What's happened to Nina is just awful. When I saw her at your book launch I only had a vague idea of who she was and none about this recent history, catching up only through chance clicking on her Notes. I can't begin to imagine the state of mind of people who hound others like this - I try hard not to describe anyone as inhuman, but there sure are some behaviours which merit the epithet.
IMO the only way the Machine in its present iteration will diminish with a return to a more local personal reality will be when it’s starved of its material base when it reaches physical resource depletion as John Michael Greer has described in his writings such as The Ecotechnic Future, The Retro Future and The Long Descent. Until then we are well hard wired and chipped in by how our material, communication, and transportation needs are being meet in the current system which is busily extending that system into all the nooks and crevices of the globe. Mere social activism and idealism is helpless against this material monster, at best we can be protesting Luddites choosing to buy greener consumer products and participating in alternative activities inside the juggernaut as it rolls on to its fate.
Rhyd! This is very kind, but please don't beat yourself up. In actuality, a few people did stand up for me in public—some of them then got attacked in turn (most of the people who did this are probably used to it at this point). A few people emailed me to offer their support in public: I told them NOT to do so, particularly those people with jobs and families.
I also got a lot of private support, including from you, all of which matters enormously and means a great deal. This came from both people I know and from people I've never met. As I've written elsewhere, I had a lot more support all round this time, including offers of work, and I'm a lot more robust as a character (frankly, used to cancellation, having lost copious jobs, "friends", reputation for at least six years now). I also really don't want people to be targeted by the same nutters who come after me—this has already happened to enough people. It doesn't help me and it doesn't help the new targets. We just carry on, that's the only thing: thinking, writing, supporting each other. That's it! xxx
I’m going to challenge that “mechanistic worldview” bit. I’ve been doing some thinking, and I think you are inaccurately conflating the logic of industrialism and the logic of mechanics. Let’s start with that. The first obvious difference is that industrialism is an “-ism”- it implies something about how humans relate to each other. The logic of industrialism says that people should be remade in the image of machines. But the true “mechanistic worldview” would be the worldview of those who had the mechanical intelligence to develop those machines- not those who had the social intelligence to appropriate them.
Those who have appropriated the results of mechanical intelligence lie and say that they invented the machines/ “means of production” and therefore rightfully own them. But the history of engineering shows idealistic mechanics continually being exploited by socially-ept capitalists. Tesla gave humanity the basis for long-distance electrical power transmission and the electric motor and long-distance communication and never aspired to rule over humanity or to have at the expense of a class of have-nots. Eli Whitney hoped his cotton gin would reduce the demand for slave labor, not intensify it.
There is an old joke among engineers about an engineer who is waiting in line to be executed during the French Revolution. As he approaches the front of the line, the guillotine jams and it looks like his life is saved. Unable to not be an engineer to save his life, he steps forward and says “If you just grease than pin there, the guillotine will work.” This is the crux of the engineer’s problem- needing to tinker, fix, and improve machines even if it’s contrary to their self-interest.
Despite the lies told by capitalists, it is the industrialists- those who have mastered the social construct created by appropriating the means of production- and not the mechanically-minded who dominate the modern society. The true “mechanistic worldview” is anathema to the logic of capitalism. It’s social mantra is “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” not out of altruism but out of a desire for their abilities which they can barely restrain to be valued. It is no secret that many of the most mechanically brilliant struggle socially, and often attempt to earn respect and affection by improving the lives of those around them. Ironically, it is their generosity which makes them disrespected. The socially-minded humans view such squandering of an advantage which could be a used to demand social capital as contemptible, and are happy to let the Tesla’s of the world die in poverty. Capitalism does not actually reward or admire innovation or invention- it admires the enclosure of innovations.
The mechanically-minded are also radical in another way. They often have some version of Temple Grandin’s concept of “thinking in pictures.” Thus their dreams and aspirations tend to be tangibles. They have less use for the psychological wage of whiteness than for the pay raise which allows them to purchase something they desire. I think it is no accident that an electrician or a plumber is more likely to be union and value the increased wage in their job which can be exchanged for tangible goods and services more than promises of “advancement” and “climbing the corporate ladder” which tend to be more valued by those who work with more abstract concepts.
This related to the divide between the PMC’s progressivism and the old leftist ideals embodied by some form of communism or communalism. The old left demanded that tangible goods and services be distributed fairly and with regard to need. Progressivism demands that intangibles like “privilege” be distributed “inclusively.” In very simple terms, the old left demanded bread- the new left demands ideals like diversity, equity, and inclusion. The mechanically-minded bought into the ideals of communism fairly easily- replacing the social machine of capitalism with a mechanically-inspired machine of rational distribution made sense. It is no accident that the symbol of the Soviet Union was the hammer and sickle- the technology of labor.
The mechanically-minded cannot so easily buy into the logic of progressivism. Can a worker feed their children “privilege?” Clothe them in diversity? Pay their medical bills with “inclusion?” And the progressives are treated with suspicion because they act like capitalists- they value appearance and words over tangibles and action.
The problem is that the mechanically-minded end up making everything work. It’s a nurse who wipes a Black trans dementia patient’s butt in the nursing home- not a lecturer on healthcare equity. The mechanically minded see how many progressives use commitment to the ideals of the left to create socio-economic niches of non-productive labor. Their resentment of the respect these nonproductive workers get in contrast to the way they are disrespected as blue collar or technically-skilled-socially- inept is exploited by the Right. And just like an army marches on its stomach, an industrial society survives because the electricians brought the power in, the plumbers got the shit out, and the nurses wipe Grandma’s butt. The modern left has spurned exactly the segments of society that could bring society to its knees by going on a general strike. It reminds me of a story from Ten Days That Shook The World about Lenin. Someone had the bright idea to send home a proclamation of Bolshevik power home with soldiers returning to their villages to spread by the word about the revolution. Lenin agreed with the idea, but insisted they also be given scrap paper. His logic was that if the soldiers were just given a paper proclamation, they would use it to roll cigarettes and smoke it long before they got home. I feel like there’s a metaphor there about what went wrong with the Soviet Union, and with the left whenever it starts dragging morality into it- leftists become moral authorities telling people that they should not smoke a proclamation for the glory of the ideal or communism or something and no one listens. Effective leftists are like Lenin- they are well aware soldiers want a smoke more than they want words from a politician and give them scrap paper instead of making it some sort of moral issue.
I don’t know if this made any sense- it’s definitely a half baked train of thought
"But what’s currently fascinating to me is how the liberal-left (and also the antifascist ‘left,’) has, for years, warned people off of Telegram and essentially called for it its annihilation — because people they don’t like use it."
Ironically, here in Spain I know that Telegram was adored by leftist libertarians, antifas, anarchists and many communists for all that of being private and free, while I had issues with it notifying all the phone numbers in your phone (not all of which are my "contacts", right?) that you joined Telegram and you're now online, which I found anything but private. And it made me laugh that they would promote the app as some sort of left wing alternative to the demonic WhatsApp (even before Zuckerberg's takeover), as if they weren't both social networking tools of the decadent digital era. But I guess those were the days when some believed the liberating empowerment of the machine would usher in a new era of direct democracy and utopian cyberpunk fantasies. Instead of the maniacally toxic and vengeful breed of political control freaks it engendered, that is. Self-styled Anarchists behaving like a Soviet commissar, man.
But then some of these might think Putin and Pavel are both freedom fighters like best mates Castro and Che.
Thinking over this (and the weird devotional candle to Harris/Walz) for a few days, I agree that the spectacle is the capitalist religion, there is an interesting adjunct in that for the last 20 years of so, in the US presidential elections have become exercises in capitalist messianism.
It started in the 90s with Bill Clinton. I like to joke that he was out last human president (which is ironic given the inhuman things he did in office) in that he was a politician that some disagreed with. He also represented a generational shift from the WWII Guys to the Baby Boomers, which the older generation resented. Being in high school at the time, I didn't really follow politics, but even I saw Clinton had a certain charisma, and after Reagan and Bush (the then-oldest presidents we've ever had) he felt like a breath of fresh air. In other words, he was marketable. Ultimately, however, he kept the imperial policies of Reagan and Bush.
His shenanigans in office (and not his brutal imperialism) enraged a certain segment of the population. It was also the same time that various capitalist interests discovered that dividing the American people against each other could be very profitable to them.
Thus came George W Bush, which they sold as a restoration of the glory days of his father (through rose-colored glasses), despite losing the popular vote. But mainly, he sold himself with a hick persona (despite coming from a wealthy political family) that enraged the PMC which he also used to his advantage. He then started a bunch of wars and we know how that went.
After 8 years of that (and the Crash of 2008 to cap it off), people were not looking for a new president, they wanted deliverance. Obama, with his skills as an orator stepped right into the role. Trump was sold as someone who would set things right and put the "right" people back on top. This appealed to both racists and people who were left behind by Obama's neoliberal policies (which have not changed since Reagan).
Biden again promised deliverance from Trump and now Trump and Harris each promise deliverance from Biden. Ironically enough, I think some of the fervor around Harris actually comes from people getting what they want, in a rare instance of elite and everyday people's interests aligning. No one wanted Biden and the Democratic elites saw this and replaced him, rather than risk losing to Trump.
As more and more people are left behind by the imperial hollowing out of the country, deliverance will be a popular selling point (in fact, I would say the only one anymore) for presidential candidates, and they are seen less as politicians running for office, but more as messianic figures.
Rhyd, you may enjoy this anti-PMC rant from my friend Sam: http://www.freedomshopaotearoa.nz/2023/09/class-war-in-21st-century-new-zealand.html?m=1
What's happened to Nina is just awful. When I saw her at your book launch I only had a vague idea of who she was and none about this recent history, catching up only through chance clicking on her Notes. I can't begin to imagine the state of mind of people who hound others like this - I try hard not to describe anyone as inhuman, but there sure are some behaviours which merit the epithet.
While reading this piece I once again thought how much I would enjoy a conversation between you and Brett Scott (https://www.asomo.co/) on capitalism, and with David McGrogan (https://newsfromuncibal.substack.com/p/liberal-authoritarianism) on liberalism. Are they on your radar?
Thank you, Rhyd!
Just published an essay with similar reflections. We need to keep putting this out there before 2+2=9
IMO the only way the Machine in its present iteration will diminish with a return to a more local personal reality will be when it’s starved of its material base when it reaches physical resource depletion as John Michael Greer has described in his writings such as The Ecotechnic Future, The Retro Future and The Long Descent. Until then we are well hard wired and chipped in by how our material, communication, and transportation needs are being meet in the current system which is busily extending that system into all the nooks and crevices of the globe. Mere social activism and idealism is helpless against this material monster, at best we can be protesting Luddites choosing to buy greener consumer products and participating in alternative activities inside the juggernaut as it rolls on to its fate.
Rhyd! This is very kind, but please don't beat yourself up. In actuality, a few people did stand up for me in public—some of them then got attacked in turn (most of the people who did this are probably used to it at this point). A few people emailed me to offer their support in public: I told them NOT to do so, particularly those people with jobs and families.
I also got a lot of private support, including from you, all of which matters enormously and means a great deal. This came from both people I know and from people I've never met. As I've written elsewhere, I had a lot more support all round this time, including offers of work, and I'm a lot more robust as a character (frankly, used to cancellation, having lost copious jobs, "friends", reputation for at least six years now). I also really don't want people to be targeted by the same nutters who come after me—this has already happened to enough people. It doesn't help me and it doesn't help the new targets. We just carry on, that's the only thing: thinking, writing, supporting each other. That's it! xxx
I mean, another way to make sense of that candle is ... it's a joke. A gently self-mocking and rueful shrug at our need to be saved?
I’m going to challenge that “mechanistic worldview” bit. I’ve been doing some thinking, and I think you are inaccurately conflating the logic of industrialism and the logic of mechanics. Let’s start with that. The first obvious difference is that industrialism is an “-ism”- it implies something about how humans relate to each other. The logic of industrialism says that people should be remade in the image of machines. But the true “mechanistic worldview” would be the worldview of those who had the mechanical intelligence to develop those machines- not those who had the social intelligence to appropriate them.
Those who have appropriated the results of mechanical intelligence lie and say that they invented the machines/ “means of production” and therefore rightfully own them. But the history of engineering shows idealistic mechanics continually being exploited by socially-ept capitalists. Tesla gave humanity the basis for long-distance electrical power transmission and the electric motor and long-distance communication and never aspired to rule over humanity or to have at the expense of a class of have-nots. Eli Whitney hoped his cotton gin would reduce the demand for slave labor, not intensify it.
There is an old joke among engineers about an engineer who is waiting in line to be executed during the French Revolution. As he approaches the front of the line, the guillotine jams and it looks like his life is saved. Unable to not be an engineer to save his life, he steps forward and says “If you just grease than pin there, the guillotine will work.” This is the crux of the engineer’s problem- needing to tinker, fix, and improve machines even if it’s contrary to their self-interest.
Despite the lies told by capitalists, it is the industrialists- those who have mastered the social construct created by appropriating the means of production- and not the mechanically-minded who dominate the modern society. The true “mechanistic worldview” is anathema to the logic of capitalism. It’s social mantra is “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” not out of altruism but out of a desire for their abilities which they can barely restrain to be valued. It is no secret that many of the most mechanically brilliant struggle socially, and often attempt to earn respect and affection by improving the lives of those around them. Ironically, it is their generosity which makes them disrespected. The socially-minded humans view such squandering of an advantage which could be a used to demand social capital as contemptible, and are happy to let the Tesla’s of the world die in poverty. Capitalism does not actually reward or admire innovation or invention- it admires the enclosure of innovations.
The mechanically-minded are also radical in another way. They often have some version of Temple Grandin’s concept of “thinking in pictures.” Thus their dreams and aspirations tend to be tangibles. They have less use for the psychological wage of whiteness than for the pay raise which allows them to purchase something they desire. I think it is no accident that an electrician or a plumber is more likely to be union and value the increased wage in their job which can be exchanged for tangible goods and services more than promises of “advancement” and “climbing the corporate ladder” which tend to be more valued by those who work with more abstract concepts.
This related to the divide between the PMC’s progressivism and the old leftist ideals embodied by some form of communism or communalism. The old left demanded that tangible goods and services be distributed fairly and with regard to need. Progressivism demands that intangibles like “privilege” be distributed “inclusively.” In very simple terms, the old left demanded bread- the new left demands ideals like diversity, equity, and inclusion. The mechanically-minded bought into the ideals of communism fairly easily- replacing the social machine of capitalism with a mechanically-inspired machine of rational distribution made sense. It is no accident that the symbol of the Soviet Union was the hammer and sickle- the technology of labor.
The mechanically-minded cannot so easily buy into the logic of progressivism. Can a worker feed their children “privilege?” Clothe them in diversity? Pay their medical bills with “inclusion?” And the progressives are treated with suspicion because they act like capitalists- they value appearance and words over tangibles and action.
The problem is that the mechanically-minded end up making everything work. It’s a nurse who wipes a Black trans dementia patient’s butt in the nursing home- not a lecturer on healthcare equity. The mechanically minded see how many progressives use commitment to the ideals of the left to create socio-economic niches of non-productive labor. Their resentment of the respect these nonproductive workers get in contrast to the way they are disrespected as blue collar or technically-skilled-socially- inept is exploited by the Right. And just like an army marches on its stomach, an industrial society survives because the electricians brought the power in, the plumbers got the shit out, and the nurses wipe Grandma’s butt. The modern left has spurned exactly the segments of society that could bring society to its knees by going on a general strike. It reminds me of a story from Ten Days That Shook The World about Lenin. Someone had the bright idea to send home a proclamation of Bolshevik power home with soldiers returning to their villages to spread by the word about the revolution. Lenin agreed with the idea, but insisted they also be given scrap paper. His logic was that if the soldiers were just given a paper proclamation, they would use it to roll cigarettes and smoke it long before they got home. I feel like there’s a metaphor there about what went wrong with the Soviet Union, and with the left whenever it starts dragging morality into it- leftists become moral authorities telling people that they should not smoke a proclamation for the glory of the ideal or communism or something and no one listens. Effective leftists are like Lenin- they are well aware soldiers want a smoke more than they want words from a politician and give them scrap paper instead of making it some sort of moral issue.
I don’t know if this made any sense- it’s definitely a half baked train of thought
I think one of the reasons the Debord book is being mentioned a lot recently is that PM Press just reprinted it.
"But what’s currently fascinating to me is how the liberal-left (and also the antifascist ‘left,’) has, for years, warned people off of Telegram and essentially called for it its annihilation — because people they don’t like use it."
Ironically, here in Spain I know that Telegram was adored by leftist libertarians, antifas, anarchists and many communists for all that of being private and free, while I had issues with it notifying all the phone numbers in your phone (not all of which are my "contacts", right?) that you joined Telegram and you're now online, which I found anything but private. And it made me laugh that they would promote the app as some sort of left wing alternative to the demonic WhatsApp (even before Zuckerberg's takeover), as if they weren't both social networking tools of the decadent digital era. But I guess those were the days when some believed the liberating empowerment of the machine would usher in a new era of direct democracy and utopian cyberpunk fantasies. Instead of the maniacally toxic and vengeful breed of political control freaks it engendered, that is. Self-styled Anarchists behaving like a Soviet commissar, man.
But then some of these might think Putin and Pavel are both freedom fighters like best mates Castro and Che.
Thinking over this (and the weird devotional candle to Harris/Walz) for a few days, I agree that the spectacle is the capitalist religion, there is an interesting adjunct in that for the last 20 years of so, in the US presidential elections have become exercises in capitalist messianism.
It started in the 90s with Bill Clinton. I like to joke that he was out last human president (which is ironic given the inhuman things he did in office) in that he was a politician that some disagreed with. He also represented a generational shift from the WWII Guys to the Baby Boomers, which the older generation resented. Being in high school at the time, I didn't really follow politics, but even I saw Clinton had a certain charisma, and after Reagan and Bush (the then-oldest presidents we've ever had) he felt like a breath of fresh air. In other words, he was marketable. Ultimately, however, he kept the imperial policies of Reagan and Bush.
His shenanigans in office (and not his brutal imperialism) enraged a certain segment of the population. It was also the same time that various capitalist interests discovered that dividing the American people against each other could be very profitable to them.
Thus came George W Bush, which they sold as a restoration of the glory days of his father (through rose-colored glasses), despite losing the popular vote. But mainly, he sold himself with a hick persona (despite coming from a wealthy political family) that enraged the PMC which he also used to his advantage. He then started a bunch of wars and we know how that went.
After 8 years of that (and the Crash of 2008 to cap it off), people were not looking for a new president, they wanted deliverance. Obama, with his skills as an orator stepped right into the role. Trump was sold as someone who would set things right and put the "right" people back on top. This appealed to both racists and people who were left behind by Obama's neoliberal policies (which have not changed since Reagan).
Biden again promised deliverance from Trump and now Trump and Harris each promise deliverance from Biden. Ironically enough, I think some of the fervor around Harris actually comes from people getting what they want, in a rare instance of elite and everyday people's interests aligning. No one wanted Biden and the Democratic elites saw this and replaced him, rather than risk losing to Trump.
As more and more people are left behind by the imperial hollowing out of the country, deliverance will be a popular selling point (in fact, I would say the only one anymore) for presidential candidates, and they are seen less as politicians running for office, but more as messianic figures.