Aesthetic Materialism

  I am opposed to the degrowth movement.  I'm in favor of growth: growth of the population, growth of scientific knowledge, growth of technology, growth of industry, growth of art, growth of music, growth of creativity, growth of diversity of culture, growth of diversity of lifestyles. I think one day, the world will outgrow capitalism . 

  I've written before about the history of the "national question," without putting forward my own viewpoint.  So what is it?  I am an anti-nationalist.  As I've written before, I think nationalism is a scam.  An "imagined community." But that's just a negative assertion.  What positive proposal do I make, as opposed to nationalism? Am I saying that the nation-state is too small?  Or that it's too big?  Am I pushing for larger scale organization, or smaller? The answer, of course, is both.   First, let me say, very clearly, as I've said before, I oppose one world government.  Totally. But apart from that, a wide variety of forms of organization are possible.  And different forms are desirable for different purposes. But I would say that, for the most part, today, in the early 21st century, the nation-state is too big.  Certainly, in the case of the United States, not to mention China or India, the nation-state is way too ...

  One thing that I hate is that, in political discussions, people are almost never engaging with your ideas in a rational or even an emotional or empathetic way - they're just trying to label you, to categorize you, to stick you into a specific slot and make you equivalent with all the other people that they've filed away there, so that they don't have to think about you at all. If you are in any way critical of capitalism, they call you a communist, and make you equivalent with Stalin and Pol Pot. If you are then, let's say, critical of Stalin, they call you a Trotskyist. Then, if you're critical of Trotsky, they call you an anarchist. As if there are only two possible positions on the left: the extreme authoritarianism of Bolshevism, or absolute rejection of the legitimacy of any kind of government at all. There are thousands - perhaps millions, or billions - of possible political positions between and outside of anarchism and Bolshevism (and of course there are m...

  Seven years ago, I wrote my long post about why capitalism is ending . Here's my argument, but using far fewer words:

   

  EQUITY: Own Your Own Job  What, if anything, should be saved from the wreckage of Marxist theory is the concept of labor power.  Marxist theory is often accused (by, for instance, Foucauldians) of not focusing enough on the question of power.  Even if that is so, nonetheless, Marx highlighted a kind of power that is often forgotten: labor power.  The primary lesson I get from Marx is that the power to labor is a kind of power, and a fundamental one - don't give it up without a fight. I'm sure old Leninists will accuse me of engaging in a kind of individualist reading of Marx, here.  To that, I plead guilty.  I am an individualist.  (At least as much as Hegel was, if not moreso.)

Bourgeois morality Bourgeois morality is discrete: the individual is the quantum of bourgeois morality, the indivisible unit.  Bourgeois morality can only calculate in whole numbers of persons.  This is, of course, what is meant by "individual" - for bourgeois morality, a person has no parts, and cannot be divided.  One might say that in bourgeois morality, an individual is a "body without organs."  In this sense, the individual - the quantum of bourgeois morality - is ideal, and ideological, rather than material. For bourgeois morality, individuals are conceived as separate.  That is their essence.  They are fundamentally, unbridgeably distinct.  One individual can never merge with another individual, and one individual is never inside of another individual.  Which raises the question: where did these individuals come from?  Have they always existed?  Are they eternal?  Will they always exist?  But these questions are beyond t...