarify the minimal conditions for the preservation of human solidarity in the face of convergent planetary crises” – as the twenty-first century advances, and its perils become more pronounced.

This dynamic balancing act, attempting an honest assessment of existing conditions alongside a larger effort at “explicitly utopian thinking”, is a signature feature of Davis’s work. It may be superfluous to note that he refuses to shirk from the difficulties and dispiriting necessities involved. “There is nothing in the catalogue of Victorian misery, as narrated by Dickens, Zola, or Gorky”, he asserts in Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World, “that doesn’t exist somewhere in a Third World city today”. “Famines are wars over the right to existence”, he likewise writes, excoriating economic and diplomatic policy-makers who “build definitional firewalls between malnutrition and famine, poverty and starvation”, consolidating a “semantics” of global development that renders “‘ordinary’ rural poverty invisible” and mystifies “the chronic malnutrition responsible for half of the infant mortality on the planet”. As ever, Davis’s rigour and fury are deployed in strategic unison, and in favour of the officially “invisible” masses, the so-called ‘wretched of the earth’, whose agency (and persistent knack for survival under circumstances of long-term social duress) he recognises as a transformative force, in increasingly traumatic times.

Very “poor people”, he observes in Planet of Slums, “have little choice but to live with disaster”, a fact also acknowledged, and partly transmogrified, in Old Gods, New Enigmas. As urban populations face an unprecedented cascade of environmental and social emergencies, he says, “I propose the city as its own possible solution”:

We must transform private into public affluence with a zero-carbon footprint. There is no planetary shortage of ‘carrying capacity’ if we are willing to make democratic public space, rather than modular, private consumption, the engine of sustainable equality.

For Davis, to “raise our imaginations to the challenge of the Anthropocene” is both a material challenge and a fierce ethical imperative, requiring us “to dream old dreams anew”.

Attuned to the lurid nightmares and the spectral potentialities of present history, Davis, as we’ve seen, has proven prescient in anticipating and clarifying the malaises of our modern age (sometimes in the most literal sense). Recently, his essay, The Monster at Our Door: The Global Threat of Avian Flu, has won renewed attention and acclaim. In it, he detects a sickness at the heart of capitalist agricultural production, its vast supply-chains and increasingly disruptive methods of accumulation, he suggests, almost guaranteed to produce (and spread) new viral diseases on an unprecedented scale. First published in 2005, it was only a matter of time, once more, before Davis’s assessment was vindicated, as the Covid-19 pandemic, in 2020, overwhelmed the world’s commercial and health infrastructures, consuming millions of lives as populations fell victim not just to the virus itself, but to a global order oriented around trade and market needs, rather than public health.

As a political diagnostician, Davis has combined an incendiary hatred of domination with an incisive skepticism of prevailing cultural narratives (e.g. that ‘everything is going to be alright’, of its own accord). But there is also a classical robustness to his materialism. More than most contemporary radicals even, Davis seems to have a gift for absorbing the foundational arguments of the traditions he draws upon, before bringing them to bear on present-day concerns. His thesis above, for instance, is arguably, among other things, a concise exegesis of Marx’s idea that “Capitalist production […] develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth — the soil and the labourer.” For both writers, as elaborated in their respective works, the doctrine of endless economic growth exists in practice, and can only continue, by way of exploitation and ecological rupture, depleting the very resources (human and natural) on which it depends. Imperilling its own mythos of unassailable longevity, a capitalist system of production (including agricultural production), they argue, tends to destroy the earth it conquers, and the people it claims to serve.

Davis’s vision, however, has been a sustaining one. “In writing about the West”, he has said, with anti-Ozymandian perception, “I was writing about precarity of the west. Wests come and go — there’s gold, there’s silver, there’s a railroad, there’s nothing stable, everything vanishes and reappears, the biggest towns in the state become ghost towns.” Power, he argues, is fickle and volatile, but also inherently vulnerable to decay, morally and at the level of environmental process: “this is part of this new catastrophist understanding of history that I’ve been trying to grapple with for decades.”

On first glance, it seems a mark of the depth and tenacity of Davis’s opposition to the architectures of injustice that such a “catastrophist understanding of history”, for him, could be a galvanising one. But so it should be: a means of seeing our shared (ultimately precarious) life-in-the-world more clearly, and an aid to battling against its excesses and inequalities. “I don’t think you need rations of hope”, he reminds us, “What you need is a deep commitment to resistance and a fighting spirit and anger.” Three cheers to that – and to the rebel himself, whose words and “fighting spirit” have done so much to keep the flame alive.

Ciarán O’Rourke is an Irish poet and activist. His most recent book is Phantom Gang (The Irish Pages Press, 2022).

https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/08/05/the-fire-inside-mike-davis/



zaterdag 6 augustus 2022

The Mad-Eyed Pelosi

 AUGUST 5, 2022

Roaming Charges: The Mad-Eyed Lady of Pac 


Heights

 Facebook

Pelosi’s eyes, at press conference on Taiwan.

“War is the form nostalgia takes when men are hard-pressed to say something good about their country.”

– Don DeLillo, White Noise

I suppose there are more risible politicians on the scene today than Nancy Pelosi, but few come clad in her power accessories or with as much potential to inflict carnage on a global scale. Even the banshee of the backwoods Marjorie Taylor Greene is a mere pipsqueak compared to the malevolent lunacy we’ve seen lately from Pelosi.

Some may say that Pelosi, now 82, has entered her second childhood. If so, it’s a delinquent one. Certainly her political inhibitions have dissolved, allowing her natural inclination to foment trouble to run rampant. One looks in vain for a rational motivation behind her ad hoc trip to Taiwan, an act of belligerency that might have sparked a war with another nuclear power. But to what end? China is not going to relinquish its entirely legitimate claims to Taiwan. Far from a model democracy, Taiwan is a former gangster state, whose repressive government was shaped by Chiang Kai-Shek, who retreated there in 1949 with his battered gang of CIA-financed KMT thugs, where he promptly instituted a violent crackdown on leftists known as the White Terror, a vicious form of martial law that lasted for the next 45 years.

Sure Pelosi represents many rich Chinese exiles, who have made fortunes in San Francisco and now fantasize about sticking it to the CCP from the safety of their Nob Hill mansions. But Pelosi doesn’t need their money or support. She’s well beyond that now. (Though her husband Paul is surely watching with avaricious eyes the reaction of the markets to this junket of the damned.) Antagonizing China over Taiwan doesn’t solve any of the global crises hurtling toward us on all fronts–not even the “problem” of Taiwan.

Pelosi’s trip seems more personal, an almost pathological assertion of her autonomy. It’s the act of a playground bully and the Mad-Eyed Lady from Pac Heights has come to see the world as her playground–provocation for the sake of provocation. Damn the consequences. The Speaker’s hubris has been accreting rapidly in the last decade. Once a capable, if not very creative, machine politician, she has now become baked by her own sense of power and runs the House like her own private autocracy, the leadership ranks stacked with her claque of senescent loyalists.

Now the second most powerful figurehead in the US government has gone rogue, enacting her very own Asian Pivot, flouting decades of US policy and even ignoring the requests of the increasingly feeble Joe Biden to scrub Taipei from her inflammatory itinerary. Nancy is the “Karen” of global geopolitics, a loose cannon intoxicated by her own self-righteousness. Like RGB, Pelosi apparently sees herself as an indispensable figure in American politics, even as a trapdoor slides open beneath her feet and those of her party and country. The people running our government are so antiquated, they won’t live to face the consequences of their reckless grandstanding. Heckuva job, Nancy.

Why Pelosi picked China as her target du jour is no mystery. Like Biden (and Bernie Sanders, for that matter), Pelosi has always been a Cold Warrior. It’s the way she chooses to understand the world, even if it’s a world that no longer quite exists. The political economy Pelosi has done much to help engineer over the last 35 years needs perpetual enemies to justify the trillions sunk into the weapons-and-surveillance complex. And not ephemeral scrub units like Al Qaeda and ISIS. Big ones like Russia and China. But more sophisticated politicians, from Nixon to Obama, have understood that the trick is to keep the threat elevated without actually risking a war. Pelosi seems to have lost this inhibition, as well.

Thus the brazenness–one is tempted to say, desperation–of her Taiwan excursion is a pretty clear sign of imperial (as well as mental) slippage. Far from a show of strength, Pelosi’s antics in Taipei revealed the frailty of the US hegemon in the Pacific. Sure, China postured a bit in response with naval exercises encircling Taiwan, drawing out of climate talks and slapping sanctions on Pelosi. But Beijing, a much more reflective (if equally lethal) government than our own, must have viewed Pelosi’s frantic finger-wagging as little more than a parody of power, a shrill manifestation of America’s political decrepitude.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/08/05/roaming-charges-64/




"Russian Propaganda" Just Means Disobedience

 

Listen to a reading of this article:

"Russian Propaganda" Just Means Disobedience by Going Rogue With Caitlin Johnstone

Going Rogue With Caitlin Johnstone

You can always tell how important narrative control is by watching the way people react when their control of the narrative is jeopardized.

Empire apologists are raging at Amnesty International for pausing its aggressive facilitation of western imperialism to issue one brief criticism of the way Ukrainian forces have been endangering civilian lives with their warfare tactics against the Russian military.

Amnesty is far from the first to highlight this extensively documented issue; that Ukrainian forces have been deliberately positioning themselves in civilian populations without taking proper measures to protect noncombatants is a concern that has been voiced repeatedly since the war began and reported on by both mainstream western news outlets and the United Nations.

Nevertheless, Amnesty's claim that "Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals" has drawn fire from Ukrainian officials, from mass media pundits, from the brainwashed rank-and-file on social media, and from President Zelensky himself.

A common criticism circulating among the outrage is that Amnesty is facilitating Russian propaganda, has been influenced by Russian propaganda, or has itself become an instrument of Russian propaganda.

The head of Amnesty International's Ukrainian branch resigned as a result of the report, saying that "the organization created material that sounded like support for Russian narratives" and that in an effort to protect civilians, "this study became a tool of Russian propaganda."

"It is a shame that the organization like Amnesty is participating in this disinformation and propaganda campaign," tweeted Zelensky advisor Mykhailo Podolyak.

"Amnesty International can go to hell for this garbage," tweetedHuman Rights Foundation Chairman Garry Kasparov. "Or go to Ukraine, which Putin's war is trying to turn into hell. As with their actions on Navalny, it reeks of Russian influence turning Kremlin propaganda into Amnesty statements."

The Daily Mail called the Amnesty report "a coup for Vladimir Putin's propaganda machine."

"The organization gives a huge assist to Russian propaganda," tweeted Oleksiy Sorokin, chief operating officer of the NATO propaganda outlet Kyiv Independent.

"Shameful victim-blaming. Russia invaded Ukraine and is committing unspeakable war crimes there. Please do not amplify Russian lies," tweeted Paul Massaro of the US government's Helsinki Commission.

The underlying premise behind these complaints, of course, is that it is Amnesty International's job to help Ukraine win a propaganda campaign against Russia. Which is odd, because Amnesty's reporting on the war has actually been overwhelmingly biased in favor of Ukraine this entire time.

"Anger directed at Amnesty is surprising given that it is the first critical piece the group has written on Ukraine since the war began," reports Unherd. "Over the last six months, Amnesty has published 40 articles on Ukraine, nearly all of which condemn Russia’s invasion, with only one exception — its latest — that could be conceivably described as critical of Ukraine."

Even the Amnesty report currently sparking all the outrage contains repeated condemnations of Russia's actions in Ukraine, citing "indiscriminate attacks by Russian forces" and "war crimes" Amnesty has found Russia guilty of committing, as well as decrying the use of "inherently indiscriminate weapons, including internationally banned cluster munitions."

But even ninety-nine percent loyalty to the official line is not enough for imperial spinmeisters and the empire's useful idiots. Anything short of 100 percent compliance counts as Russian propaganda.

But that's precisely the notion that has been drummed into western consciousness with ever-increasing fervor since 2016: that any dissent about US foreign policy is Russian propaganda. Don't support western interventionism in Syria? You're spouting Russian propaganda. Worried about nuclear war? Russian propaganda. Don't think the fight for US unipolar domination is worth all this dangerous brinkmanship? Russian propaganda. Don't like the idea of an expensive proxy war with no exit strategy whose economic fallout is making life harder and harder for more and more people all around the world? Russian propaganda.

I myself am accused of being a peddler of Russian propaganda many times per day, and have been for years. This despite my hardly ever consuming Russian media, never receiving a penny from Russia, and never having worked for the Russian government or any other government at any time. Russian media have at times chosen of their own initiative to amplify my work since I have a standing invitation for anyone to do so, but I'm literally just an Australian woman writing her opinions online with her American husband. I only qualify as "Russian propaganda" because I disagree with US foreign policy.

Ask anyone who says a criticism of the western empire's Ukraine policy is "Russian propaganda" to name a critic of western Ukraine policy who they don't consider a Russian propagandist. They won't be able to. For them, disagreeing with one's government about Ukraine is itself Russian propaganda.

For empire apologists the measure of what constitutes "Russian propaganda" about Ukraine has nothing to do with whether or not what's being said is true or valid; it's literally just a question of obedience to one's government about the decisions it's been making with regard to that nation. 

If the measure of whether something qualifies as propaganda is defined entirely by whether it agrees with one's government, then that measure is itself propaganda.

That's exactly what's happening with criticism of the west's interventionism in Ukraine. Something doesn't have to come from Russia to be considered Russian propaganda, and its source doesn't need to have any connection to the Russian government. It doesn't even have to be false. All it needs to be is disobedient.

We saw this illustrated this past June when The Guardian published a NATO-backed claim that journalist Aaron Maté was "the most prolific spreader of disinformation" among a "Russia-backed network of Syria conspiracy theorists," despite being incapable of citing a single false thing in Maté's Syria reporting, and despite The Guardian having to hastily edit out their "Russia-backed" claim.

We also saw this illustrated this past June in a University of Calgary briefing paper on "disinformation" about the war in Ukraine which warns about "five primary narratives" being circulated online:

1. Implying NATO expansionism legitimizes the Russian invasion

2. Portraying NATO as an aggressive alliance using Ukraine as a proxy against Russia

3. Promoting a general mistrust in institutions and elites

4. Suggesting that Ukraine is a fascist state or has extensive fascist influences

5. Promoting a specific mistrust of Canada’s Liberal government, and especially of Prime Minister Trudeau

There are arguments of varying strengths to be made for every one of those points, but more importantly it is self-evident that all of them are matters of opinion and none of them meet any sane definition of "disinformation". They also can't in and of themselves rightly be called either "Russian" or "propaganda". 

Russian propaganda certainly exists, and the Russian government certainly has a vested interest in influencing western thought in its strategic favor to whatever extent it is capable. But its capability is very, very limited, especially compared to the exponentially greater influence that western institutions have over our minds.

Russia has a few trolls and some media outlets that were barely viewed by westerners even before they were banned; the US-centralized empire has the billionaire media, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and the education system. Comparing the two is like comparing a candle to the sun, and the sun ain't Russia. But that's the one whose influence over our minds we're meant to worry about.

In reality we are swimming in propaganda that is favorable to the US empire our entire lives; it's so ubiquitous that people don't even notice it. Claiming your support for US foreign policy on an issue has nothing to do with being propagandized is like someone who was raised in the Westboro Baptist Church claiming it was pure coincidence that he happens to agree with the church on the sinfulness of homosexuality. It pervades our minds and shapes our society, but they want us all freaking out about the virtually nonexistent problem of "Russian propaganda". 

This is a thought-killing dynamic, and it is a major problem. It is not good that propaganda is shoved into our minds manufacturing consent for dangerous escalations between the world's two greatest nuclear powers while anyone who opposes any part of it is dismissed as a Russian propagandist or a useful idiot of the Kremlin.

We should be using our minds more at this critical juncture, but these dynamics put in place by imperial narrative managers have instead got us using them a lot less.

Old joke:

A Russian and an American get on a plane in Moscow and get to talking. The Russian says he works for the Kremlin and he's on his way to go learn American propaganda techniques.

"What American propaganda techniques?" asks the American.

"Exactly," the Russian replies.




De Groene NAVO-Propagandist Maarten Muns

  Op zoek naar een modus vivendi met Rusland Containment of detente? Welke ideologie er ook regeert, Rusland blijft een expansieve macht. ‘H...