simplesynopsis-blog

[simplesynopsis-blog]

A philosophical and balanced analysis of our penal system; its purposes and its effect. It talks about how it is a mechanism employed to further the status quo. This is yet another YouTuber I have come across recently. I can definitely recommend looking into more of his material if you are interested in a more philosophical take on politics.

[simplesynopsis-blog]

Acceptable Dissonance

I have been thinking a bit about the clip on Chomsky at the end of the previous video. How he argues that, inherent to an opressive regime, limited opposition to the system should be expected, being that it is encouraged by the ruling class as a mechanism to pacify meaningful opposition. What I take away from this is that, whilst the demands from (for the lack of a better term) the progressive bloc (positions expressed by/in e.g. the so called liberal media) might be desirable, as they undesirably create a de facto boundary of what most people deem reasonable demands, we must therefore make more radical demands. In other words, we need to move up and beyond the regular complaints levelled against the status quo.

I am picturing what an archetypal liberal response (from said progressive bloc) might be to this argument. A probable critique would be: ‘How can we make greater demands than we already are? We haven’t even achieved what we set out to achieve! Fights for equal gender rights, ethnic rights and open border policies are still being fought. Shouldn’t we focus more on those for the time being before moving on?’

I don’t know if this is a good way to go about it, considering the implications of Chomsky’s claims. Understanding it from his perspective, these reasonable demands prevent us from making meaningful change. Take this analogy:

Imagine you are bartering the price of item X (which is £10). Ideally, you want to pay no more than £8 for the item. Now, how much do you think you would offer to achieve desired price? Well, I doubt you would offer £8, as this would most likely be met with a counter-offer of £9 or closer to £10 by the seller. You would fall short on your demand. More likely, you would offer below your desired price (let’s say £6) with the knowledge that the seller, fearing you (the customer) will walk away if he/she does not drop the price, will most likely make a counter-offer around your initially desired price (£8).

Applying this logic to reality, let’s replace the terms from the analogy with terms from the real word. Price becomes the desired reform/change of the system, customer is replaced by those demanding the change and seller becomes the government/ruiling class. Consequently, if we want to demand change on a particular issue (let’s say austerity), it is not enough to merely demand better working hours, more power to be given to local governments, more government subsidies, etc. Rather, we should demand up and over this if we ever want there to be any chance for our demands to be realised.

I realise this is a simple analogy to make of such a complicated problem. But hopefully its simplicity will allow for greater insight and lead to greater inferences to be made. Anyway, I have made a list of potential assumptions/problems with the analogy so I am not later accused of not questioning/evaluating my own opinions.

Assumptions/simplifications:

1. The bartering analogy does not take into account the bartering takes place in a system that does not desire meaningful bartering/change in the first place. This is kind of what Chomsky was saying. Since the goal of allowing some demands/bartering is the suppression of true change, any and all bartering conducted by the seller/government/ruiling class is necessarily made without the intention to ever allow meaningful change. Of course, this point in itself assumes a lot of definitions on e.g. meaningful or true change. I guess it comes down to personal opinion. I would argue that, under capitalism, any and all progressive change, if achieved, will necessarily be challenged by the ruling class at a later date; inherently due to the existence of private property (for definition, see my previous post: Clearing up Some Misconceptions). Consequently, long lasting/meaningful change can not be achieved. In other words, meaningful change can only be achieved through changing the system itself and establishing collective rule. I will probably have to revisit this at a later date.

2. The analogy does not specify what radical demands are. The shape they can/should take is specified in the previous point.

3. The anlalogy kind-of assumes dishonesty is required to achieve a desired goal. I am not sure of the ethics of this question yet. Should we be deceptive in order to attain our goals? I mean, it is not being overtly deceptive, only really deceptive insofar as one demands something beyond the actual demand (suggesting to the government/ruling class that this further stance is the position of your desire). However, I think this is a moot point because surely your up-and-over demand is also something you would ultimately want to see enacted.

4. The analogy assumes the seller lowers his counter-offer because of the fear of the customer walking away. It is debatable whether this is analogous to our current system. On one hand, this is not a realistic comparison due to the fact that a member of society can not walk away from the status quo. On the other hand, it might work as an apt comparison as the seller’s fear of the customer walking away could be equated to a government’s/ruiling classe’s fear of the working classes rioting and/or organising a revolution.

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed the read.

[simplesynopsis-blog]

This video unpacks and addresses some commonly held beliefs. I can recommend checking out some more of this guy’s stuff.

[simplesynopsis-blog]

Upcoming

Additionally to posting old research material and new articles, I also want to start sharing some videos I find particularly illuminating. After all, progress is a collaborative effort, we never fight alone. Watch this space.

[simplesynopsis-blog]

Clearing up Some Misconceptions

Scandinavia is not socialist. Simple. Neat. Why is this important? Well, because there is a common misconception that most countries in Scandinavia: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc., are indeed socialist. And why is this misconception important to address you ask? Because definitions matter.

Do you remember people calling Obama a socialist (or heck, even a Marxist by some, which is depressingly entertaining)? I mean sure, he stood behind the Affordable Care Act, minorly taxing the rich and other mildly socialistically sounding policies. But, wait a second, isn’t that Venezuelan guy Nicolás Maduro also supposed to be a socialist? And so was Bernie? Even our father Stalin, wasn’t he’s socialist??

Oh I get it. Yeah I think I get it now. It’s opposing the status quo, that’s it isn’t it? That’s what makes you a socialist? Yeah that sounds right. If you’re not with Trump you’re with the socialists.

No, nuno. That’s not right, that doesn’t sound right. Let’s take a step back here. I think it’s safe to assume there is a difference between the claim that a person is socialist and that a country or society is socialist. Surely, the former is someone that wants to create conditions present in the latter. So, by the sound of it we should start with defining what a socialism entails for a society? Yes, let’s start there.

But, quickly so I’m not taken out of context, no, I’m not implying here that Obama was nesesaarily opposing the status quo. Sure, within the American political sphere he might have seemed moderately radical, but only radical insofar as a Granny Smith is radical compared to a Gala. Apples will be apples. Also, this is not a normative piece of writing, I am simply clarifying definitions here. Sure, my own political opinions might be getting more and more clear to some readers of my blog. But this entry isn’t trying to advocate a particular ideological stance. That does not mean I am sitting on the fence though. I’m just easing you into it. Entries taking a normative stance are up next.

So, socialism, what is it? Well, it’s got to do with who controls the means of production. What are the means of production? In a nutshell, they are: the means that are employed to produce things (both things essential to our survival and things not). Examples include: factories, businesses, resources used, technologies, the list goes on. In capitalist societies, the means of production are privately owned, that is by private individuals who own factories, businesses, etc. They are referred to as capitalists. They employ people who do not own the means of production, who can only sell their own labour power. They are referred to as the proletariat. In contrast, in socialist societies the means of production are owned collectively. That is to say by the people. Put into practice, this can include worker cooperatives, state industry and public ownership. It does not necessarily consider the all-powerful state as a bad thing (except by anarchists or anarcho-communists who believe the state actually upholds capitalist society by existing alongside it and enforcing a class structure). This is because, necessarily under this system, governments are run by the people and therefore all state assets are public assets.

In essence, socialism means abolishing private property. ‘Oh no!’ You might be saying. ‘I don’t want to share my house with strangers. I don’t want the state to take all my stuff and control my life! You remember what happened in Doctor Zhivago, don’t you?? Don’t you??’... Fret not. This is years of Cold War propaganda talking. Something I see over and over again is this mis-definition of private property. Private property does not mean your fancy clothes, your TV, your knick-knacks, your house or your car. These are personal property. Private property refers specifically to privately owned means of production. See the misunderstanding? It’s not really that surprising that this is confusing, as in our capitalist society this distinction is necessarily nonexistent. So, in other words, in a socialist society you’re still free to keep all your nice things, you just can’t use these things to employ others to create more things. Why can’t you do this? Because private ownership of the means of production is seen as oppressive (the reasons for this will be discussed further, in a future post).

Now, I should say, it would be naïve to suggest that no one would have to give up some of their stuff/personal property. But unlike your average right wing libertarian would argue, socialism doesn’t mean that it is the average person (99.9999999% of the people reading this article) who would be giving up their stuff. Instead it is the people who we already know have waaaay to much. Yes, you know, those guys with super yachts (and yes I am generalising here). Basically those who we already know have faaar too much stuff to be able to be consumed by a single individual. Also, even if someone who has 15 houses, 10 cars and five yachts says this property is merely recreational, i.e. used only as though it were personal property. Well, then I implore you to ask them how they made the all the money that allowed them to buy all said personal property. You guessed it: private property. In other words, they will own a factory and/or business that allowed them to create the excessive wealth needed, through worker exploitation, to buy all their stuff. Anyway, who’s saying it might not be kinda good to foster a slightly less materialistic mentality?

So, under this definition, is Scandinavia socialist? NO! Heck no. In Scandinavia, the means of production are privately owned. Case closed. Sure, they might have a social democracy, but this is different. This just advocates some state invervention in order to help in questions of social justice and the like, but it still presupposes the capitalist mode of production (i.e. privately owned means of production). Also, some industry might be state owned, but the mere existence of private property is incompatible with a socialist definition of these countries. And yes, this also means that Obama is not a socialist, and (this gets to me a little) that Venezuela is not a socialist country, regardless of the rubbish our media is trying to shove down our throats.

Some other points: socialism is not the same as communism and social democracy is not the same as democratic socialism. And these are also different from Marxism and anarchism. Some overlap, some do not. If you’re more interested in the distinctions between these, watch this video.

Also, a final small point. I did joke (sarcastically) earlier that socialism was defined as opposing the status quo. Whilst this is not true, it’s important to point out that, ironically, if you are indeed a socialist, you will most likely be opposing the current status quo. And if you don’t, then you’re probably not a socialist.

Anyway, I hope this helped clarify things. Now, don’t go accusing people of being socialists without good reason. And if you do call someone a socialist who actually is a socialist, they’ll probably appreciate you took the time to understand what this claim in fact entails.

[simplesynopsis-blog]

Follow up

Following up on the previous post, I wanted to try to disseminate some of the discussed points a litter further and add some more thoughts on the concepts that were mentioned.

I think it is difficult to talk about the spread of international capitalism without delving a little deeper into the concept of globalisation. It is an elusive topic, taking many forms. We are told time and time again of its inevitability. Some say it is as certain as evolution, a force of nature driven by our own human innovation. But what does it really entail? It is a term that is thrown around a lot, often without regard for its specifics. Unpacking it a bit, it often seems intertwined with the idea of technological advancement and the inter-connectivity of the world. It connects us through the efficacy of our modern communicative technology and spreads ideas and innovations globally. I consider this a non-normative claim; it does not say how we should or should not be as a species, it simply says we will necessarily create and innovate. Technology itself is not inherently bad, but the way we use it might be. This brings us to the second implication of globalisation: its political motivations. As discussed in the previous post, development and ‘empowerment’ of developing countries is a byproduct of a global capitalist expansion. I am not saying it is not possible to encourage true development in developing countries. Instead, I am arguing this development under ‘globalisation’ has very specific political motivations, which ultimately does not have the well-being of the developing country in question as its goal (only guaranteeing its well-being insofar as the country is able to stay minimally functional in order to serve as a country for exploitation within the capitalist world market). Connecting countries up to the global market creates a non-coercive, self-enforcing, global regime. This is very much the underlying message behind globalisation. Thus we can outline two meanings behind globalisation: the spread of technology (inevitable) and the spread of ideology (a political agenda). I think the term globalisation is used far, far, far too often without consideration of the latter meaning.

Interestingly, I found some empirical evidence relevant to this a long time ago when researching a completely different topic. I was looking at data on trade freedom and mass media within 156 countries around the world when lo and behold, an interesting relationship was highlighted if plotting the two factors against each other.

I will not go into too much detail on how the two variables were measured. Mass media basically consisted of an index created by measuring levels of different types of media (print/online/television) in a country and trade freedom was measured by indexing the levels of tariffs and restrictions applied to trade within that country. For a moment, take the variable mass media as a proxy for technological advancement and trade freedom as a proxy for the prominence of a capitalist ideology in a country (noting the centrality of freedom of the markets to neoliberal thought). Thus the graph provides confirmation of what was said in the previous paragraph: as stipulated by our concept of globalisation, as technology (mass media) increases in a country, so does the prominence of the capitalist ideology (trade freedom). It shows how the capitalist system is truly global, no country escapes it. Sure, these variables might not be the best measure for this phenomenon, but that was not their original purpose. They do however illustrate the point I am trying to make quite well.

Some people, even after reading this might ask ‘So what? Isn’t it a good thing that we’re converting these struggling countries to our capitalist way of living? After all, look how well we’re doing. Don’t we want them also to do well?’ But this is missing the point. There is a glaring central problem with this line of thinking. As mentioned in the previous post, the development of these countries is not encouraged so they can be like us; it is encouraged so they can be exploited by us. Under the capitalist mode of thinking, we do not want them to be prosperous, because this will necessarily damage us. We are only able to enjoy our high quality of living within a capitalist system because of the systematic exploitation of these countries. If they became as wealthy as us, guess what, their cheap (now expensive) industry would then be outsourced and moved again to a poorer part of the world. Sure, we want them to convert to a capitalist mindset, but only so they can be fully incorporated into the global market, where we can then extract their wealth. Consequently our encouragement of development is not inherently well-meaning.

This is very much linked to a world-systems understanding of the world. Under this form of analysis, the world is divided into a core and a periphery. Western countries (core) exploit developing and poor countries (periphery). It relies on the unequal exchange of wealth where the fruits of the labour of the periphery is disproportionately given to the core. However, I do not really want to go much further into this theoretical understanding as I am planning to delve deeper into it at another time.

This has unpacked one of the arguments of the previous post a little more. The underlying political motivations for our concept of globalisation need to be given far more attention in popular discourse. Much too often is it used without thought of its deeper meaning, which means it is greatly misleading. Anyway, this is a start, next I want to go over some of the democratic implications of this so called globalisation. Have a nice weekend!

[simplesynopsis-blog]

LONG READ: The United Nations, the Global Capitalist Regime and Circumnavigating Coercion with Common Sense

Conventional wisdom is a dangerous thing. This becomes particularly apparent when considering conventional wisdoms around global development where ‘it is all too easy… to reinforce rather than to challenge the status quo and the conventional wisdom.’ (Hurrel, 2011, p. 152) This paper argues the United Nations (UN) has emerged into the 21st century as a capitalist hawk, leading the dissemination of capitalists values and imperatives through economic globalization. Firstly, this paper considers how UN development programs have led to the proletarianisation of people in the developing world as well as the embedding of neoliberal institutional structures. Secondly, it is evaluated how the UN has contributed to create a non-coercive regime of common sense, enforcing the capitalist world-system. Third, the destructive separation of the economy and politics through UN reforms are considered. Finally, the question is addressed of whether or not the UN as an autonomous international institution has taken a dominant position as enforcer of a capitalist narrative.

The UN seeks to further a capitalist agenda with its proletarianisation of people within developing countries. Notably, with the dawn of the 21st century, the UN has focused its efforts around ‘the export of capitalism’ (as opposed to ‘the export of capital’)(Cammack, 2006, p. 1). This involves the spread of ‘the social relations of production that define it and institutions devised to promote and sustain them.’ (p. 1). Far from benign, undertakings such as the Millennium Development Goals, Monterrey Consensus (p. 18), as well as the 2005 UNDP publication Unleashing Entrepreneurship: Making Business Work for the Poor (p. 2) are all framed in terms of ‘eradicating extreme poverty and hunger; achieving universal primary education; promoting gender equality’, amongst other development goals (p. 1). However, in reality these development programs are a merely a continuation of the timeless capitalist commodification of labour, disguised as humanitarian development. These UN programs seek to add new regions and peoples ‘into the capitalist world market’ (Overbeek, 2004, p. 4). This becomes apparent through the UN’s mobilization of ‘the ‘‘latent’ proletariat’, such as women, who’s emancipation in many oppressed areas is intended to allow their full proletarianisation within a capitalist system (Cammack, 2003, p. 45). Thus, gender equality in this regard ‘is understood as a tool to maximize performance, not as a goal per se.’ (Zwingel et al., 2014, p. 182). This is similarly the underlying purpose of efforts promoting basic social services in developing areas (Cammack, 2003, pp. 45-46), such as education and sanitation. In reality, what these UN programs really achieve is the disentanglement of much of the labour previously tied down in the Third World due to poor health and education (Gill, 1998, p. 36). In other words, the UN’s development programs seek to effectively mobilise the working classes in these areas for capitalist exploitation. This capitalist agenda is further embodied in the UN’s efforts through the structural factors of their development goals. Notable examples include the privatization of various government services in developing countries, successfully introducing them fully into the market (Gill, 1998, p. 36; Overbeek, 2004, p. 4). This locks in the capitalist system by increasing the number of national veto points prohibiting a departure from the neoliberal agenda (Gill, 1998, p. 34). Ultimately, all these are examples of the UN furthering the process of primitive accumulation in that these reforms separate workers ‘from the ownership of the conditions of his own labour’ and thus creates an ‘industrial reserve army’ (Marx, 1976, p. 874 & pp. 763-764 cited Cammack, 2003, p. 43).

Furthermore, the UN seeks to lock in this capitalist ethos through the ‘internationalization of the state’ (Cox, 1996, p. 107 cited Overbeek, 2004, p. 11) and spread of a neoliberal common sense, making it very difficult for countries to oppose this capitalist economic globalization. The first way it achieves this is through the spread of a capitalist common sense. Agreeing with a wider Marxist interpretation of historical materialism (Rupert, 2003, p. 185), the UN promotes ‘common adherence to codes and standards’ (Cammack, 2003, p. 38) and a global consensus ‘regarding the needs or requirements of the world economy that takes place within a common ideological framework’ (Overbeek, 2004, p. 11). The ideas of neoliberalism have been normalized and any alternative view has been discarded as unfeasible (Overbeek, 2004, p. 11). This is helped thorough the UN’s position of authority. The UN gains its authority as a Global Governor due to its purported expertize in certain international policy areas and from its ‘service to some widely accepted principles, morals, [and] values’ (Sell, 2014, p. 77). As defined by functionalist theory, the UN operates by employing ‘Specialized Agencies’ who are experts within necessarily international fields such as development and trade (Gordenker, 2014, p. 211). This might lead to doubt over the efficacy of the UN in spreading capitalist dogma. Notably, international institutions do often lack ‘formal regulatory powers’ (Overbeek, 2004, p. 14), thus ‘safeguarding conventional state autonomy’ (Gordenker, 2014, p. 220). Similarly, national governments are merely ‘obliged to carry out’ UN conventions (p. 215). After all, countries are not coerced into adopting this UN-driven capitalist world-view as they might be through, for example, American military expansion. However, this functionalist understanding critically does not take into account the power of the non-coercive nature of these recommendations. Within a world-system characterized by a capitalist common sense, states must always be vigilant in protecting their perceived credibility in the international market. Countries are forced to maintain their credibility in the international system as this creates investor confidence (Gill, 1998, p. 25). Furthermore, as defined by the common sense of the capitalist world market, governments are led to believe ‘that a revival of economic growth would depend upon business confidence to invest’, emphasising the structural power of capital (Cox, 1992, p. 28). This encourages the internationalization of the state, as the state is necessary for the institutional reforms at the national level which allow for the transparent nature of capital, ensuring credibility and investor confidence (Gill, 1998, p. 31). Thus, while UN recommendations are not formally coercive, states cannot oppose them without challenging a capitalist common sense and suffering at the hands of the global market.

This UN’s dissemination of capitalist values is equally stark in its promotion of the separation of the market from the political sphere. This is understood as New Constitutionalism (Gill, 1998, p. 30; Overbeek, 2004, p. 12). Under the national institutional arrangements promoted by the UN, individual investors are empowered over regular citizens. Notably, they favour ‘mobile (especially financial) capital’ (Overbeek, 2004, p. 14). For example, as the aforementioned need for states to maintain their economic credibility is held paramount, ‘[t]he mobile investor becomes the sovereign political subject.’ (Gill, 1998, p. 23) The empowerment of wealthy individuals is an extension of capitalists imperatives for two main reasons. Firstly, it seeks to ward off popular dissent. This is linked to the capitalist view of the ‘‘excess of democracy’’ that could only be dealt with by depoliticizing marginal groups with purportedly excessive demands (for example: demands for welfare) (Cox, 1992, p. 33). Consequently, popular participation in decision-making is ‘restricte[d]… to safely channelled areas’ separate from ‘key economic and strategic areas of policy’ (Gill, 1998, p. 27). Thus the UN’s programs seek to impose a ‘dual freedom’ prevalent in Marxist thought stipulating that people are emancipated ‘within the parameters of republican forms of state’ whilst ‘(re-)subjecting persons to social domination through the compulsions of market dependence and the disabling effects of fetishism and reification.’ (Rupert, 2003, p. 182) Secondly it seeks to reestablish a dominant bourgeoisie both nationally and globally. The ruling class does not rule by controlling the state, rather they adopt a ‘diffused and situated’ character within ‘the myriad of institutions and relationships in civil society.’ (Overbeek, 2004, p. 3) Nationally, the proletarianisation created through the UN’s development programs seeks to establish the bourgeoisie as the leading group in all countries within a democratic framework (Cammack, 2006, p. 6), returning them to a position of wealth following their setbacks in the 20th century (Harvey, 2005, p. 16). Globally, these development programs expand a global class system. They create a ‘global class structure’ that is situated ‘alongside or superimposed upon national class structures’ (Cox 1996, p. 111 cited Overbeek, 2004, p. 11). This is captured by a core-periphery view of the world in that an unequal exchange allows for the excess flow of capital towards core states from the periphery (developing countries) (Wallerstein, 2007, pp. 17-18).

Lastly, it should be noted how the UN is now indeed the lead agency for the dissemination of a capitalist agenda as the UN currently does not act in favour of individual countries and instead spreads international capitalism as an autonomous body. The UN has come to further the capitalist world order, autonomously from the will of individual states (Cammack, 2006, p. 1). Notably, due to the loss of legitimacy of the IMF and WB in the 1990s, who were previously furthering this agenda (Gill, 1998, p. 36; Cammack, 2006, pp. 1-2), the UN has now taken up the reins of this authority role (Cammack, 2006, pp. 1-2). Realists fiercely oppose this claim. To realist scholars, the nature of governance reflects ‘the internal meta-value ensembles of particular groups, who have proven adept at amassing relative power for themselves in this particular historical moment in time’ (Sterling-Folker, 2005, p. 32). Furthermore, within an international institutional framework, the realists interpretation would be that the UN allows the most powerful nations to push their agenda through an ‘institutionalised environment’ (Callinicos, 2002, p. 325). These arguments culminate in the view that the spread of capitalism is still at the hands of individual states (Gordenker, 2014, p. 212). However, the reason this is not, and cannot be, the case is due to a paradox within the international capitalist system realists fail to see (Cammack, 2003, p. 41). Capitalist states pursuing their interests necessarily involves both ‘the introduction and promotion of the disciplines of capitalist competition on a global scale’ (p. 41) as well as a desire to outcompete rival nations, inevitably multiplied though the aforementioned spread of capitalism (p. 40). In other words, nations promoting capitalism can thus not be acting in their own interest, as stipulated by realists. This problem is solved with the UN as the lead agency for capitalist dissemination. Individual projects of capital accumulation are difficult for states and this is why the UN, as a supranational body, can ‘mitigate’ the obstacles in their way and better promote global capital, necessarily due to not being driven by the agenda of an individual state (p. 40). This argument is solidified when noting the United States’ anger over the wording of the 2005 UN paper Unleashing Entrepreneurship, which sought to consolidate the authority of the UN as the lead agency for the of the spread of global capitalism, rather than the US, reflecting the clash of the national vis-à-vis supranational promotion of capitalist values and imperatives (Cammack, 2006, p. 20). The eventual retreat of the US in this confrontation (p. 20) merely reinforces the emergence of the UN as the lead agency for the global dissemination of capitalism in the 21st century.

In summary, the UN has entered the 21st century as the dominant figure in the global spread of capitalist ideas and practices. This is not only the case within its proletarianisation of untapped sources of labour within the developing world, but also through its establishment of a non-coercive system within which capitalist common sense reinforces compliance and punishes those who attempt to adopt an alternative world-view. It has also been shown how the UN thus helps to create a global class system atop national class systems, empowering a global bourgeoisie. Lastly, the UN does not act in favour of individual states, as argued by realists, but instead necessarily furthers the capitalist narrative autonomously. Thus it has been highlighted how, conventional wisdom is indeed a dangerous thing, particularly when considering how development is perceived and how the mechanisms that are naturally seen to accompany it take shape.

References

Callinicos, A. (2002) The Actuality of Imperialism. Millennium, 31(2), 319–326.

Cammack, P. (2003) The Governance of Global Capitalism: A New Materialist Perspective. Historical Materialism, 11(2), 37–59.

Cammack, P. (2006) UN imperialism: unleashing entrepreneurship in the developing world. Papers in the Politics of Global Competitiveness, Manchester Metropolitan University, no. 2.

Cox, R. W. (1992) Global Perestroika. Socialist Register, 28, 26-43. Available from: http://www.socialistregister.com/index.php/srv/article/view/5606#.WqeZhZPFI-c [Accessed 7 March 2018].

Gill, S. (1998) New Constitutionalism, Democratisation and Global Political Economy. Global Change, Peace & Security, 10(1), 23–38.

Gordenker, L. (2014) The UN System IN: IN Weiss, T. G. and Wilkinson, R. (eds.) International Organization and Global Governance, Abingdon: Routledge, 209-222.

Harvey, D. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hurrell, A. (2011) The Theory and Practice of Global Governance: The Worst of All Possible Worlds? International Studies Review, 13(1), 144–154.

Overbeek, H. (2004) Global Governance, Class, Hegemony: A historical materialist perspective. Working Papers Political Science, VU University Amsterdam, 2004/01.

Rupert, M. (2003) Globalising Common Sense: A Marxian-Gramscian (Re-)Vision of the Politics of Governance/Resistance. Review of International Studies, 29(S1): 181–198.

Sell, S. K. (2014) Who Governs the Globe? IN Weiss, T. G. and Wilkinson, R. (eds.) International Organization and Global Governance, Abingdon: Routledge, 73-86.

Sterling-Folker, J. (2005) Realist global governance: revisiting cave! hic Dragones and beyond IN: Ba, A. D. and Hoffmann, M. J. (eds.) Contending Perspectives on Global Governance: Coherence, contestation and world order, London: Routledge, 17-38.

Wallerstein, I. (2007) World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. 5th ed. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

Zwingel S., Prügl, E. and Caglar, G. (2014) Feminism IN: Weiss, T. G. and Wilkinson, R. (eds.) International Organization and Global Governance, Abingdon: Routledge, 180-191.

[simplesynopsis-blog]

Upcoming

I’ve decided that over the next few days I’d post some older work I’ve done. Two reasons for this. Firstly, I feel this might help in unpacking some of the ideas I keep wanting to use in my posts but feel like I can’t without having to go down a rabbit hole trying to first explain them. It’ll make future posts less clunky and more streamlined as I won’t have to keep sidetracking. Secondly, it’ll mean I can start thinking further beyond these topics I’ve already gone over in the past. Sometimes it’s felt a little like regurgitation with previous posts, like I’m covering ground I’ve already explored, which isn’t really the idea of this blog. By clearing the air a bit with old material, I can move on to more exciting work. Anyway, watch this space.

[simplesynopsis-blog]

False Dilemma

On the face of it, this is how the vast majority of our political world is perceived. We can blame it on many things. But, the truth of it is that we are all finding it awfully difficult to see the world as anything more complicated than a struggle between good an evil.

A ‘false dilemma’ is that logical fallacy that boils even the most complex questions down to an either/or. The example that most often comes to mind, and which is most frequently revisited if my more humorous nightmares, is Bush concluding that ‘Either you’re with us, or you are with the terrorists.’

The fallacy answers a particular question I have been asking myself over the last few days. Why are so many (for the lack of a better grouping term) conservative voters so hellbent on supporting the military? The obvious answer here is by the indoctrination of the working class by the endless propaganda surrounding the military sine the end of the last World War. But let’s just ignore that for a moment; for the sake of a more interacting post.

I watched a number of short documentaries on YouTube, two in particular that stick in my mind. Both your averagely click-baity, semi-mocking, VICEesque videos. The first was about hate preachers in the southern States of the US, spending their time yelling ‘sodomites’ at New Orleans street parades, highlighting the sinful nature of anal-sex and lecturing on the true message of the Bible. I will not mince my words. They were twats. Now, despite their regressively quite developed views on homosexuality, their leader almost reflexively, with great enthusiasm, expressed his support for ‘the troops’. This might seem like a fairly trivial thing I am getting stuck on here. But sometimes I wonder if we almost take for granted this idea that just because you are a bible-swinging, bigoted southern Stater, you’re also automatically pro-military. It is one of those mental shortcuts/assumptions we do not question. Why on earth does this clearly deeply religious man believe so strongly in the military? I think at least part of the blame should go to this damn false dilemma.

What I am arguing is easier to understand through the other video I watched. This one has us spend some time with the American Three Percent Movement (I don’t mean to pick on the US, but sometimes it’s just so easy), the biggest civilian militia force in the country. This lot spend their day dressing up as soldiers, cooking bacon in the forest, drinking Coors Light and shooting GUNS! They have tactical expercises too. Simulations include what to do if terrorists are taking 1. Our bacon, 2. Our Coors Light or 3. Our guns. Sarcasm is hard to convey through text so interpret that as you will. Of course, it is of no surprise that these individuals also ‘support our troops’ in their fight between good and evil.

I feel we are too eager to say that what these two groups have in common is that they are both crazy conservative right wing loonatics. I do not think this is very constructive. For this reason I do not either think this is the reason that should be given for why they both so unapologetically support the military. Rather, it is an unfaltering bifurcated world view that plagues their minds, an unwillingness (because by God I do not want to think of it as an inability) to see that the world is constructed by a much more complicated reality than merely us ‘the good guys’ and them ‘the bad guys.’ No wonder they both love the military, what other institution is so heavily dependent and legitimised by the good/bad narrative?

We should all be wary of this simplification. I know my knee-jerk reaction is to criticise this phenomena amongst more conservative groups. But that does not mean more, so called, ‘progressive’ individuals are free from blame. I catch glimpses of posters like these online

and get that familiar feeling of exasperation. Just because you are anti-abortion does not make you anti-immigration (or rather anti-refugee). It politicises and simplifies the issue and further builds up these unessesary stereotypes. (Though I reckon there might be a type of statistical correlation between the frequency of those two ideas in individuals)

So, I think we should stop putting people into boxes and maybe start realising there is a mental layer beneath our political ideologies and opinions that determine how we see the world. Just remember, either you are someone who does not turn away from the complexity of the world, or you are someone who simplifies all issues to an either/or.

[simplesynopsis-blog]

Here’s a new video I just uploaded. It’s trying to address the issue of why members of the working class are increasingly voting for right wing (or fringe right wing) parties. A longer blog piece on this topic is planned for the future.

[simplesynopsis-blog]

[simplesynopsis-blog]

Despondent Observer

There is a great irony lying at the core of modern society. Embedded and engrained to the point of going unnoticed. We live in a post-Thatcher world of individuals, the collective mind is gone, the entrepreneurial sole-trader stands supreme. We fear conformity, our dislike for appearing as anything by the strong individual achievers we are is pronounced. But we are hypocrites. Never before have we been so culturally, socially and economically homogenous as today.

I am not talking about poverty. We may never have had is to good, economically, (also something to pick apart in a later post), but that is not what is being referred to here.

We speak with fear of alternate political realities where people are forced to be equal, everyone forced to diffuse into an incoherent society-wide, boring and drab bog we call society. We are afraid of looking the same, sounding the same and thinking the same. We speak instead with passion of our own society where we are free to express ourselves through our individuality. We can speak our minds and choose to be different. We do not have to identify with anything we do not want to.

This is, however, not the case. In reality we have no need of an oppressive regime to realise this Soviet-style conformist nightmare. More than any Third Reich/Soviet-era forced conformity, our own current world is perfectly capable for enforcing a culture of conformity. Non-coercively of course.

We live in an era of ‘branded-individuality’, an age of smoke and mirrors. This means two things. Firstly, it means that this individuality we hold dear in the West, our so-called birthright, is in itself a product, a brand. It is an idea that we export. Something we echo out into the world, proclaiming it as our greatest achievement. ‘Freedom to be any which way you like!’ This, however, is not the reality we live in.

This is due to the second meaning of branded-individualism. Namely that this individuality we worship is realised itself through brands and products, rendering it a mirage. We are all absorbed, processed and spat our by the pose-Keynesian neoliberal society with much more in common than not. It can be truly astonishing (and I do mean this in a genuine, non-lampooning way) how much we channel our individuality through things. We actively identify through the products we buy, through the music we listen to and through the clothes we wear. I.e. We wear clothes bought from mass outlets in order to express individuality. This is almost satirical: There is nothing more Soviet than walking into an H&M.

Some of the previous sentences might have prompted the rolling of eyes. But this is an attempt to move beyond that age-old sheep analogy. People do like other people do, that seems inevitable. What seems to be happening more and more however is that we, unconsciously, alienate our own individual self through channelling this individuality through material things. We project something innate, externally. Call this an extension of Marx’s idea of alienation (click here for more on that) applied to the high-street. By imprinting our idea of individuality on external things/practices, we are taking away something internal. By identifying ourselves through the products of others (i.e. material things) we not only promote an oppressive system (by buying into it), but also allow ourselves to be identified not in the way we want to be, but instead in the way others want you to be (i.e. designer/trend-setter/entrepreneur/asshat). Maybe this is getting a little side-tracked, and it is also verging into an area I want to cover in the future in more seriousness.

These are the underlying reasons for why this individualism is not, and can never be, what it sets out to (or pretends) to be. It is the carrot we have dangling in front of our faces, coaxing us on in our hamster wheels.

I think we should stop pretending, move beyond the illusion. We are today more alike than ever before. This is both our great flaw and a possible route to salvation. Stop being afraid of being alike, because we already are, inevitably under the current system. Embrace similarity, similarity is solidarity, and realise that the individualism we have placed on a pedestal is itself a hoax, a shiny façade. Maybe that would be the start of a different future.

[simplesynopsis-blog]

Issues with Future Design

We are having a hard time deciding what to do when it comes to existential threats. Particularly when it comes to politics. Humanity prides itself of its ingenuity and cleverness to tackle technical hurdles, but is seemingly incapable of remedying some universal challenges to the human spirit. While this might not be as true within established academia, discussions of the mainstream media and popular narrative are no doubt lacking within when it comes to the solutions to the political issues that have faced our kind since our inception. There seem to be a lot of problems, we all seem to agree on that, even though the nature of each problem is often to be up for debate. The solutions to them are however not as clear.

Of course, this observation is less true for some. To them the problem of systematic disenfranchisement of certain groups in society can be remedied by simply opening or closing a border to immigrants. To others, the threat to freedom at home is best remedied by violently killing farmers and their goats abroad. To others still, every problem under the sun is solved by simply letting the market run free. But these are not solutions to the problems mentioned above, they are merely distractions. These do nothing to push us closer to exits out of the greater problems such as global inequality, systematic repression of the human spirit and the problems within the global financial regime.

This post is not, to disappoint, going to be a roadmap of any hypothetical solutions. I am not the Messiah. It is merely trying to lay some groundwork establishing why any hypothetical solutions are by no means low hanging fruit.

Firstly, there seems to be no shortage of those challenging the status quo, this is both a good and bad thing we need to recognise in order to have a chance to create meaningful change. Adam Curtis, documentarian and creator of ‘HyperNormalsation’, notes how the Occupy movement captured the imagination and support of the people in calling out injustices and issues in our current system. But they had no view of what to put in its place. This is why the movement fizzled and died at the speed it did. It is often the problem facing left-wing intellectuals. How many highly opinionated individuals have been reduced to silence after being challenged with: ‘–well what do you suggest we replace the system with? Communism?’ as a tool to delegitimise their critique. Whilst we shouldn’t dwell on this observation – in the same way we shouldn’t take any notice of the dismissal of any holistic/collective ideals by drunken Conservatives shouting ‘Damn Commie!’ from their respective country pub – it does raise an important point. Namely that it is important to recognise that a critique of the current system is independent from an argument of suggesting what is to replace it – a point most reactionary pundits seems to overlook. It does however agree, painfully, with the previous example on the Occupy movement: Whilst a challenge of the status quo cannot be delegitimized by its omission of a solution to what it is criticising, this omission must be recognised if we want to get anywhere. Hence we start to manoeuvre ourselves to tackle the problem of figuring out how to tackle the problem.

Making things more difficult still, it is remarkably hard to imagine what a future political system looks like. For one, we are inescapably a product of our time. This is perfectly mirrored in science fiction. How often do we laugh at the simplicity or eccentricity of previous generations’ visions of their own respective futures? How Star Wars is permanently set in a late-1970s future (or a long time ago?) or 2001: A Space Odyssey in a 1960s future (that said, I do think Kubrick’s version was pretty timeless). The basic point here is that every culture’s version of the future is imprinted with its own zeitgeist. This zeitgeist is problematic; it makes it very difficult for us to imagine a future political system without mental references to the present. This leads us to question our ability to create any meaningful change in the world. As noted by political writer Immanuel Wallerstein, solutions to crises necessarily need to come from outside our current system in which the crisis is taking place. In other words, the solution must come from that which we do not have. And, as we have established, since much of how we predict the future comes from what have in the present, this Wallersteinian solution to the problem becomes difficult to enact.

However, what is implied is that there are remedies to be had; we just have to think of them.