"Another World is Possible" -- or is it? What's your view?

[bhavv]

That would have to be a pretty divergent timeline considering there was no way Hitler was going to defeat the British Commonwealth.

In another timeline of infinite possibilities, the Germans could have been 10x more advanced or the British Commonwealth 10x more backward.

 

[Borachio]

Or the Germans could have allied with the British Commonwealth.

I'm pretty sure that alternative histories are a... bit silly really: once you say that such and such a thing might have been different, why stop there?

What might be interesting (because it seems so impossible) would be actually changing history.

 

[bhavv]

You don't stop there. You imagine the possibilities of any variations of outcomes that interest you.

 

[Borachio]

Ah right?

So I can imagine a timeline where all the Nazis spontaneously turned into little bits of green cheese, adopted Scrabble (TM) as their religious iconography, and hopped around screaming "Hihihihihihihi!"?

 

[bhavv]

I suppose, if you want.

But I try to stick to alternate possibilities without humans turning into green cheese.

One thing though, consider if humans didn't have thumbs, but the same, or even greater level of intelligence. Also no vocal cords so that we couldn't speak.

 

[Lord of Elves]

We can throw away rhetoric and acknowledge that societies change and evolve, and that at present many people actively deny that ours should do the same. That the majority of popular culture reinforces the idea of the immateriality of change and the future, as well as actively yearning for the past, should make us question the honesty of the media the majority of people consume.

 

[Borachio]

"The immateriality of change"? What does this mean, please?

Are you saying that change doesn't happen, or that it's irrelevant?

Also, "the future, as well as actively yearning for the past" kind of defeats me too. Does the future actively yearn for the past? How can you tell that it does so? Or is it that "the majority of popular culture yearns for the past"? That makes a bit more sense, but I don't think it's true. Is it true? I mean, I've met people who say things like "times have changed... but not always for the better" and such. But when it comes down to it, they nearly always agree, on reflection, that things are very much better, on the whole, than they were.

But I do agree we should question the honesty of mass media. Although really I'd take it as self-evidently dishonest.

It's a shame. Because I thought your paragraph was prettily written at first. Up until I tried to understand what you were saying. And then I got very confused.

 

[Lohrenswald]

I unfortunately don't think I have enough insight to give a particularly good response, but overall I agree with TNG and Lord of Elves, and disagree with Perfection.

However, personally I think that recourses will be so drained and the environment so damaged that we the future will "regress, and we'll see a scarce and turbulent world

 

[Lord of Elves]

Here's what I mean:

Consider the current preoccupation in social media and culture associated with youth groups with the youth and popular culture of the 1990's. You could easily put this down alone to trends that dictate people resurrect things they enjoyed from childhood as adults, but there is also an appreciable feeling that America experienced a period of international dominance and economic security that was comparable to the post-war boom in the 1990's. This blends mere cultural preference with the media that makes it accessible, the nostalgia it evokes, and political thought.
Many of the Millennial Internet users who propagate this nostalgia are social liberals of the new school who are in other ways markedly progressive, rather than socially or culturally atavist.

And yet, there's a big difference between the 1992 of

Spoiler :

and the 1992 of

Spoiler :

Human instinct memorializes and softens the past, especially the zeitgeist of childhood, and this is used to political ends. Despite the fact that the Rodney King riots were a major civil disturbance in the United States and a palpable expression of class rebellion, the media that is consumed by the ostensible backbone of American democracy - the middle class - is aimed at propagating the meme of the 1990's as part of an unbroken chain to the present neoliberal world order. Essentially, that life in the suburbs had continued as normal and will continue as normal forever.

In doing so, media represses a popular image of the past that accurately reflects a nuanced view of our society, and uses even the reinvention and reassertion of culture as a means of asserting control on the dialogue of our society. Popular culture in the age of mass media is therefore a constant struggle between the powerful, authorial voices of the media industries which control the spread of information and the weaker, editorial cries of the people. This balance is shifting as we speak as the Internet continues to weaken traditional media powers.

 

[Narz]

However, personally I think that recourses will be so drained and the environment so damaged that we the future will "regress, and we'll see a scarce and turbulent world

I really want to not believe this but I find it very hard not to. I see ZERO evidence in my lifetime (1979-present) of any serious movement to alter human's destructive impact on the planet. Sure lots of half-measures & thousands of clickbait articles about the next big green technology but the path we're collectively walking is similar to Godzilla's, leaving destruction & ruin in its wake.

Unfortunately as things worsen it won't be even, some parts of the globe will be hit much harder than others & it is likely inequality will continue to worsen.

Prove me wrong humans!

 

[TGN]

Popular culture in the age of mass media is therefore a constant struggle between the powerful, authorial voices of the media industries which control the spread of information and the weaker, editorial cries of the people.

A struggle that is still within the bounds of a particular "cultural hegemony".

"The spectacle presents itself as a vast inaccessible reality that can never be questioned. Its sole message is: “What appears is good; what is good appears.” The passive acceptance it demands is already effectively imposed by its monopoly of appearances, its manner of appearing without allowing any reply." Guy Debord - The Society of the Spectacle

This balance is shifting as we speak as the Internet continues to weaken traditional media powers.

I don't disagree, but the dominant system will aggressively try to promote itself ("spectacle") through this interactive medium as much as any other so that it effectively co-opts much of the discourse. The result may often be a partial critique with much of the dominant ideology still incorporated by a portion of the popular side. The need maybe to develop an authentic discourse.

"The reigning economic system is a vicious circle of isolation. Its technologies are based on isolation, and they contribute to that same isolation. From automobiles to television, the goods that the spectacular system chooses to produce also serve it as weapons for constantly reinforcing the conditions that engender 'lonely crowds.' With ever-increasing concreteness the spectacle recreates its own presuppositions." Debord

 

[Narz]

This balance is shifting as we speak as the Internet continues to weaken traditional media powers.

Not so sure. The Internet depends on Ad Revenue. Whether people are distracted by ads on TV on ads on the side of crappy articles on "10 ways to fix your marriage" they're still distracted. The Internet allows people to think they are free or that they are 'fighting the power' or 'united with their brethren' without ever getting their asses off their seats.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Not so sure. The Internet depends on Ad Revenue. Whether people are distracted by ads on TV on ads on the side of crappy articles on "10 ways to fix your marriage" they're still distracted. The Internet allows people to think they are free or that they are 'fighting the power' or 'united with their brethren' without ever getting their asses off their seats.

That's true, but this is a fundamental part of the class struggle and an example of how television, the Internet and smartphones are no more the property of international capitalism than castles of feudalism. Technology doesn't exist in a vacuum but instead is a part of the struggle over fixed resources between human cultures.

 

[Narz]

I think Wikipedia is proof that you don't need hierarchy, profit motive or any of the things Perfection mentioned for people to be motivated & organized.

 

[Lord of Elves]

I think Wikipedia is proof that you don't need hierarchy, profit motive or any of the things Perfection mentioned for people to be motivated & organized.

We don't need to look to Wikipedia for proof of this. There is the entirety of human civilization that predates the work ethic of capitalism and "free market self-interest," especially the medieval culture of "Western civilization," where money-lending was a mortal sin and the masses of people were encouraged to seek reward in the afterlife rather than in keen and prudent investment of their 401k.

Not that we should romanticize in any way the tyranny that was feudal and absolutist Europe

 

[bhavv]

I have zero motivation and organization, and money has never affected that.

But then, that's major depression.

 

[Nares]

Anarchy would be great for all of five minutes. For those who are lucky, capitalism would soon take hold. For those who are unlucky, totalitarianism would soon crush any notion that anarchy is even an alternative, let alone a better one. Human nature is what it is.

Despite the fact that the Rodney King riots were a major civil disturbance in the United States and a palpable expression of class rebellion, the media that is consumed by the ostensible backbone of American democracy - the middle class - is aimed at propagating the meme of the 1990's as part of an unbroken chain to the present neoliberal world order. Essentially, that life in the suburbs had continued as normal and will continue as normal forever.

A fair point, but I believe you're drawing the wrong conclusion. The media needed to "forget" the LA riots, because they reflect poorly on a one-party system run by the very people who claim to support the poor and minorities. Other liberal bastions such as Detroit, Chicago and New York City receive similar treatment. The media just doesn't seem to care much regarding the abyssmal conditions socialism has promoted in these areas, or that to continue funding the counterproductive social programs that fostered these conditions requires a reliance on ever increasing inequality.

People don't want to be free & without leaders.

It's just invitation for the local bully to take control.

I think Wikipedia is proof that you don't need hierarchy, profit motive or any of the things Perfection mentioned for people to be motivated & organized.

Yes, and no. Even Wikipedia requires regulation, and regulation of the regulators. It's also hardly analogous to work done in the real world.

I really want to not believe this but I find it very hard not to. I see ZERO evidence in my lifetime (1979-present) of any serious movement to alter human's destructive impact on the planet.

Perhaps it is the duty of sentient life to reshape the world as needed. Or, alternatively, perhaps we should be actively pursuing a return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Only one affords us the luxury of even discussing the topic, while at this point the other would require a zombie apocalypse to sufficiently reduce the population.

Unfortunately as things worsen it won't be even, some parts of the globe will be hit much harder than others & it is likely inequality will continue to worsen.

Inequality needs to worsen if they're going to pay for all these social programs. It's one of the great lies of socialism.

 

[bhavv]

I really want to not believe this but I find it very hard not to. I see ZERO evidence in my lifetime (1979-present) of any serious movement to alter human's destructive impact on the planet. Sure lots of half-measures & thousands of clickbait articles about the next big green technology but the path we're collectively walking is similar to Godzilla's, leaving destruction & ruin in its wake.

Unfortunately as things worsen it won't be even, some parts of the globe will be hit much harder than others & it is likely inequality will continue to worsen.

Prove me wrong humans!

Well I'm personally very serious about destroying humanity before it destroys the Earth.

 

[Birdjaguar]

On a surface level what you've said sounds pretty reasonable & its hard to argue with it.

However, IMO capitalism is about people pursuing whatever economic goals they desire regardless of how the pursuit of those goals affected their fellow man or the environment. This ideals & ideas were spawned in an age of expansionism, colonialism, slavery & conquest that's never before & never since been seen (Genghis Khan has nothing on the European rout of most of the world from the 1500's to 1900's.

To say that just a few minor tweaks & making corporations a little more responsible for their actions is all modern capitalism/corporatism really needs is dangerously naive. Its also what politicians have been promising for centuries & hasn't worked yet.


Definitely some hybrid, I don't know how folks get so gung-ho about so-and-so from the past (Marx for instance) when its painfully obvious that these figures, however large in their time were pretty far off the mark even then. I'm not hubristic enough to claim some perfect system that will make Earth into a uptopia, I can mostly only note what is not working & note too that simplistic band-aid solutions will inevitably fail.

Capitalism is a very workable system that encourages innovation and general improvement for the many. Its weakness is that people are greedy and will work very hard to corrupt the system for their personal benefit far beyond what makes societal sense. Until you can regulate/control/eliminate greed and ambition every system will fail to produce the good outcomes we all would like to see.

 

[Narz]

Yes, and no. Even Wikipedia requires regulation, and regulation of the regulators.

But not hierarchical regulation. Regulation by peers.

It's also hardly analogous to work done in the real world.

Depends what kind of work.

Perhaps it is the duty of sentient life to reshape the world as needed. Or, alternatively, perhaps we should be actively pursuing a return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Only one affords us the luxury of even discussing the topic, while at this point the other would require a zombie apocalypse to sufficiently reduce the population.

Right because destruction of the Earth or a return to everyone hunting caribou are the only two options we have....

Inequality needs to worsen if they're going to pay for all these social programs. It's one of the great lies of socialism.

Ideally "all these social programs" wouldn't be needed. They exist to keep the poor out of the way of the worker bees & the rich. It has very little to do with helping anyone.

Capitalism is a very workable system that encourages innovation and general improvement for the many. Its weakness is that people are greedy and will work very hard to corrupt the system for their personal benefit far beyond what makes societal sense. Until you can regulate/control/eliminate greed and ambition every system will fail to produce the good outcomes we all would like to see.

Thats kind of defeatest attitude... People will corrupt any system so lets just stick with what we have is basically what you're saying.

The ideal system wouldn't need to have humans be perfect in order to push humans towards society's highest good.

The problem with capitalism is that it assumes humans with imperfect information (deliberately fed advertising & propaganda) will make perfect & rational decisions.

Meanwhile in the real world people drink coca-cola, eat junk-food & vote for people who undermine them.

The "socialism" that does exist mostly feeds the corporations that further exploit the poor (food industry, banking/loan industry, etc.)