Aesthetic Materialism

There's something fundamentally unserious about politicians.  When I think of the most important people of the 20th century: Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, John von Neumann, Jane Goodall, Frans de Waal, Franz Kafka, Samuel Beckett , etc., none of them are politicians.  I just don't think politicians matter that much.  I don't think they've ever accomplished anything particularly noteworthy - and that goes for both positive and negative accomplishments, although they certainly seem much more capable of negative accomplishments - wars, genocides, atrocities, etc. - than positive ones.  The art of being a politician seems to belong to the realm of entertainment and public relations.  (Zappa had that famous phrase, of which there are a few versions: "Politics is the entertainment wing of the military-industrial complex," or the one he explicitly advocated but did not claim to originate, "Politics is the entertainment wing of industry.")  To me, this...

The art of thinking dialectically means: not disappearing up your own asshole. It means not only seeing things from your own perspective.  Trying to stay in dialogue with people who don't see things the same way you do. You have to use language that someone who isn't playing the same game as you are could understand. People who find themselves arguing with someone (especially online) and thinking (or saying) "This idiot has no idea what he's talking about," and thus conclude that the argument is pointless, are missing the point.  Let's assume it's true.  You don't realize how precious that is - to meet someone who has no idea what you're talking about.  Now you're in contact with a truly outside perspective.  A rare opportunity.  Now dialectics can begin.  Unless you can say what you mean to someone who isn't in your culture and doesn't use your language, you yourself don't understand it at all.

    Start at the Beginning Previous Chapter: Day 1 Part 11 As you walk through the woods, there's a side road that splits off from the road you're on.  Next to it is a sign: "PRIVATE ROAD".   Sam points down that way.  "Up there.  That's where the prophet lives.  But this is where I stop.  I'm not going anywhere near there.  He's a bad man.  All the kids are scared of him." Gestas pipes up.  "Kid's got a point, Dismas. What are we even doing here?  This isn't any of our business." "If we have a chance to save Jesus, we have to take it." "I'm sorry," says Sam. "That's okay," you reply.  "Thanks for your help."  You and Gestas carry Jesus up the path.  Pretty soon you come to another sign: "NO VISITORS" Right in front of the sign is a great big bear!  It seems young.  It's munching happily on some berries.  The two of you try to sneak past it without bothering it, but ...

I have, in the past, identified as an anarchist.  Really, none of my opinions or positions on any major issues have changed since then.  But I think the label "anarchist" is misleading and unhelpful for a lot of people and so I usually avoid using this label (see my essay on the "Eminem strategy").  But for exactly the same reasons, I think it's mostly unhelpful to use terms like "communist" or "socialist".  If I need to sum up my political opinions, I can do so in a three word phrase: Own Your Job .  I've asserted before that I believe in worker ownership of the means of production.  But this is a bunch of jargon.  What does it mean?  What is the "means of production"?  Most people picture buildings, machines, and raw materials.  And that's true, in a way.  When Marx writes about the "sublation" (Aufheben) of private property, he distinguishes private property from personal property.  In a just social order, peopl...

  I don't think capitalism is evil.  I don't.  I think it's essentially neutral, or that there is no essence.  Because it's so decentralized and uncoordinated - not completely, but to some extent, capitalism is just people doing things.  Different people, all over the world, doing all kinds of different things, somewhat spontaneously, on their own - not completely, to some extent that's an illusion, but to some extent it's real.  It's sort of anarchic, not anarchic, anarchists would be very mad at me for saying that, and they're right - but chaotic, sprawling, huge, not chaotic either, because definite patterns emerge.  And some of those patterns aren't so good.  And then there definitely eventually is planning, because people start to see the patterns and plan for the patterns.  But there's no one person in control.  It's very difficult to control, it's very difficult even to categorize, to understand what is going on here - it's so ...

  Years ago, I wrote about the prospect of fascism coming to the United States.  At that point, I was unsure.  But recent events make it more and more clear.  People like Steven Crowder are now openly saying that "We need fascism."  To some extent, of course, that's just trolling/bait/empty gestures in the desperate hopes to get people to click on his videos, but it's also a calculation that this is no longer something that will instantly end his career.  That, in itself, should be concerning. But now I have to reiterate what I said then, even more forcefully: that if the fascist threat is real, then we must form a broad coalition to defeat it.  No potential ally should be prima facie turned away.  Now, some people are convinced that the "political compass" is garbage.  Fine.  I myself can think of ways that it's not well-defined.  But it serves as clear enough means of communication for my purposes today. Personally, I'm deep in ...