Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:30:08 -0500
Subject: Re: I'd rather be a Cyborg than a Goddess


Steve,

> The issue is not that of a "movement" but rather how can the >actions
visible
> around you today can become more overtly political - that is >the attempt
to
> formally take control, and transform these societies.

**A good example of the above in this country was Montgomery and Civil
Rights.  The Montgomery boycott of segregated buses was an important step
towards of changing public consciousness of segregation.**

> Consider the counter-globalisation movement and the nomadic movements of
populations.

**The link Silvano posted has many pictures of the counter-globalisation
movement. A book, titled "Changing Consciousness" by David Bohm and Mark
Edwards (he's the photographer) describes in,words and pictures, the
terrible effects of globalization. The population movements are
involuntary - move or die, or move, then die.**

> How can these diverse challenges which are being made to >the post-modern
world with its endless repressions, >stratifications and
re-territorialisations become more directly >political in the above sense?
(and of course the question of >whether they should - which is the unsaid in
relation to 68)

**The present situation is already "directly political".  Control of
national governments by global corporations, was unbelievably fast and
effective following the   breakup of the USSR.

Seattle and Davos and Naples were small steps.  Whether such steps should be
taken?  Why ask the victims of
globalization, or the victors?. Everybody knows the answer.**

> It can only do so in my view when they develop a >consciousness capable of
understanding the repressive >operations of the globalised world.

 **Who are "they" - the rulers of victimized nations or the masses they
rule - the chairmen of global corporations or the employees who serve them?

In industrial democracies, governments are selected by voters in elections
which are often decided by corporate wealth.  In industrial democracies,
legislation is, to a great extent controlled via corporate lobbyists.

In the U.S., only half the voting age population votes.  If some postmodern
Marxist secret organization could persuade, cajole or force them to register
and vote (ignoring paid ads and publicity) they would determine the winners
of elections.  Historically, Marxism lead to forcible seizure of  power, the
gulags etc, not much in the way of individual freedom and choice.

If you've read "Ten Days that Shook the World", you
know that, in Russia, pre-Revolution industrial workers had their own local
organizations.  The Revolution was not about empowering workers with
ownership of the property they used and the goods they produced, or the
right to choose their leaders by secret ballot.  The industrial democracies
who are globalizing the World pay lip service to local democracy, but the
big corporations own the valuable properties and control their use.**

>Perhaps the question >implicit below is what is the purpose of >theory, of
philosophy. My own view is that it exists to invent >concepts and propose
ways of understanding the world - what >is yours?

**I think of the "pursuit of wisdom".

1)We accept modern technology and science as the inventors and explainers of
the world of Nature.

2)Concepts of  what a human being is, does, and can do, are partly derived
from the natural sciences, the social sciences, plus inputs from history,
religion and art

3)Socio-political concepts are much-involved with what social scientists
tell us - whether we believe it or not.

Philosophers try to "make sense" of all the above, in terms of
the individual lives we lead and the social milieu we inhabit.

To obtain degrees and earn a living, philosphers must specialize in almost
limitless detail(s), a contradiction of the traditional aims of philosophy.
The same necessity afflicts physicists, scientists, theologians, economists.
God help us!**

hb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Since I'm middle aged - Karl and Groucho to great Marxists - plainly
> related....
>
> regards
>
> sdv
>
> hugh bone wrote:
>
> > Eric et. al.,
> >
> > Agree with most of this analysis, but can't imagine how intentions based
on
> > even a hint of Marx, a name has negative meanings to the middle-aged and
> > older, or intentions based on the ideas of Continental philosophers,
known
> > to only a handful of
> > people in the U.S., could possibly become a "movement".
> >
> > A significant global movement without strong support within the U.S.
seems
> > impossible.
> >
> > Movements in the last half-century, in which minorities
> > changed history, were Civil Rights, ending the Vietnam War, and and
> > Perestroika.
> >
> > Information Age resources might, in theory, have accelerated achievement
of
> > those causes.
> >
> > The African American community of Montgomery struggled through 13 months
of
> > passive resistance to overcome legal segregation on buses in 1956.
> >
> > The 1968 protests in Paris were were noisy and newsworthy, but were
wiped
> > out in just a few days.
> >
> > The questions for Cyborgs and the others, are:  where, when and how to
> > begin.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Hugh
> > '
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > > Here is where postmodern Marxism becomes possible, as Cyborgs and
other
> > > workers complexify to create not merely revolution, but a singularity
> > > that goes beyond these attempts to intervene and regulate the
> > > spontaneous order of information.  The stakes are over whether or not
to
> > > continue a "winner take all" unstable economy or drift  towards
> > > cooperative coevolutionary decentralized structures. Ones that support
> > > more ephemeral and sustainable pleasures, as the job economy moves
from
> > > work to play and our Calvin ghosts take on ecstatic flesh to arise in
a
> > > profane resurrection of joy, a virtual pagan Easter where information
> > > breeds like bunnies.
> > >
> > >
>
>