From Adbusters:
[ h/t Bill Harryman]No Greater Responsibility for Intellectualsby Joel Kovel | 28 Dec 2010Beaten down by the great defeats of utopian and social ideals, few today even bother to think about the kinds of society that could replace the present one, and most of that speculation is within a green paradigm limited by an insufficient appreciation of the regime of capital and of the depths needed for real change. Instead, Greens tend to imagine an orderly extension of community accompanied by the use of instruments that have been specifically created to keep the present system going, such as parliamentary elections and various tax policies. Such measures make transformative sense, however, only if seen as prefigurations of something more radical – something by definition not immediately on the horizon.
The first two steps on that path are clearly laid out and are within the reach of every conscientious person. These are that people ruthlessly criticize the capitalist system “from top to bottom,” and that they include in this a consistent attack on the widespread belief that there can be no alternative to it. If one believes that capital is not only basically unjust but radically unsustainable as well, the prime obligation is to spread news.
The belief that there can be no alternative to capital is ubiquitous – and no wonder, given how wonderfully convenient the idea is to the ruling ideology. That, however, does not keep it from being nonsense and a failure of vision and political will. Nothing lasts forever and what is humanly made can theoretically be unmade. Of course it could be the case that the job of changing it is too hard and capital is as far as humanity can go, in which instance we must simply accept our fate stoically and try to palliate the results. But we don’t know this and cannot know this. There is no proving it one way or the other and only inertia, fear of change or opportunism can explain the belief in so shabby an idea as that there can be no alternative to capital for organizing society.
At some point the realization will dawn that all the sound ideas for, say, regulating the chemical industries or preserving forest ecosystems or doing something serious about species-extinctions or global warming or whatever point of ecosystem disintegration is of concern are not going to be realized by appealing to local changes in themselves or to the Democratic Party, to the Environmental Protection Agency, to the courts, to the foundations, to ecophilosophies or to changes in consciousness. For the overriding reason is that we are living under a regime that controls both the state and the economy and that regime will have to be overcome at its root if we are to save the future.
Relentless criticism can delegitimize the system and release people into struggle. And as struggle develops, victories that are no more than incremental on their own terms – stopping a meeting of the IMF, stirring hopes with a campaign such as Ralph Nader’s in 2000 – can have a symbolic effect far greater than their external result and can constitute points of rupture with capital. This rupture is not a set of facts added to our knowledge of the world but a change in our relation to the world. Its effects are dynamic, not incremental, and like all genuine insights it changes the balance of forces and can propagate very swiftly. Thus the release from inertia can trigger a rapid cascade of changes, so that it could be said that the forces pressing toward radical change need not be linear and incremental, but can be exponential. In this way, conscientious and radical criticism of the given, even in advance of blueprints for an alternative, can be a material force because it can seize the mind of the masses of the people. There is no greater responsibility for intellectuals.
Excerpt from Joel Kovel’s Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World? Joel Kovel is the editor of Capitalism Nature Socialism, a journal of ecosocialism.
1 comment:
As I was first reading the Communist Manifesto I realized there is no contradiction in a radical Marxist also being the most cutthroat capitalist in the world. Insider trading is nothing to the truly committed Marxist. Environmental conditions are nothing to him. Democracy is one of his regional marketing strategies. Such a one as he is one with the enemy!
You can beat them best by producing successful firms that operate deliberately against the principles of macroeconomic theory. The version of capitalism Marx worked with is full of shite. The problem is that the biggest capitalist destroyers are as of now empirically equivalent to ideal Marxist macroeconomic agents.
The business models developed by Muhammad Yunus and known as "social businesses" offer a rare opportunity to experiment with new forms of capitalism. Social businesses strictly speaking are for-profit, non-dividend companies whose mission statement is to solve intractable social problems. As of now problems like malnutrition, diarrhea, and shoeless children are problems being addressed by specific social businesses owned and operated directly by Muhammad Yunus. He won the Nobel Prize in Economics for this work, and in his estimation, if all goes well, strict social businesses, run by the great visionary capitalists of the next century, will alter the structure of capitalism forever.
Yunus envisions social business stock exchanges in various regions. He pictures social businesses providing an alternative currencies and forms of exchange. He wants to integrate social businesses with microcredit institutions, all over the world. He would not call himself a socialist, as far as I know. The State gets involved because the State basically wants a Marxist Capitalism, that is, a capitalism that has always been envisioned by political thinkers.
Yunus is someone for ecosocialists to champion. Get behind the man, find out how he operates, form collectives, start social businesses, work for yourselves for Pete's Sake!
Post a Comment