|
U-Know! Forum » in a Stalinist country, take 'populism' with a one ton grain of salt |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
neighbourofthedrude 1555 posts |
Jun 26, 2009, 16:11
|
||
|
Squid Tempest wrote: Can't watch pootube from work... Save it 'till you get home then. :o)
|
|||
laresident 861 posts |
Jun 27, 2009, 06:37
|
||
Grufty, you’re making a lot of sense to me. I also hope it doesn’t take even darker times for it to catch on.
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jun 27, 2009, 15:39
|
||
|
grufty jim wrote: In an ideal world, you produce a compelling argument, present it to the public and spark a popular revolution. In reality, you produce the compelling argument, wait for the inevitable socio-economic collapse and hope it gets adopted by a desperate populace. And there you are. The ideal vs. the real. It's not a very palatable truth, but it's the truth.... humankind is too prone to squabbles and myopic self-serving for any large scale utopia, or even for a benign dictatorship to succeed. It might work here and there on a small scale, but you're never going to get planetwide compliance with anything.
|
|||
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited Jun 28, 2009, 09:52
Jun 27, 2009, 21:07
|
||
|
dave clarkson wrote: Well put. I think Jim was implying that there is a tendency for many artists, musicians to over romanticise. The whole idea of wearing a Stalin badge seems to me very naive and an act of capitalism in itself by the choice and freedom for being able to do such a thing. 8) Many of the people I knew in the mid 70s to mid 80s who would characterise themselves as revolutionaries would happily sign up for a rag bag of global causes with the the discernment of a Harrods sales shopper raiding the bargain bins. These were the very same people who would fret over the ethnicity of a criminal or the religion and nationality of a bomber. Praying all the while that the perp was not "one of theirs". Talking endlessly about the rights of workers while displaying the exact same kind of misanthropy that you find on the far right. The same aversion to trusting people to determine their own destinies. And yes you are right all this had absolutely the same dynamic and lack of critical accuity as you find in partisan rock fandom. Though to my knowledge the NME, Sounds and Melody Maker never ignored a seven, eight or nine figure body count while trying to create the utopian record collection.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Jun 28, 2009, 13:50
Jun 28, 2009, 13:49
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: And there you are. The ideal vs. the real. Pretty much every demand for change starts life as an ideal and eventually forces itself into the real. So I don't see "it's idealistic" as a significant criticism or obstacle. Things are only ideal until they become real. handofdave wrote: It's not a very palatable truth, but it's the truth.... humankind is too prone to squabbles and myopic self-serving for any large scale utopia, or even for a benign dictatorship to succeed. That may well be a truth, though in my view the jury is still out. But if there's one thing that amazes me about the sustainability debate, it's how many people describe a sustainable society as being a utopian vision. I'd say a good 95% of all human cultures have been broadly sustainable. Probably closer to 99%. We're the aberration (well, us, the Easter Islanders, as well as a handful of others including -- according to one theory -- the Romans). It's not utopian to live within your ecological means. It's utopian to imagine anything else is possible. It's the liberal democrats who believe they can simply vote themselves into an ecologically-benign state of perpetual abundance who are pursuing a utopian dream. If you are saying that sustainable society on a large scale is technically impossible and that complete catastrophic collapse is inevitable... then you may well be right. But I'm dubious of historical inevitabilities, and there's enough reasonable doubt to make it worthwhile discussing and formulating alternatives. handofdave wrote: It might work here and there on a small scale, but you're never going to get planetwide compliance with anything. Not "might". It does work on a small scale. As I say; damn near every pre-industrial culture was "sustainable" by the modern definition of the word. And based upon what we've gathered from anthropology, most of them functioned under a form of benign dictatorship (in the sense that there is little popular input into rule-making, but also little resentment of the power structures). Personally, I see no inherent reason why larger-scale societies could not have an analogous structure. The practical difficulties may be insurmountable of course. But the funny thing about insurmountable things, historically speaking, is how often they get surmounted. If we allow ourselves to glide quietly into the gaping maw of resource depletion and ecological collapse, borne along by the soothing platitudes of corporate-sponsored politicians, then we are condemning the next few generations to violence and suffering on an unprecedented scale. I say instead, let's draw up some sensible rules regarding negative ecological impact and resource consumption, and live within them. Given the alternative, doesn't it make sense? And if people won't choose the well-being of the planet over their own short-term desires, then shouldn't they be compelled to? Or do you think we have a right to deny a decent life to all who follow us? Are we so hung up on democracy that we think we should be allowed to vote for the destruction of the future?
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jun 28, 2009, 17:30
|
||
|
Jim, I am grateful for optimists like yourself. If the world were solely in the hands of people like me, not much would get done. I do have to point out, tho, on the past sustainability of other cultures, that most of that could be attributed to the facts that: 1. The world was underpopulated 2. They were using man & animal based labor... no machines, no hormones, no pesticides. And there were instances of collapse, of course... the Mayans could not sustain their cities, due to war, and many others perished due to natural catastrophes... drought, disease, etc. It's not inconceivable that nature itself will 'correct' our problems for us in her way. We're a very cocky race, but a really virulent pandemic could roll things back in a matter of weeks. I hope not, but it certainly would solve a lot of problems in a hurry (distanced, objective observation). It would create others, too, of course, but more so for humans. Almost every other form of life on earth would appreciate the break from our nonstop activity.
|
|||
|
laresident 861 posts |
Jun 28, 2009, 22:52
|
||
I suspect the political public relations ad-writers psychologists would think up a term other than benign dictatorship.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jun 29, 2009, 01:55
|
||
|
laresident wrote: I suspect the political public relations ad-writers psychologists would think up a term other than benign dictatorship. How about... "Well-intentioned top-down system of authority" Scratch that... not snappy enough.
|
| Pages: 5 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
