HEBE-JEEBIES

I recently finished watching all 18 episodes of Paul Cooper’s excellent podcast series ‘Fall Of Civilisations’ (available free on several platforms including YouTube). As well as provoking a new-found admiration for the Nabataean civilisation and revulsion against the Romans, it’s made me think about the way our own civilisation is going to collapse, which is not an easy think: there too many candidates for the coup de grace - climate change, war (nuke or plain), crypto-economic ruin, pandemic, asteroid strike. Perm any two or three, each-way cross-and-double…

The required thought wasn’t made any easier by writing my latest book review, David Lay Williams ‘The Greatest Of All Plagues: How Economic Inequality Shaped Political Thought From Plato To Marx’. It’s a philosophical analysis of pleonexia – that insatiable greed which has driven despots throughout Cooper’s millenia of repeated collapse – and which thanks to democracy now spreads well beyond the realm of the plutocracy.

Then today a revelation arrived from a most unexpected direction, Sainsbury’s supermarket, who sent me this Christmas gift of extra credit points. A quick Google informs me that the toe-curlingly embarrassing jargon which peppers this missive derives from the works of Roald Dahl, a man whom the BBC once described as “an unpleasant man who wrote macabre books – and yet children around the world adore them”. I had the privilege of learning to read in the pre-Dahl era, and bear no malice toward the man but rather toward whoever, in some advertising agency in some glittering tower office, decided that employing this imbecilic jargon while the Ukraine, and Gaza, and Lebanon, and Syria and [insert latest] are going up in flames and concrete dust, was going to improve my morale this Christmas.



With Elon Musk spending 15 whole minutes of his income ($250,000,000) to help elect Donald Trump, pleonexia does remain one of our greatest problems, but now that we’re all so focused on mental health perhaps it’s worth re-evaluating hebephrenia too. Wikipedia will tell you this is an obsolete term for a subtype of schizophrenia, no longer recognized as a separate condition following the publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) in 2013. (Even forms of madness are no longer safe from being reclassified). Originally proposed by the German psychiatrist Ewald Hecker in the 1870s as an "insanity of youth", he named it after the Greek term for "adolescence" – ἥβη (hḗbē) – and thought it was more prevalent between the ages of 15 and 25. Prominent characteristics were disorganized behavior and speech, including loosened associations and schizophasia ("word salad"), flat or inappropriate affect, absence of frank delusions and hallucinations but behavioral disorganization may that might impair a sufferer's ability to carry out daily activities such as showering or eating. Emotional responses could seem strange or inappropriate, including inappropriate facial expressions or laughter – or by contrast a complete lack of emotion, including anhedonia (lack of pleasure) and avolition (lack of motivation).

Although the DSM says it’s no longer a brand of madness you can aspire to, that may be because it’s become fully integrated into our Western way of life and popular culture. Some future Paul Cooper (if there is one, they may be a mollusc or rodent rather than a primate) will perhaps remember us as the Hebephrenic Culture of the 20-21st centuries who sank down in flames giggling to Monty Python’s ‘Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life’.

UNCIVIL WAR

I've just seen Alex Garland's latest movie 'Civil War', which has topped the viewing rankings in the USA despite mostly bad reviews, which complain that it skips over the politics that lead up to his imagined future war between the East and West coasts. I came out of it shattered by the depiction of urban warfare using modern weapon systems, which has a realism not seen since 'The Hurt Locker' (incidentally the film nods toward another Kathryn Bigelow movie, 'Zero Dark Thirty', but putting a future US President in place of Osama bin Laden!) 

Garland's decision to leave the politics of this war obscure is both commercially and politically shrewd, and highly effective. It means that American viewers of Right, Centre or Left conviction, or none at all, can watch it as an antiwar film whose horrifying events could as well be happening in the Ukraine or Gaza. It also subverts our own class stereotypes outside of the USA -- are those violent characters who look like Jan 6th Trump supporters on the East or the West side? Once the soldiers take charge, politics evaporate.

Garland has announced that he's retiring from directing after this movie, which is a pity since for me he's filled a movie space that Spielberg vacated due to increasing sentimentality. Garland's 'Ex Machina' is the most caustic depiction of AI and Silicon Valley megalomania I've seen, and was made several years before anyone had even heard of GPT. His 'Annihilation' is just plain nuts, but it's the most unsettling 'horror' film I've seen, and I don't even like horror films. 

AN IMPOSSIBLE MESS?

I don’t have any special credentials to comment on geopolitics, but occasionally, like now, I feel obliged to have a stab at it. The current atmosphere is febrile with hideous wars in Ukraine and Gaza, the looming possibility of a re-elected Trump and an escalating confrontation between China and the US/UK axis (if one can still call it that). Making sense of the various powers, their possible alliances and the global consequences is all but impossible. What almost forces me to comment on this impossible mess right now is an event that many may regard as peripheral, almost trivial, and that is the announcement by the US government that it’s to launch an antitrust case against Apple Corp for monopolising the smartphone business. 

I’m not an Apple fan and use products of its rival Google, like the Android operating system and phone, in my everyday affairs. I’m also a fan of antitrust legislation, being an admirer of Thorstein Veblen (as mentioned in this blog several times) and the role his theories played in taming the monopolist corporations during the USA’s ‘Gilded Age’ in the late 1890s, and starting its brief Progressive Era. However that doesn’t help to quell a certain foreboding about this case, and to explain why I need to sketch my own perception of current geopolitical realities. 

I see three principal actors in the USA, China and India, three secondary ones in Russia, The EU and the IT moguls of Silicon Valley, and then the rest of the world. If you have a problem accepting Silicon Valley as one of the world powers, then this video from Nvidia might perhaps persuade you. The next few years will be dominated by the extent to which China actually allies itself with Putin’s Russia (whose economy it supports by purchasing oil and gas) to try to overturn the post-WWII world order. Another critical factor will be whether Trump gains re-election, cripples NATO and permits Putin to threaten the EU. 

But the third factor, and one perhaps better understood by techies than political scientists, is the extent to which the US has a monopoly over the most leading-edge silicon chip technology, of which it’s currently attempting to deprive China, but whose material basis lies not on the US continent but the tiny island of Taiwan. Biden has stated his intention to repatriate chip fabrication capability from Taiwan to the continental USA, but the time, expense and effort involved in rebuilding all these ‘fabs’ (chip fabrication factories) is something few really appreciate. And China has of course long ago stated its own intention to eventually grab Taiwan.

So finally I arrive at the punch line. The founders of the Silicon Valley tech revolution were nearly all inclined (even if only peripherally) to the 1960s counterculture, and though their corporations have since grown into unprecedented wealth – greater than that of many small countries, and able to exert pressure even on the US government – most have remained pretty much on what Americans describe as the ‘liberal’ wing of politics, leaning toward the Democratic Party (and yes I am aware of the big exceptions like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel and Robert Mercer). The nightmare scenario would be for this antitrust case to turn Apple toward a renewed Trump presidency, catalysing a similar shift throughout the whole sector, merging their interests with an authoritarian state and creating the basis for the sort of techno-feudal plutocracy that’s been prophesied (and criticised) by many leftwing commentators like Yanis Varoufakis and Evgeny Morozov.

SHARING REALITY

In 2021 I began to write a sequel to Sampling Reality, my book that outlined a materialist theory of mind and perception, published in Kindle format and paperback on my website here:

https://sites.google.com/site/dicknewsite/home/materialism

Sharing Reality is intended as the second volume, sketching ways to apply that theoretical scheme - perception, emotion and imagination - to politics, economics and the other social sciences, by examining the historical methods of Marx, Nietzsche, Veblen and Santayana, and by adapting material originally written in these blog posts and book reviews.

Sharing Reality remains unfinished because I'm quite unable to write a satisfactory final chapter 10. World events are proceeding in such alarming directions and at such pace that all my attempts have seemed absurd - the geopolitical temper feels almost as febrile as 1914 or 1939, and to predict the next few years means steering some path between sensationalism and complacency that evades me. I finally decided to put what I have on this blog for free (missing chapter 10, a bibliography, and the ordering of later chapters needs rethinking): 

DOWNLOAD SHARING REALITY PDF

LIVING AMONG THE SHARDS

"Capitalism no longer dreams of a unified world. Instead, market radicals have shattered the globe into thousands of zones, enclaves, and special jurisdictions. And they’ve left the rest of us to live among the shards."

That quote is from a NYRB review by Professor Daniel Immerwahr of Quinn Slobodian's book Crack-Up Capitalism: Market Radicals and the Dream of a World Without Democracy. We're all aware of the Panama Papers, of tax havens, special zones and free ports, but Immerwahr's review places these all into a context that I personally hadn't fully grasped -- carefully constructed components of a long-term effort by neo-liberal and libertarian strategists to suppress social-democratic politics, dismantle financial regulation, sap the revenues of welfare states and secede from democratic control. This strategy is neatly summed up in a well-known quote from billionaire ideologue Peter Thiel: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. The great task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all its forms.” 

There are plenty of reasons to believe that getting rid of our current Tory government is the most pressing priority for the next year, but among the very strongest of those reasons is that were the Tories to gain another term they've made it clear that they want to enlist the UK in this hideous new world of unrestrained market forces, with free ports and other fiscal devices. I'm by no means convinced that the Left in the UK understands the urgency of this task, distracted as it is by identity politics and sectarian strife between 'Corbynism' and 'Blairism'. 

I made my own opinion on this distraction fairly clear in my review of one of Thomas Piketty's books in The Political Quarterly, from which I'll repeat the relevant bits here:

I suggested earlier that these two books between them offer hints as to why the Left is languishing rather than flourishing since the 2008 crisis, which demands some further explanation. Piketty offered these terse explanations in Capital And Ideology, namely that “a dis­illusionment, a pervasive doubt about the very possibility of a just economy, which encourages identitarian disengagement” followed from the collapse of Soviet communism, and that “the less educationally advantaged classes came to believe that the parties of the Left now favour the newly advantaged educated classes and their children over people of more modest backgrounds”. Both of these observations suggest that Marxist ideas of class and class-struggle no longer retain much political traction among Western working populations, who were relatively happy with the compromises won by social-democracy after WWII and whose anger at having them removed by neo-liberal reaction is easily deflected onto immigrants and college-educated Leftists who tell them off for not struggling hard enough.

The legacy of Marxism to Western Leftists, faint as it is, has been mostly a hindrance: a vote-losing moralism and a contempt for social-democracy as a partial solution that falls short of full state socialism. This has generated an important debate among contemporary Marxists about the precise nature of late, technological capitalist states and their huge increase in inequality: are capitalists losing faith in investment and innovation altogether and becoming pure rentiers; have they become less reliant upon extracting surplus value through the wage mechanism and now expropriate value directly (for example when Google and Facebook ‘steal’ users’ data for free); is colonialism really over or does it persist in disguised forms?

A few, Piketty included, synthesise these doubts into a more realistic picture which abandons dogmatic adherence to Marx. From its inception during the Renaissance and Industrial Revolution, ‘capitalism’ has never been purely dependent on surplus value extraction but has always plundered too – South American silver and gold, slavery, unpaid housework, cheap eastern labour – and reinvested the proceeds into ‘pure’ European capitalist production. Jason Moore, another unorthodox critic puts it thus: “capitalism thrives when islands of commodity production and exchange can appropriate oceans of potentially Cheap Natures – outside the circuit of capital but essential to its operation.” In A Brief History Piketty moves further in this direction, extending his earlier concerns of property, borders and education toward greater emphasis on gender politics, racial and colonial matters, as well as by frankly describing his recommendations as both democratic and participatory socialism.

I follow the blog of the Marxist economist Michael Roberts, and his latest post meshes rather well with Immerwahr's NYRB piece (which is largely what prompts me to write this post after a rather long silence...) Reviewing the book 'Visions of Inequality' by Branko Milanovic, Roberts goes into an illuminating discussion of post-Marx theories of income distribution, from which this paragraph is the most relevant (Roberts himself still defends the first two more orthodox theories, but is prepared to grant credence to the third):

To sum up, Milanovic says that “we have on offer three theories of income distribution in capitalism. First, there is Marx’s theory, by which increasing concentration of ownership of capital and decreasing rate of profit ultimately leads to the death of capitalism through zero investments. Second, we have Kuznets’s hypothesis of a wave of rising and then decreasing inequality — or as I have argued, successive waves. And third, now, there is Piketty’s theory of unfettered capitalism that, left to its own devices, maintains an unchanged rate of return and sees the top earners’ share of capital income increasing to the point that it threatens to swallow the entire output of the society, and only a political response can prevent such an outcome.”

What Slobodian/Immerwahr explain so well is how we're already perched on the edge of the dystopia Piketty hints at: Silicon Valley tycoons, US libertarian Republicans and gangster/oligarchs combine to deploy AI-powered automation and inaugurate a de-politicised, minimal waged society: 

Zones, it turns out, can transform countries’ politics even without changing their policies. Rather than seek to overthrow governments they dislike, capitalists can “underthrow” them, as the venture capitalist Michael Gibson puts it. Instead of attacking the welfare state, the theory goes, they can play a zone defense, outrun its regulations, and sap its revenues. Slobodian notes how eager the wealthiest today are to “opt out, secede, and defect from the collective.” They live in compounds, fly on private jets, sail superyachts, hoard art in free ports, buy islands, found online worlds, build bunkers, establish alternative currencies, or launch themselves into space.

Immerwahr's review is at https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2023/11/23/zoning-out-crack-up-capitalism-quinn-slobodian/

 

GAS LIGHT

I'm not a football fan and probably know more about Ryan Gosling than Giggs, but one aspect of the latter's current trial grabbed my attention: he has been accused of 'gaslighting' his girl friend in addition to battering her, and that term is now to be regularly heard on mainstream TV news.

The term has become part of the lexicon of identity-political complaint in recent years, alongside others like 'doxxing', 'grooming', 'swatting' and many others, but I imagine few people who use it know where it came from. Wikipedia correctly asserts that its current use derives from the 1944 Hollywood thriller 'Gaslight', by George Cukor, in which a villainous husband deliberately tries to convince his young wife she is going mad. It also mentions that that movie was in turn derived from a UK stage play 'Gas Light' written by English novelist/playwright Patrick Hamilton.

Hamilton, who died in 1962 is one of my very favourite authors, though his reputation is sadly depleted nowadays. He was a difficult character, alcoholic and misanthropic, but an excellent prose stylist and a political radical, unlike contemporaries Waugh and Wodehouse who were firmly of the Right (Wodehouse very much so). My favourite of his novels is 'Hangover Square', a grimly comic satire of London bohemian life just before WWII, but closely followed by 'The Slaves of Solitude', which seems rather horribly appropriate to our present situation. It's about an assorted crowd of people evacuated from London during The Blitz and thrown together in a suburban boarding house. Mr Thwaites, perhaps the nastiest creation since Dickens, is in perpetual argument with the heroine Miss Roach.

I'm reminded of Thwaites every time I hear Truss, Sunak, Raab, Shapps or Gove on the box, and find myself thinking Miss Roach's famous closing line, delivered to the sound of falling bombs, which rather surprisingly is a prayer: "at last she put out the light, turned over, and adjusted the pillow, and hopefully composed her mind for sleep - God help us, God help all of us, every one, all of us."

CULTURE WAR BECOMES WORLD WAR?

What if the charmed lives we "baby boomers" have lived are owed to a happy historic accident, namely the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933? At that time the isolationist wing of the US Republican Party would have been happy to see Hitler take over Europe (as without US intervention he would surely have done). But as Robert Reich points out here, we can rely on no such luck this time around.

Putin's cynical abuse of the Soviet-era rhetorical goals "anti-fascism" and "de-nazification" to justify his invasion of Ukraine is a disgraceful insult to the millions of Russians who died fighting the real thing in WWII, and the naivety of those on the UK Left who accept such excuses is equally disgraceful. Putin may be keen to create historic parallels with anti-fascism and de-nazification, but actually far better parallels are with the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and the Prague Spring in 1968. In both cases pro-democracy insurgents were portrayed as "fascists" in order to excuse massacring them with tanks, as will soon be happening in Kyiv and Kharkiv. 

We should be slightly encouraged that our own government seems to have finally seen the folly of its shameless courting of Putin, but the records of their party's donations from Russian oligarchs must cast some doubt upon their commitment to effective sanctions: